> Calling for the dissolution of Israel, or calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.
-
Calling for the dissolution of Israel, or calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.
Calling for a destruction, annihilation, an end of all Zionism or the like.
Zionism means colonialism not just in practice, but from its very inception:
-
Calling for the dissolution of Israel, or calling for a one-state solution without specifying equal rights for all people; Jewish in particular.
Calling for a destruction, annihilation, an end of all Zionism or the like.
Zionism means colonialism not just in practice, but from its very inception:
Yes, and you are free to critizise Zionism for that on Feddit.org. The legal problem is not that, but that the German authorities don't play word games and tend to equate Zionism/Israel/Jews as a shortcut and leave it to courts to decide later if that was justified or not.
-
Yes, and you are free to critizise Zionism for that on Feddit.org. The legal problem is not that, but that the German authorities don't play word games and tend to equate Zionism/Israel/Jews as a shortcut and leave it to courts to decide later if that was justified or not.
They clearly state in one of the rules that I just linked, that calling for an end to zionism is a bannable offense.
The german state is full of witch-hunters and its people have learned nothing.
-
They clearly state in one of the rules that I just linked, that calling for an end to zionism is a bannable offense.
The german state is full of witch-hunters and its people have learned nothing.
Yes and as I explained already there is a very specific legal reason for that, but this doesn't mean you can't critizise Zionism or call it a terrible settler-colonialist project.
As for learning from past mistakes... I think you of all people should not throw the first stone there
-
Yes and as I explained already there is a very specific legal reason for that, but this doesn't mean you can't critizise Zionism or call it a terrible settler-colonialist project.
As for learning from past mistakes... I think you of all people should not throw the first stone there
there is a very specific legal reason for that
A misguided or intentionally malicious reason, for what the effect of that law is. Codifying into law the conflation of Judaism/ethnic Jewish identity with zionism is itself antisemitic. Calling for the end of Zionism isn't the same as calling for the end of Jews or Judaism. What is the use of being allowed to criticize Zionism the ideology when you're not also allowed to advocate for its end?
"Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology." <- Ok
"Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel as a Zionist project should be dissolved in favor of a single-state that provides equal rights for Palestinians" <- Not ok, somehow?The law as written only allows abstract and dissociated critique of Zionism, but forbids any criticism that comes too close to threatening Israel's existence as a ethno-nationalist state. That's a huge problem.
-
there is a very specific legal reason for that
A misguided or intentionally malicious reason, for what the effect of that law is. Codifying into law the conflation of Judaism/ethnic Jewish identity with zionism is itself antisemitic. Calling for the end of Zionism isn't the same as calling for the end of Jews or Judaism. What is the use of being allowed to criticize Zionism the ideology when you're not also allowed to advocate for its end?
"Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology." <- Ok
"Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel as a Zionist project should be dissolved in favor of a single-state that provides equal rights for Palestinians" <- Not ok, somehow?The law as written only allows abstract and dissociated critique of Zionism, but forbids any criticism that comes too close to threatening Israel's existence as a ethno-nationalist state. That's a huge problem.
I didn't make those laws, and I agree that the German government should make more of a distinction between antisemitism and anti-zionism. But it doesn't and honestly in your above example you could just say:
“Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel should become a state that provides equal rights for Palestinians”
An no one would object
This singular and persistent focus on the destruction of the (unfortunatly) already existing state of Israel, really makes it likely that many people rather use that as a dogwistle for antisemitism.
-
I didn't make those laws, and I agree that the German government should make more of a distinction between antisemitism and anti-zionism. But it doesn't and honestly in your above example you could just say:
“Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel should become a state that provides equal rights for Palestinians”
An no one would object
This singular and persistent focus on the destruction of the (unfortunatly) already existing state of Israel, really makes it likely that many people rather use that as a dogwistle for antisemitism.
“Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel should become a state that provides equal rights for Palestinians”
Except the moderation rule feddit has implemented does not allow for this statement, unless you specifically say that jews deserve equal rights in a single-state solution - which is similar to those who respond to 'black lives matter' by saying 'but all lives matter'. Saying 'Palestinians deserve equal rights' wouldn't be necessary if equal rights were already afforded them, and the point of making that statement is to draw attention to the fact that they currently aren't
This singular and persistent focus on the destruction of the (unfortunatly) already existing state of Israel, really makes it likely that many people rather use that as a dogwistle for antisemitism.
Nobody who is advocating for Palestinian liberation uses the word "destroy" or 'destruction' when referring to the dissolution of Israel - I only ever see those words used by people trying to make this inference between anti-zionism and antisemitism. The only people who take statements of liberation as a threat against Jews are people who are collaborating or benefiting from the oppression Israel conducts in their name.
