I don't know enough about these women or the group they are a part of. I am not addressing them. I am addressing some of the conversations going on in this thread.
There is a disturbing amount of anti-semitism going on in here and I don't necessarily think it is intentional, but it is here.
First, there is the debate about Zionism. Growing up, that word meant simply the belief in a state of Israel. So you can imagine my confusion when reading this thread it is being treated as a dirty word here, a word that has some deeper, crueler meaning.
I even looked it up to make sure I wasn't crazy... and I'm not. The term is used for a variety of beliefs but all of them have the central idea of there being a Jewish state somewhere. Whether that be Argentina or Palestine, or wherever, the basic idea of Zionism is just that Jews have a safe space somewhere in the world. Then off of that there are various differing beliefs in Zionism. But the word is not one narrowly defined thing.
Then there is the Star of David or....the Jewish Star
but really the Magen Daveed
. Now I'm being told that it is supposed to represent this oppressive interpretation of Zionism and anybody putting it on a flag must be aware that others will view it as this oppressive version of Zionism. This is as ridiculous as yelling at anybody waving an American flag and telling them that they must support the mass genocide and stealing of American Indian land, the continued wars in the middle east, the systemic oppression of black people, the myriad of other awful things America has done or may be doing right now. You can love or support a country and have issues with it at the same time. This is not a complicated idea.
So a common phrase that was used to represent support for a state of Israel is now a narrowly defined oppressive ideal. And the Star of David, an old and common symbol of Judaism (even used to oppress Jews at times!) can easily be misinterpreted as a micro aggression, something to be avoided and not waved around lest you offend.
To the people arguing these points - you are actively promoting the destruction of common Jewish terms and symbols. You are actively spreading this notion that this is what these things mean. So whether you believe it or not you are actively spreading anti-semitism, because you have bought into and are promoting this notion that these symbols of Judaism or support for a Jewish state should by default be viewed as negative and oppressive. It's a pretty short line from "you can't put that star on a flag" to "you can't wear that star around your neck".
In some places, Jews used to hide their religion from others for fear of persecution. Then they were forced to display it to make sure everybody knew how to treat them. Now some in this thread are stating how they are supposed to show their Judaism properly. How about you just let Jews decide that on their own?
So again, not saying I support these women or agree with whatever they believe, but as is usual on gaf, they were not the entire discussion going on in this thread. There was something bigger going on and I felt I had to address it.
Now we're pretending that Zionism is just the abstract idea that Jews should be able to live somewhere, rather than what it has meant in actual reality - the creation of an ethnocracy in the Levant without regard for the people who were and are living there and don't fit into the ethnocratic vision. And of course opposing this particular form of antiquated ethnic nationalism, or even daring to question it, makes one an anti-Semite. A common rhetorical move to try to make disagreement with the ideology of Zionism off-limits, but one that is as dishonest as it is transparent.
I don't know enough about these women or the group they are a part of. I am not addressing them. I am addressing some of the conversations going on in this thread.
There is a disturbing amount of anti-semitism going on in here and I don't necessarily think it is intentional, but it is here.
First, there is the debate about Zionism. Growing up, that word meant simply the belief in a state of Israel. So you can imagine my confusion when reading this thread it is being treated as a dirty word here, a word that has some deeper, crueler meaning.
I even looked it up to make sure I wasn't crazy... and I'm not. The term is used for a variety of beliefs but all of them have the central idea of there being a Jewish state somewhere. Whether that be Argentina or Palestine, or wherever, the basic idea of Zionism is just that Jews have a safe space somewhere in the world. Then off of that there are various differing beliefs in Zionism. But the word is not one narrowly defined thing.
Then there is the Star of David or....the Jewish Star
but really the Magen Daveed
. Now I'm being told that it is supposed to represent this oppressive interpretation of Zionism and anybody putting it on a flag must be aware that others will view it as this oppressive version of Zionism. This is as ridiculous as yelling at anybody waving an American flag and telling them that they must support the mass genocide and stealing of American Indian land, the continued wars in the middle east, the systemic oppression of black people, the myriad of other awful things America has done or may be doing right now. You can love or support a country and have issues with it at the same time. This is not a complicated idea.
