Seeing as how Israeli government has spent decades to make antisemitism synonym to critique of Israeli policies, I'm not surprised that some people make that connection without it being explicitly mentioned.
The whole play hinged upon tragedies of the WW2 being the first thing people think about when thinking Israel, and not the crimes against humanity in Palestine.
But I digress. I'm sorry for everyone who's treated badly due to their background, and not due to their ideas.
Please read my comment more carefully. I didn't say anything antisemitic (afaik?) just noted why people might bring out Israel/Palestine -conflict in relation to this conversation.
Further, discourse analysis and framing is pretty much what I've been trained to do. You can't say anything to convince me this isn't a thing, or that I shouldn't do it.
@iju @serge @Nyme lol. You’re not the only one trained in discourse analysis, in multiple languages. Maybe you should try reading more carefully and consider the implications of your own words.
“…The whole play hinged upon tragedies of the WW2 being the first thing people think about” - using vocabulary to suggest that Jews are manipulating the world with the atrocities that were committed against them is in fact antisemitic.
Bringing up Israel in a conversation that had nothing to do with Israel is antisemitic.
Failing to acknowledge the deep roots of antisemitism in the intellectual and social history of Europe is antisemitic. A proper discourse analysis is impossible without fully interrogating and acknowledging how deeply and unconsciously antisemitism is embedded in European modes of thought.
1. I didn't bring Israel up. I answered to op who mentioned that Israel had been brought up.
2. I didn't say "Jews" as a generic, I said "Israeli government", which is a well documented fact.
3. I ended my message by disowning antisemitism in general. Couldn't do much else in 500 characters.
1. The OP did *not* mention Israel or Palestine, it was you who introduced them into the conversation.
2. You claim that ‘the tragedies of WW2 [are] the first thing people think about’ regarding Israel. Said tragedies had nothing to do with the State of Israel, which did not exist at the time, they were specifically about Jews living in Europe, and the extermination thereof. And again, you are the one linking this to Israel, which was not part of the conversation until you brought it up.
3. You very much did not, you said, ‘I'm sorry for everyone who's treated badly due to their background, and not due to their ideas.’, which, given the current state of discourse and the tendency to identify non-Israeli Jews with Israel and Zionism, is precisely one of the ways in which antisemitism is excused through the assumption/insistence that all Jews must believe certain unacceptable things vis a vis Israel and Palestine.
@josh0 @littlemiao @serge @Nyme
1. please check the message to which I answered to. Op was talking about how the discourse was steering toward Middle-East, even though he didn't originally mention it.
2. Israeli govt has made their best to appear as the legal successor of the Holocaust victims and survivors. Which is why Germany paid retributions to Israel, even as it didn't exist at the time.
3. That's quite the stretch, seeing as how rest of the message was critique toward this practice.
1. No, he did not. The Middle East was not mentioned or even alluded to. The post was entirely about antisemitism on the Fediverse. You are perceiving a connection to Israel which simply is not there, which leads directly into why you are incorrect about the other posts, because
2. Israel is not a part of this discussion, no matter how much you keep insisting it is. It is about antisemitism, which is not caused by or connected to Israel, but is solely caused by people’s attitudes towards Jews, and
3. You are repeatedly trying to tie this conversation to Israel, which allows you to frame it as being about beliefs and politics rather than antisemitism. Whether you realize it or not, this is precisely the tactic used to quash Jewish voices and ignore antisemitism.
@josh0 @littlemiao @serge @Nyme
Just read the message to which I answered to, ok?
Or better yet: take a screenshot where it shows I answered to the very top comment and not to op's later analysis, and I gladly say that i was wrong.
@iju @littlemiao @serge @Nyme so you’re taking the OPs statement that this is unrelated to Israel or Palestine as him bringing it into the conversation? And then your response to that is to justify the antisemitic responses he received to a post about antisemitism by saying it’s Israel’s fault that we have to deal with antisemitism?
This is, at best, grasping at straws, and at worst a fairly clumsy attempt to justify antisemitism.
@josh0 @littlemiao @serge @Nyme
Read the message to which I commented to.
@iju @littlemiao @serge @Nyme ok, you are correct that I misinterpreted your post as a response to the very first one. I apologize for that confusion.
However, I don’t think that changes anything else about the points that have been made. The post you responded to was pointing out that this discussion has nothing to do with Israel, and being explicit about it because others were dragging Israel into it. Your response was to justify people’s attempts to make this about Israel. As has been pointed out and explained several times, this is problematic, bordering on antisemitic, specifically because this is exactly how antisemites silence Jewish voices and give cover to antisemitism.
Whether it is your intention or not, you are literally using antisemitic tactics to defend antisemitism to Jews bemoaning our experiences of antisemitism.
@josh0 @littlemiao @serge @Nyme
Thank you for acknowledging the error. You're the only one that did :)
And my intention wasn't to defend antisemitism, and I regret if it could be read like that. I did my best to phrase my message to be a digress.
When speaking to a global audience, you never know what context they read any message in. Thus I try to proof my message against wrong readings, but it doesn't work if the onus is just on one participant.
½
