comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 56 seconds ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Bats Uncensored (U18355)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
They can silence it for the most part. Zionists control the media and will manipulate the narrative any way they want.

You even have so called liberals on here justifying the slaughter of women and children in the name of Zionism. And people are just cool with it, as if that mindset isn’t completely deranged
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think it’s healthy or accurate to state that “Zionists control the media”.

Do Zionists “control” the BBC, Channel 4, PBS, or Al Jazeera? (Let alone the likes of Middle East Monitor, Novara, MondoWeiss, etc.)

There are elements of the mainstream and independent media which it might be argued are owned or heavily supported by individuals or groups with an interest in supporting the Zionist or other allied causes. (Some newspapers which support the Netanyahu govt’s actions will do so because the default position of their backers is pro-Israeli rather than pro-Zionist, and yes, there is a difference.)

And there are other elements which will remain relatively quiet or steadfastly ‘impartial’ or ‘balanced’ (looking through the lens of the current cultural norm) because of prevailing political factors; in the UK, and elsewhere, due to an abject fear of being labelled antisemitic, and the stigma (understandably) attached to such.

Ultimately, anything that looks remotely like justice for the Palestinian people is going to *require* an uncoupling of the current cultural default association between Judaism and Zionism, which means an uncoupling of antisemitism and antizionism.

As such, in the context of the unfortunate history of (patently discriminatory) antisemitic tropes and memes, I don’t think it’s useful to be making generalised and unsubstantiable claims like “Zionists control the media”. In fact, quite the contrary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Given both the monstrous history of anti-Semitism and the deadly effectiveness of accusations of anti-Semitism at silencing criticism of genocide today, we should be vigilant against echoing tropes of sinister international control of finance / media / politics. There's quite a history of using 'Zionist' as a euphemism for 'Jewish' in anti-Semistic discourse (e.g. I observed a protest march in Russia in 1999, in which one of the placards read "Down with the Zionist Kremlin!" and these striking workers definitely didn't have Israel/Palestine at the forefront of their concerns). There are lots of reasons for the West's disgraceful support for Israel throughout its colonial dispossession and oppression of the Palestinian people: the value of a geopolitical ally in a crucial region; important trade and tech partnerships; a longstanding cultural affinity with Israeli parliamentary democracy (much degraded under Netanyahu but then the West has grown ambivalent about liberal democracy in parallel) and capitalism; Holocaust guilt in Europe, and prejudice against Muslims in both continents, while Israelis look and sound more Western.

Sure, Israel is quite effective both at wielding soft power (e.g. Netanyahu spent years in the States, moving very comfortably in right-wing circles) and at aggressive lobbying. Sure, there are committed Zionists among Israel's supporters in the West - especially among Christian fundamentalists. But I don't think Zionism is the instrumental force driving Western support for Israeli imperialism and complicity in its crimes against humanity. I don't think it's particularly useful term in helping us understand and describe what is going on. In particular, because we possess more universal vocabulary to describe what Israel is doing. Paradigms such as religious supremacism, imperialism, racism, ethnic cleansing and probably genocide give us ample tools to talk about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Reaching constantly for 'Zionism' is both unnecessary and invites the question (which will often come in bad faith) of why we are foregrounding the Jewishness of this thing. And indeed why? I'm against this because I'm against ethnic and religious persecution, against land grabs, against oppression, against the killing of civilians *in general* - not specifically when it is done by Zionists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good points.

But Zionism really has nothing to do with Judaism/Jewish religion.

Look at how Zionism is viewed and regarded by the orthodox Jews - the proper hardcore and religious Jews and not the wishy washy, half hearted ones.

They absolutely hate Zionism and call it out for what it is.

Racist ideology.

Also "birthright" another invention by Zionists - how this shameless and brazen tactic has been allowed to gain traction and huge momentum is another example of a misled world.


https://youtu.be/esUQyJcderE?si=rTudqOn7it7TibZN

comment by Slack Alice (U9489)
posted 2 hours, 29 minutes ago
What has this got to do with football? Surely this warrants being taken down as it's just about politics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fack off culer

Look at how Zionism is viewed and regarded by the orthodox Jews - the proper hardcore and religious Jews and not the wishy washy, half hearted ones.

They absolutely hate Zionism and call it out for what it is.