So a common phrase that was used to represent support for a state of Israel is now a narrowly defined oppressive ideal. And the Star of David, an old and common symbol of Judaism (even used to oppress Jews at times!) can easily be misinterpreted as a micro aggression, something to be avoided and not waved around lest you offend.
To the people arguing these points - you are actively promoting the destruction of common Jewish terms and symbols. You are actively spreading this notion that this is what these things mean. So whether you believe it or not you are actively spreading anti-semitism, because you have bought into and are promoting this notion that these symbols of Judaism or support for a Jewish state should by default be viewed as negative and oppressive. It's a pretty short line from "you can't put that star on a flag" to "you can't wear that star around your neck".
In some places, Jews used to hide their religion from others for fear of persecution. Then they were forced to display it to make sure everybody knew how to treat them. Now some in this thread are stating how they are supposed to show their Judaism properly. How about you just let Jews decide that on their own?
So again, not saying I support these women or agree with whatever they believe, but as is usual on gaf, they were not the entire discussion going on in this thread. There was something bigger going on and I felt I had to address it.
Not pretending. That's what it is, or maybe now considered 'was'. The poster I quoted articulates this clearly and accurately. That the word has come to have different associations doesn't negate it's original meaning or intent.
Not pretending. That's what it is, or maybe now considered 'was'. The poster I quoted articulates this clearly and accurately. That the word has come to have different associations doesn't negate it's original meaning or intent.
I don't know enough about these women or the group they are a part of. I am not addressing them. I am addressing some of the conversations going on in this thread.
There is a disturbing amount of anti-semitism going on in here and I don't necessarily think it is intentional, but it is here.
First, there is the debate about Zionism. Growing up, that word meant simply the belief in a state of Israel. So you can imagine my confusion when reading this thread it is being treated as a dirty word here, a word that has some deeper, crueler meaning.
I even looked it up to make sure I wasn't crazy... and I'm not. The term is used for a variety of beliefs but all of them have the central idea of there being a Jewish state somewhere. Whether that be Argentina or Palestine, or wherever, the basic idea of Zionism is just that Jews have a safe space somewhere in the world. Then off of that there are various differing beliefs in Zionism. But the word is not one narrowly defined thing.
Then there is the Star of David or....the Jewish Star
but really the Magen Daveed
. Now I'm being told that it is supposed to represent this oppressive interpretation of Zionism and anybody putting it on a flag must be aware that others will view it as this oppressive version of Zionism. This is as ridiculous as yelling at anybody waving an American flag and telling them that they must support the mass genocide and stealing of American Indian land, the continued wars in the middle east, the systemic oppression of black people, the myriad of other awful things America has done or may be doing right now. You can love or support a country and have issues with it at the same time. This is not a complicated idea.
So a common phrase that was used to represent support for a state of Israel is now a narrowly defined oppressive ideal. And the Star of David, an old and common symbol of Judaism (even used to oppress Jews at times!) can easily be misinterpreted as a micro aggression, something to be avoided and not waved around lest you offend.
To the people arguing these points - you are actively promoting the destruction of common Jewish terms and symbols. You are actively spreading this notion that this is what these things mean. So whether you believe it or not you are actively spreading anti-semitism, because you have bought into and are promoting this notion that these symbols of Judaism or support for a Jewish state should by default be viewed as negative and oppressive. It's a pretty short line from "you can't put that star on a flag" to "you can't wear that star around your neck".
In some places, Jews used to hide their religion from others for fear of persecution. Then they were forced to display it to make sure everybody knew how to treat them. Now some in this thread are stating how they are supposed to show their Judaism properly. How about you just let Jews decide that on their own?
So again, not saying I support these women or agree with whatever they believe, but as is usual on gaf, they were not the entire discussion going on in this thread. There was something bigger going on and I felt I had to address it.
I'm not gonna post excerpts because it can't really be discussed genuinely without reading the whole thing, but it seems like a real stretch to label the Dyke March's actions as anti-Semitic given the circumstances.
So they removed them not because they were Jewish, but because the supported Zionist stances. However the only proof I've seen so far that they supported Zionist stances were the Star of David.