-
“Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel should become a state that provides equal rights for Palestinians”
Except the moderation rule feddit has implemented does not allow for this statement, unless you specifically say that jews deserve equal rights in a single-state solution - which is similar to those who respond to 'black lives matter' by saying 'but all lives matter'. Saying 'Palestinians deserve equal rights' wouldn't be necessary if equal rights were already afforded them, and the point of making that statement is to draw attention to the fact that they currently aren't
This singular and persistent focus on the destruction of the (unfortunatly) already existing state of Israel, really makes it likely that many people rather use that as a dogwistle for antisemitism.
Nobody who is advocating for Palestinian liberation uses the word "destroy" or 'destruction' when referring to the dissolution of Israel - I only ever see those words used by people trying to make this inference between anti-zionism and antisemitism. The only people who take statements of liberation as a threat against Jews are people who are collaborating or benefiting from the oppression Israel conducts in their name.
Sorry, but you are misinterpreting that rule. What I said is perfectly compatible with the rule. The extension that this also applies to Jews is solely to preempt the common "equal rights and the Jews are free to leave" dogwistle.
And you are highly mistaken that there are no people advocating for the destruction of Israel, in fact it is quite common.
-
I didn't make those laws, and I agree that the German government should make more of a distinction between antisemitism and anti-zionism. But it doesn't and honestly in your above example you could just say:
“Zionism is a settler-colonial ideology, and Israel should become a state that provides equal rights for Palestinians”
An no one would object
This singular and persistent focus on the destruction of the (unfortunatly) already existing state of Israel, really makes it likely that many people rather use that as a dogwistle for antisemitism.
It's so funny how you types are constantly hiding behind the law and saying, "I didn't make the law, I don't agree with it, but they have to do this to avoid legal liability, hands are tied" and then five seconds later you say stuff like, "criticism of Israel is a dogwhistle for antisemitism."
You're a coward, refusing to admit your real positions because you know you can't defend them.
-
It's so funny how you types are constantly hiding behind the law and saying, "I didn't make the law, I don't agree with it, but they have to do this to avoid legal liability, hands are tied" and then five seconds later you say stuff like, "criticism of Israel is a dogwhistle for antisemitism."
You're a coward, refusing to admit your real positions because you know you can't defend them.
Please don't put words in my mouth. My real position is crystal clear and I am happy to stand by it.
-
Sorry, but you are misinterpreting that rule. What I said is perfectly compatible with the rule. The extension that this also applies to Jews is solely to preempt the common "equal rights and the Jews are free to leave" dogwistle.
And you are highly mistaken that there are no people advocating for the destruction of Israel, in fact it is quite common.
Then what is even the point of this rule? If historical Palestine becomes a single secular state with equal rights for all, and Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state, then I'd be free to say 'fuck yea let's do that'?
-
Then what is even the point of this rule? If historical Palestine becomes a single secular state with equal rights for all, and Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state, then I'd be free to say 'fuck yea let's do that'?
You are free to advocate for reforming the existing state into a multi-ethnic state with freedom of religion for all.
A state is nothing more than the sum of its parts and a lable. If you insist that the existing state needs to be destroyed first than that is against German law, and honestly I see no reason for that (other than that all states should be destroyed and not be replaced with other states
).States rarely get destroyed, but sometimes they get absorbed and/or change their system of governance
South Africa still exists, as does Rhodesia (modern day Zimbabwe) to name two examples that often come up in relation to Israel. -
You are free to advocate for reforming the existing state into a multi-ethnic state with freedom of religion for all.
A state is nothing more than the sum of its parts and a lable. If you insist that the existing state needs to be destroyed first than that is against German law, and honestly I see no reason for that (other than that all states should be destroyed and not be replaced with other states
).States rarely get destroyed, but sometimes they get absorbed and/or change their system of governance
South Africa still exists, as does Rhodesia (modern day Zimbabwe) to name two examples that often come up in relation to Israel.The existing governments both stopped existing.
Conflating Rhodesia with Zimbabwe in particular is just fucking disgusting and you should be ashamed for doing it.
-
You are free to advocate for reforming the existing state into a multi-ethnic state with freedom of religion for all.
A state is nothing more than the sum of its parts and a lable. If you insist that the existing state needs to be destroyed first than that is against German law, and honestly I see no reason for that (other than that all states should be destroyed and not be replaced with other states
).States rarely get destroyed, but sometimes they get absorbed and/or change their system of governance
South Africa still exists, as does Rhodesia (modern day Zimbabwe) to name two examples that often come up in relation to Israel.South Africa still exists, as does Rhodesia (modern day Zimbabwe) to name two examples that often come up in relation to Israel.
Note that calling for Zimbabwe/South Africa style change to Israel is also against the rule, as they made it clear in the comments that any calls for reform that include violence against Israel are forbidden.
Also no, Rhodesia does not still exist, that's an absurd thing to say.
