Rexy

@russwritings @Average_NY_Guy 1) Not all left voluntarily. Not even most actually. Look up Plan Dalet. 2) Even those who left have the right to return the same way you have the right to leave your house any time for any reason and still be back whenever you want. Their intentions are not even a factor

@3lfares Israel is not responsible for Palestinians. It is a sovereign nation with its own laws.

@AaronRegunberg Stop Israel-hate

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Jew-hatred works and it leads to a critical error: thinking that this has anything to do with free speech. Across all three historical phases of Jew-hatred, antijudaism, antisemitism, and antizionism, the logic is consistent: take whatever a society holds as sacred, then accuse Jews of desecrating it. Unfortunately, @coldxman make a categorial error in his interview with @ggreenwald . He begins with the wrong frame: free speech. And this misunderstanding has a direct consequence. Because Jew-hatred is misread as ordinary bigotry, the antizionist can reframe any pushback against it as censorship, accusing Jews of shutting down legitimate “criticism of Israel.” Coleman Hughes pre-emptively sides with Greenwald: of course, we should be allowed to call Israel a “racist state” because to forbid it would be censorship. But this concession reveals the same core misunderstanding of how Jew-hatred actually works. Every era has its own moral vocabulary, and “antisemitism” has always spoken fluently in it. In medieval Europe, the highest moral authority was the Church, and the gravest sin was defying God. So, Jews were accused of killing Christ. In the nationalist nineteenth century, the gravest sin was betraying the nation. So, Jews were accused of being a state within a state, loyal to no country but their own interests. Today, the reigning moral framework is human rights. The United Nations, today’s church, was built around protecting human rights. And the gravest sins within that framework have names: racism, colonialism, genocide, apartheid. So when antizionists label Israel a racist, apartheid, genocidal, colonialist state, they are not simply levelling policy criticisms. They are deploying the most powerful moral accusations available in contemporary society. Calling Israel “racist” today functions exactly as calling Jews “Christ-killers” did in medieval Europe; it's the same structure, updated for a new moral language. Next, when Coleman brings up the IHRA definition, Greenwald quickly snaps back and says, “look at what the Jews are doing: they are having the federal government get involved in speech on campus.” Greenwald thinks he has made a strong point because he believes this proves that Jews have this secret power to control, in this case, speech on campus. Surprisingly, Coleman, who is smart, did not immediately bring up Title VI, the 1964 civil rights act as an example of when the government did get involved with bigotry at work against black people. The problem with all of this is that they think, or at least Coleman thinks that he is a having a stimulating “intellectual” conversation when he is engaging with a bigot, albeit a sophisticated one. But see we do not have distance from the antizionism era the way we do from the previous two eras of Jew-hatred so we really believe that these are normal conversations when they are not. They are today’s permission slips to do find Jews morally repugnant and thus necessary to be “dealt with.”