So my question to the officials running parade, at the time what reason did you have to expect that 3 out of the hundreds of people there, also with nations flags incorporated into their design, to expel these three people?
Because right now, it sounds like that an attempt to be politically conscious backfired and has made you all look like you are religiously intolerance. A Gay Pride rally should be about the march towards equal rights for those that are gay. It shouldn't matter your other views, because you are all in support of one political view. Gay rights.
Instead you have marganlised a group and created a public shit storm.
It's completely idiotic handling of the situation.
As soon as a marginalized group gains a sliver of power or rights they'll often use it to marginalize other people. That's the way things are and it's gross.
These organizers and the people that complained to them are full of shit for kicking these women out on the basis of hearsay. Their allegiance to that supposed evil group wasn't even know until after the parade.
It's nice that they want to show support for Palestine, but this isn't the place or way. Kicking out Jews for using their ancient symbols is just straight up wrong. Showing support for Zionism is extremely abstract and could be taken to mean a myriad of things. Now, if this lady was going on a crazy rant about how the Palestinians need to be kicked out, as the statement of the organizers would want us to believe, then the organizers should've kicked out the lady for THAT reason. By requesting that she put down her flag, they are repressing cultural and religious symbology, not her alleged radical Zionism, and thus acted in an as anti-Semitic way.
Now we're pretending that Zionism is just the abstract idea that Jews should be able to live somewhere, rather than what it has meant in actual reality - the creation of an ethnocracy in the Levant without regard for the people who were and are living there and don't fit into the ethnocratic vision. And of course opposing this particular form of antiquated ethnic nationalism, or even daring to question it, makes one an anti-Semite. A common rhetorical move to try to make disagreement with the ideology of Zionism off-limits, but one that is as dishonest as it is transparent.
So they removed them not because they were Jewish, but because the supported Zionist stances. However the only proof I've seen so far that they supported Zionist stances were the Star of David.
So my question to the officials running parade, at the time what reason did you have to expect that 3 out of the hundreds of people there, also with nations flags incorporated into their design, to expel these three people?
Because right now, it sounds like that an attempt to be politically conscious backfired and has made you all look like you are religiously intolerance. A Gay Pride rally should be about the march towards equal rights for those that are gay. It shouldn't matter your other views, because you are all in support of one political view. Gay rights.
Instead you have marganlised a group and created a public shit storm.
It's completely idiotic handling of the situation.
I don't know enough about these women or the group they are a part of. I am not addressing them. I am addressing some of the conversations going on in this thread.
There is a disturbing amount of anti-semitism going on in here and I don't necessarily think it is intentional, but it is here.
First, there is the debate about Zionism. Growing up, that word meant simply the belief in a state of Israel. So you can imagine my confusion when reading this thread it is being treated as a dirty word here, a word that has some deeper, crueler meaning.
I even looked it up to make sure I wasn't crazy... and I'm not. The term is used for a variety of beliefs but all of them have the central idea of there being a Jewish state somewhere. Whether that be Argentina or Palestine, or wherever, the basic idea of Zionism is just that Jews have a safe space somewhere in the world. Then off of that there are various differing beliefs in Zionism. But the word is not one narrowly defined thing.
Then there is the Star of David or....the Jewish Star
but really the Magen Daveed
. Now I'm being told that it is supposed to represent this oppressive interpretation of Zionism and anybody putting it on a flag must be aware that others will view it as this oppressive version of Zionism. This is as ridiculous as yelling at anybody waving an American flag and telling them that they must support the mass genocide and stealing of American Indian land, the continued wars in the middle east, the systemic oppression of black people, the myriad of other awful things America has done or may be doing right now. You can love or support a country and have issues with it at the same time. This is not a complicated idea.
So a common phrase that was used to represent support for a state of Israel is now a narrowly defined oppressive ideal. And the Star of David, an old and common symbol of Judaism (even used to oppress Jews at times!) can easily be misinterpreted as a micro aggression, something to be avoided and not waved around lest you offend.
