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.
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.
From the River to the Sea being “essentially the same as ‘destroy Israel’”, is a perfect example of the attacks not ceasing if you get rid of “no right to defend itself” style language, it’s possibly one of the most targeted slogans, but it says nothing in the negative of Israel/Israeli existence, only the positive of freedom for Palestine/Palestinians. The negative connotation is entirely fabricated away from the slogan and the same would happen to any other phrase created trying to tow the line.
I’m not against it as a 100% firm principle. I asked for your alternatives which fit your view for a reason, not just rhetorically. These slogans have been around for decades. Masses of people have rallied around these slogans in protest against Israel, they work. I’m arguing that a simple change of slogans will not win anyone over. The problem isn’t these slogans, but it the institutional stance against what the slogans represent.
Because a slogan will always have enough ambiguity for them to propagandize against it, and they will do so, rendering that slogan now a “radical” slogan in the same vein as the current ones. The established powers will always work faster to discredit and muddy the slogan than you can clarify/clear it.
“Decolonize Palestine” would be met with the exact same arguments as “Israel has no right to exist”.
“Free Palestine” is already treated as an “anti-Semitic dog whistle”.
Ultimately: If you want to propose new, sanitized/clear slogans, absolutely feel free to so, do it here and if I find them compelling I might use them. Do it at a meeting of any action group you are a apart of and I’m sure they will do the same and/or also think of new slogans along those lines. If you are right and these new slogans are more effective, I’m sure they will grow. Otherwise, this isn’t something that will be solved here. We are going to talk in circles.
I don’t have any particularly good slogan in mind. That’s why I asked if anyone else did.
Why have you argued at length against new slogans, only to end off with “but feel free to suggest a new slogan!” Like man you’re just wasting my time.
I haven’t been arguing against new slogans, I’ve been arguing in defense of existing slogans and pointing out that the slogans themselves aren’t as flawed as you perceive, but that your perception of their flaws is a result of circumstances that would exist even if we changed the slogans.