Israel’s foreign minister has said that an arms embargo on his country would lead to the elimination of the Israeli state and “a second Holocaust”.
Gideon Saar was speaking on Tuesday at an international conference on antisemitism in Jerusalem.
Israel’s foreign minister has said that an arms embargo on his country would lead to the elimination of the Israeli state and “a second Holocaust”.
Gideon Saar was speaking on Tuesday at an international conference on antisemitism in Jerusalem.
I wonder if we can find a new way of describing the notion of “Israel existing.” It seems opponents believe we mean killing the occupants of Israel or (somehow removing the area entirely) rather than reforging the state itself. It’s not like we don’t want the geographical region to continue existing.
Israel has a right to become Palestine again.
Generally I’m not interested in what Israel as the right to become. I would rather “Israel doesn’t have the right to not be Palestine” (phrased better, perhaps?)
Israel has to become something. It can’t stay the way it is.
Allowing it to become Palestine again is just the compromise position.
Good point. Still, “not having the right to exist” sounds to me – and more importantly, to those undecided on the issue – like it’s encouraging the destruction of the things that are in Israel, not the entity of Israel itself. Which is obviously not a take that’s likely to attract support.
That’s why I say it has a right to become Palestine. It will still exist, sort of, but in a revolutionary new form.
And Israelis can become Palestinians.
Assuming they aren’t just settlers that moved there recently to steal land, of course.
Removed by mod
if the world was fair, that tract of land in the middle east would become palestine, jewish immigrants would be allowed to live there and have full citizenship and rights, but a nice chunk of territory would be carved out of central or eastern europe to make “settlerania”.
Removed by mod
Germany wants to pretend like it’s so guilty about the Holocaust that it has to support Israel? Well, then, let Germany show how much it supports them by becoming Israel.
What Israel has a right to do is not relevant. America has the right to become part of Canada. Israel remaining as it is is the problem – and more to the point, the problem is that people don’t see that as the problem.
Except Canadians don’t seem to want that.
What do you think “river to the sea” means? It means Israel will become Palestine again.
Removed by mod
Fair enough about America and Canada. Still, I think the Israeli are perfectly aware that they could become part of Palestine. They just don’t seem to want that. Honestly, trying to convince the Israeli people to go for this option seems rather Liberal-minded to me – liberal democracy! Just vote!
RttS is a prediction, or a call to action. It is a slogan used by both sides, to mean freedom in one case or manifest destiny in the other.
It doesn’t sound like that to me at all? What about that phrase signals anything about the destruction of anything except the entity of Israel? Outside of the way it’s propagandized against which would happen to any phrase.
You are probably very steeped in theory, and such words have a precise meaning to you. That’s awesome btw that you read and think about this a lot, but the people we need to advertise to don’t.
“destroy israel,” “israel doesn’t have the right to exist” and so on just sound to me like a call to evict israelis from the land. I have seen people on lemmy make this exact inference. A common response is “but what you want is also genocide,” indicating that people think those phrases really mean physically destructive action.
Removed by mod
Ah yes, it must be because they’re Jewish that’s the problem, not because they’re colonists. Come back when you’re not racist thank you.
What is the alternative which wouldn’t be warped by Zionist propaganda? They literally frame everything as a call for their destruction, the OP is them framing calls to stop directly arming their genocide as such.
“BLM” was met with “white lives don’t matter?”
“Defund the police” was met with “so you want crime to run rampant?”
“Abolish ice” is met with “so you want open borders?”
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is met with “so you want to genocide the Jews”.
You don’t combat this by simply switching language as your new choice will also be attacked in the same vein. Conceding on these fronts only serves to legitimize the framing Of the original message as extreme.
If we constantly shift to avoid their criticism, we will inevitably end at “all lives matter” and something like “Israel has a right to defend itself…but so does Palestine” (and even this would be ruthlessly attacked by Zionist propaganda).
Our goal is to transform/counter the narrative pushed from authority towards the masses (that Israel has the right to defend itself and what we are seeing is them enacting that right, the might just be going a little too far), towards what we believe (that settler colonial regimes have no such rights as they are inherently the aggressor and Palestinians deserve to live not under the boot of their oppression) not to fit inside of it.
We are to be “the vanguard”, leading the masses towards a future of our making, not “the rearguard” focussed on following the masses towards wherever they march as led by borgious propaganda.
We do this by standing firm in our principles and making access to our way of understanding readily available to any who question from a position of good faith.
TLDR: They will attack and warp anything we say. We don’t avoid this by constantly switching to something less radical, we fight against it via educating those willing to listen.
BLM was met with “all lives matter” which was met with “that’s racist” which was met with “no it’s not racist” and loops the last two forever. I don’t see any easy gains here; BLM as a slogan seems fine to me.
“Defund the police” would do much better as “Replace the police.” Not joking, most people seriously think the “defund the police” have no alternative in mind. I’d call that a non-starter, so the slogan is bad.
No comment about ICE. Haven’t thought about it. I’m not American.
RttSPWBF begs the question, since that’s essentially the same as “destroy israel.”
Hard disagree. If something can be improved by being phrased better it should be. I cannot see how anyone would consider making a slogan more precise to be failing somehow. If the slogan is misunderstood, and there’s a good alternative, it’s sensible to switch. If you’re coming at this from the perspective that you won’t be able to change anyone’s mind anyway, then I can see why you’d abandon rhetoric.
So you are not abandoning rhetoric. The message should be optimized to not be rejected on sight by those willing to listen.
How did you get from “we should improve the slogan to be clearer” to “let’s fit inside the existing narrative”? I am not advocating for being less radical; and I wouldn’t consider “coming up with a better slogan” to be the same as not holding firm.