To the people arguing these points - you are actively promoting the destruction of common Jewish terms and symbols. You are actively spreading this notion that this is what these things mean. So whether you believe it or not you are actively spreading anti-semitism, because you have bought into and are promoting this notion that these symbols of Judaism or support for a Jewish state should by default be viewed as negative and oppressive. It's a pretty short line from "you can't put that star on a flag" to "you can't wear that star around your neck".
In some places, Jews used to hide their religion from others for fear of persecution. Then they were forced to display it to make sure everybody knew how to treat them. Now some in this thread are stating how they are supposed to show their Judaism properly. How about you just let Jews decide that on their own?
So again, not saying I support these women or agree with whatever they believe, but as is usual on gaf, they were not the entire discussion going on in this thread. There was something bigger going on and I felt I had to address it.
There is a lot of anti-Semitism going on and people try to wrap in nicely and try to argue about it but at the end of the day it still is anti-Semitism. Of course they try to shift it to Zionism and all that stuff, but that is only make-up.
But I like that those very close criteria of what is offensive only seem to apply to Jewish people. I am pretty sure every other flag was also banned from the march as well, else it would be really strange.
I'm not gonna post excerpts because it can't really be discussed genuinely without reading the whole thing, but it seems like a real stretch to label the Dyke March's actions as anti-Semitic given the circumstances.
Even if this is the case, they did not have that information at hand during the event and all the organization's statements about the incident imply that they associate the David Star with Zionism, which they are against wholeheartedly, and because this woman didn't want to take her flag depicting the David Star down she was expelled from the event. The problem isn't that this person was removed, but that the organization found it necessary to remove the flag above all else because they disagreed with what they perceived it to stand for. The woman would have been allowed to stay if she took down her flag, if we're to believe the reports. So, in effect, they took a stance against Jewish religious imagery, even though supporters of this decision are trying to mask this by pointing out that the woman that was expelled is possibly a nut.
Even if this is the case, they did not have that information at hand during the event and all the organization's statements about the incident imply that they associate the David Star with Zionism, which they are against wholeheartedly, and because this woman didn't want to take her flag depicting the David Star down she was expelled from the event. The problem isn't that this person was removed, but that the organization found it necessary to remove the flag above all else because they disagreed with what they perceived it to stand for. The woman would have been allowed to stay if she took down her flag, if we're to believe the reports. So, in effect, they took a stance against Jewish religious imagery, even though supporters of this decision are trying to mask this by pointing out that the woman that was expelled is possibly a nut.
(Question directed toward dude abidis)
Also what about the reality that Israel was formed not just because of Jewish aggression if you want to describe it as such but also from the fact that in the 1940's there was a coordinated effort by many middle eastern and northern African countries to expel their Jewish populations from their homes and seizing their property using the scapegoat nationalist script created by the Nazis. The Palestinians were not just the victims of Jews but also victims of all the Arab states and they still are used as a tool to this day by Arab countries who treat Palestinian refugees very badly and ban freedom of movement and job access as well.
Sure, but I believe that demonizing the fundamental symbols of an entire religion because of misconstrued associations with a movement that is destructive is not the right position to have taken in this context.
(Question directed toward dude abidis)
Also what about the reality that Israel was formed not just because of Jewish aggression if you want to describe it as such but also from the fact that in the 1940's there was a coordinated effort by many middle eastern and northern African countries to expel their Jewish populations from their homes and seizing their property using the scapegoat nationalist script created by the Nazis. The Palestinians were not just the victims of Jews but also victims of all the Arab states and they still are used as a tool to this day by Arab countries who treat Palestinian refugees very badly and ban freedom of movement and job access as well.
This is ahistorical nonsense. Many countries in the region shamefully expelled their Jewish populations largely after Israel was formed, not before. Hard to see why an Israeli partisan would complain about this, though, since it aided in the subjugation of the Palestinians that is so crucial to Zionism.
Sure, but I believe that demonizing the fundamental symbols of an entire religion because of misconstrued associations with a movement that is destructive is not the right position to have taken in this context.
Flags with a big Star of David at the center are not a fundamental symbol of Judaism. Other people who attended the Dyke March found other ways to publicly express their Jewish identity and were welcomed there.
There is a shocking amount of anti-semitism from the left. Some of it is couched as anti-Israel, but tons of social media is just blatant and open hatred towards Jews.
Flags with a big Star of David at the center are not a fundamental symbol of Judaism. Other people who attended the Dyke March found other ways to publicly express their Jewish identity and were welcomed there.
Shouldnt the Jews decide whether it is a fundamental symbol or not? Now we are telling tje Jews, once again, what is acceptable symbolism for them? And anyway, what exactly does the star represent, something so abhorrent, that the organizers just couldn't stand the sight of it and was so offensive that these people had to be removed?
I don't know enough about these women or the group they are a part of. I am not addressing them. I am addressing some of the conversations going on in this thread.
There is a disturbing amount of anti-semitism going on in here and I don't necessarily think it is intentional, but it is here.
First, there is the debate about Zionism. Growing up, that word meant simply the belief in a state of Israel. So you can imagine my confusion when reading this thread it is being treated as a dirty word here, a word that has some deeper, crueler meaning.
I even looked it up to make sure I wasn't crazy... and I'm not. The term is used for a variety of beliefs but all of them have the central idea of there being a Jewish state somewhere. Whether that be Argentina or Palestine, or wherever, the basic idea of Zionism is just that Jews have a safe space somewhere in the world. Then off of that there are various differing beliefs in Zionism. But the word is not one narrowly defined thing.
Then there is the Star of David or....the Jewish Star
but really the Magen Daveed
. Now I'm being told that it is supposed to represent this oppressive interpretation of Zionism and anybody putting it on a flag must be aware that others will view it as this oppressive version of Zionism. This is as ridiculous as yelling at anybody waving an American flag and telling them that they must support the mass genocide and stealing of American Indian land, the continued wars in the middle east, the systemic oppression of black people, the myriad of other awful things America has done or may be doing right now. You can love or support a country and have issues with it at the same time. This is not a complicated idea.
So a common phrase that was used to represent support for a state of Israel is now a narrowly defined oppressive ideal. And the Star of David, an old and common symbol of Judaism (even used to oppress Jews at times!) can easily be misinterpreted as a micro aggression, something to be avoided and not waved around lest you offend.
To the people arguing these points - you are actively promoting the destruction of common Jewish terms and symbols. You are actively spreading this notion that this is what these things mean. So whether you believe it or not you are actively spreading anti-semitism, because you have bought into and are promoting this notion that these symbols of Judaism or support for a Jewish state should by default be viewed as negative and oppressive. It's a pretty short line from "you can't put that star on a flag" to "you can't wear that star around your neck".
In some places, Jews used to hide their religion from others for fear of persecution. Then they were forced to display it to make sure everybody knew how to treat them. Now some in this thread are stating how they are supposed to show their Judaism properly. How about you just let Jews decide that on their own?
So again, not saying I support these women or agree with whatever they believe, but as is usual on gaf, they were not the entire discussion going on in this thread. There was something bigger going on and I felt I had to address it.
I think what a lot of people fail to recognize or at least fail to fully consider even if they do recognize it is the Jewish people's long history with oppressors dictating how Jews are allowed to express their identity and even if they're allowed to have it at all and the consequences that have come with that. as a people Jews have been forced to hide their identity and the symbols representing their identity, they've been forced to convert to other religions or be tortured, forced to speak different languages, hell the Nazis forced them to identify themselves so everyone could see that they were an other. so when you dictate that a Star of David on a flag isn't allowed or anyone carrying a Star of David should be subjugated to an interrogation and expelled if they don't pass some kind of ideological purity test, whether intentionally or not you are perpetuating a centuries long history of oppression.
what I would ask is whether or not these kind of actions would be seen as ok if it were another minority group. does the troubling state of Israel, Zionism, and their place in the Middle East give people carte blanche to harass any Jew for publicly expressing their identity and have that be seen as ok?
Shouldnt the Jews decide whether it is a fundamental symbol or not? Now we are telling tje Jews, once again, what is acceptable symbolism for them? And anyway, what exactly does the star represent, something so abhorrent, that the organizers just couldn't stand the sight of it and was so offensive that these people had to be removed?
I'm Jewish. Most of the people calling out the flags at the parade were reportedly non-Zionist Jews as well.
Several of the flags (possibly all of the ones that were expelled, it's unfortunately not clear) even had blue stars of David on them, which makes a mockery of the notion that they had nothing to do with Israel or Zionism.
Abandon its commitment to ethnocracy and colonial expansion.
This is ahistorical nonsense. Many countries in the region shamefully expelled their Jewish populations largely after Israel was formed, not before. Hard to see why an Israeli partisan would complain about this, though, since it aided in the subjugation of the Palestinians that is so crucial to Zionism.
That's exactly my point though. This sort of thing directly contributed to why Israel is what it is today. Do you honestly think that the hegemony of Jewish identity and association with the state of Israel as well as its strength and expansion would be what it is today had it not been for all these outside forces exerting itself. What provided energy for the radical fringe elements to mainstream.
What "pretty much everybody" in the Middle East wants is a free Palestine rather than the rat cage that Israel has confined West Bank and Gaza inhabitants to. I've been to Palestine and talked about Israel with many people there and nobody wanted to "destroy Israel". Many even understood the reality of having to live together. What they wanted though, is for Israel to give them their rightful freedom back, something the Zionist movement is fiercely against.
I'm Jewish. Most of the people calling out the flags at the parade were reportedly non-Zionist Jews as well.
Several of the flags (possibly all of the ones that were expelled, it's unfortunately not clear) even had blue stars of David on them, which makes a mockery of the notion that they had nothing to do with Israel or Zionism.
I can see how a blue star would be problematic and the Windy City people were likely problematic on top of that considering their history
they were not, however, the only people removed
and it doesn't really affect the larger issue of people seeing Jews and automatically linking them with Zionism and subjugating them to varying forms of harassment
This is more questionable usage than the initial reports indicated. I dunno what position to take at this point. Since I don't personally identify with any of the groups related it's probably not my place to cast judgement anyway.
I was expecting something less vague. "Ethnocracy" as you call it is the foundation of most of the modern nation-states. The idea of Israel was having a motherland state for the jewish people like the french, german, italians, etc have one.
What "pretty much everybody" in the Middle East wants is a free Palestine rather than the rat cage that Israel has confined West Bank and Gaza inhabitants to. I've been to Palestine and talked about Israel with many people there and nobody wanted to "destroy Israel". Many even understood the reality of having to live together. What they wanted though, is for Israel to give them their rightful freedom back, something the Zionist movement is fiercely against.
The clear majority of Palestinians polled – 60 percent, including 55 percent in the West Bank – say that their five year national goal should be ”to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea."
Only 27 percent said the goal should be to ”end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to achieve a two-state solution," and 10 percent said, ”The goal should be to work for a one-state solution in all of the land: a state in which Arabs and Jews will have equal rights in one country, from the river to the sea."
That would suggest that people in the middle east actually would care about Palastine, but they don't. And that is the major problem for the Palastinians. They only are mentioned when they need an argument against Israel again, but in reality nobody could care less. The same thing is true for the usual anti-Semitism. It is always something about Palastine and warcrimes, but that is just another excuse.
They are pawns in a struggle for power, but now this struggle is in Syria and suprise mistirously the arab world is not really talking about them anymore.
I can see how a blue star would be problematic and the Windy City people were likely problematic on top of that considering their history
they were not, however, the only people removed
and it doesn't really affect the larger issue of people seeing Jews and automatically linking them with Zionism and subjugating them to varying forms of harassment
A group of 3 people were removed. I've seen nothing to suggest these were individual incidents but one involving 3 people together
You make it sound like they were searching for Jewish people to expel.
Caleb Wagner, a queer anti-Zionist Jewish activist, was also part of the discussions. He rejected the claim that the individuals were asked to leave because they were Jewish, noting that most of those opposing the display of the flags were also Jewish.
this really feels like a "my best friend is Jewish!" retort. you're superimposing the opinion of some other Jews to somehow give the point you're making more legitimacy. this is also part of the problem.
Flags with a big Star of David at the center are not a fundamental symbol of Judaism. Other people who attended the Dyke March found other ways to publicly express their Jewish identity and were welcomed there.
I was expecting something less vague. "Ethnocracy" as you call it is the foundation of most of the modern nation-states. The idea of Israel was having a motherland state for the jewish people like the french, german, italians, etc have one.
Being French,German or Italian isn't based on a religion and there is no privileged ethnicity. Nor did they steal land from the people who were already living there for generations. That's a ridiculous comparison.
this really feels like a "my best friend is Jewish!" retort. you're superimposing the opinion of some other Jews to somehow give the point you're making more legitimacy. this is also part of the problem.
Being French,German or Italian isn't based on a religion and there is no privileged ethnicity. Nor did they steal land from the people who were already living there for generations. That's a ridiculous comparison.
What "pretty much everybody" in the Middle East wants is a free Palestine rather than the rat cage that Israel has confined West Bank and Gaza inhabitants to. I've been to Palestine and talked about Israel with many people there and nobody wanted to "destroy Israel". Many even understood the reality of having to live together. What they wanted though, is for Israel to give them their rightful freedom back, something the Zionist movement is fiercely against.
then why the one time they did vote democratically they voted for Hamas? Also just as a remainder the arab states didn't want Israel to be born in 1948, were preparing to attack it again in 67, then another war in 73, all the international palestinian terrorism in the 70s, etc. Things are not so easy as saying the one side just wants freedom and the other side is brutal, racist, and so on.
The clear majority of Palestinians polled – 60 percent, including 55 percent in the West Bank – say that their five year national goal should be ”to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine from the river to the sea."
Only 27 percent said the goal should be to ”end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to achieve a two-state solution," and 10 percent said, ”The goal should be to work for a one-state solution in all of the land: a state in which Arabs and Jews will have equal rights in one country, from the river to the sea."
then why the one time they did vote democratically they voted for Hamas? Also just as a remainder the arab states didn't want Israel to be born in 1948, were preparing to attack it again in 67, then another war in 73, all the international palestinian terrorism in the 70s, etc. Things are not so easy as saying the one side just wants freedom and the other side is brutal, racist, and so on.
Because Fatah was seen as corrupt, ineffective, and cooperating with Israel with no advancement in the peace process. A lot of people voted for Hamas, not because they wanted the destruction of Israel, but because they wanted to try something different. Some legitimately thought that Hamas would be forced to become more moderate if elected. Either way, that experiment failed... with no help from western governments who decided to shun the democratically elected government instead of trying.
On another foot, why has Israel continued to elect racist officials as well as a prime minister who bragged about killing the peace process?
I was expecting something less vague. "Ethnocracy" as you call it is the foundation of most of the modern nation-states. The idea of Israel was having a motherland state for the jewish people like the french, german, italians, etc have one.
Being French,German or Italian isn't based on a religion and there is no privileged ethnicity. Nor did they steal land from the people who were already living there for generations. That's a ridiculous comparison.
european nation states did not steal lands? there was no ethnical and religious discrimination in the UK against the irish?
or let's take germany and poland. Poland gets partitioned at the end of the XVIII century, then the prussians/germans in the XIX century occupy most of the leading role in society and try to impose their language. then after WW2 germans were brutally expelled and their properties confiscated. Both sides would have good points for demanding a return to the "their" land.
Thinking about it some more, I agree that the blue Star of David used by those in the Dyke March is a lot more emblematic of Zionism than a plain, white Star of David (even if a blue Star of David alone is not the flag of Israel)! So I agree that it is reasonable to ask those individuals not to use such iconography, irrespective of whether or not they are, in fact, Zionists.
There is a shocking amount of anti-semitism from the left. Some of it is couched as anti-Israel, but tons of social media is just blatant and open hatred towards Jews.
That's not a recent developement, the jews have been for the left what muslims are for the alt right since at least the 90s.
It's completely fucked up. You tell people you're a jew or have one single jewish grandparent and next thing you know you have to defend yourself for whatever bullshit is happening in Israel.
This happened all to often when I was moving through the german Punk Rock / radical left / squatter scene in my teens and early 20s.
Edit: I however, if I would be a Jewish LGBT person and thought I need to express my heritage and sexual identity would have made that star yellow. But as I'm neither (except under NAZI definition), well.