Racist ideology.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hezzman, some Orthodox Jews are hostile to Zionism. Some are not. There are Orthodox Jewish political parties participating in Netanyahu's governing coalition right now. Furthermore, you're on very thin ice talking about who are 'proper' Jews.

The more one learns about the Zionism, the more one understands it has a complex history, and has never been a homogeneous movement. It has roots in European Jews looking to escape extermination, and its key thinkers have varied from figures (like Netanyahu's predecessors) who have foreseen a militant, purely Jewish state to those who envisaged Jews living peacefully and as equals among Arabs.

The current atrocities are of course tinged with the racist strands within Zionist thought. They are also examples of an all too familiar, universal capacity for humans to channel tribal feelings to kill and steal from their neighbours. The government of Myanmar, with extensive support from the Buddhist majority (including enthusiastic backing by Buddhist priests), has channelled demonisation of the Muslim Rohingya minority to justify mass violence and destruction. The logic of that operation is fundamentally the same, but we don't feel the need to use some special term to root that in the cultural/ethnic/religious identity of the Burmese-Buddhist people.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by RRRU-ben a-moo-REENG (U17054)
posted 52 minutes ago
comment by Bats Uncensored (U18355)
posted 2 hours, 32 minutes ago
They can silence it for the most part. Zionists control the media and will manipulate the narrative any way they want.

You even have so called liberals on here justifying the slaughter of women and children in the name of Zionism. And people are just cool with it, as if that mindset isn’t completely deranged
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think it’s healthy or accurate to state that “Zionists control the media”.

Do Zionists “control” the BBC, Channel 4, PBS, or Al Jazeera? (Let alone the likes of Middle East Monitor, Novara, MondoWeiss, etc.)

There are elements of the mainstream and independent media which it might be argued are owned or heavily supported by individuals or groups with an interest in supporting the Zionist or other allied causes. (Some newspapers which support the Netanyahu govt’s actions will do so because the default position of their backers is pro-Israeli rather than pro-Zionist, and yes, there is a difference.)

And there are other elements which will remain relatively quiet or steadfastly ‘impartial’ or ‘balanced’ (looking through the lens of the current cultural norm) because of prevailing political factors; in the UK, and elsewhere, due to an abject fear of being labelled antisemitic, and the stigma (understandably) attached to such.

Ultimately, anything that looks remotely like justice for the Palestinian people is going to *require* an uncoupling of the current cultural default association between Judaism and Zionism, which means an uncoupling of antisemitism and antizionism.

As such, in the context of the unfortunate history of (patently discriminatory) antisemitic tropes and memes, I don’t think it’s useful to be making generalised and unsubstantiable claims like “Zionists control the media”. In fact, quite the contrary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Given both the monstrous history of anti-Semitism and the deadly effectiveness of accusations of anti-Semitism at silencing criticism of genocide today, we should be vigilant against echoing tropes of sinister international control of finance / media / politics. There's quite a history of using 'Zionist' as a euphemism for 'Jewish' in anti-Semistic discourse (e.g. I observed a protest march in Russia in 1999, in which one of the placards read "Down with the Zionist Kremlin!" and these striking workers definitely didn't have Israel/Palestine at the forefront of their concerns). There are lots of reasons for the West's disgraceful support for Israel throughout its colonial dispossession and oppression of the Palestinian people: the value of a geopolitical ally in a crucial region; important trade and tech partnerships; a longstanding cultural affinity with Israeli parliamentary democracy (much degraded under Netanyahu but then the West has grown ambivalent about liberal democracy in parallel) and capitalism; Holocaust guilt in Europe, and prejudice against Muslims in both continents, while Israelis look and sound more Western.

Sure, Israel is quite effective both at wielding soft power (e.g. Netanyahu spent years in the States, moving very comfortably in right-wing circles) and at aggressive lobbying. Sure, there are committed Zionists among Israel's supporters in the West - especially among Christian fundamentalists. But I don't think Zionism is the instrumental force driving Western support for Israeli imperialism and complicity in its crimes against humanity. I don't think it's particularly useful term in helping us understand and describe what is going on. In particular, because we possess more universal vocabulary to describe what Israel is doing. Paradigms such as religious supremacism, imperialism, racism, ethnic cleansing and probably genocide give us ample tools to talk about Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Reaching constantly for 'Zionism' is both unnecessary and invites the question (which will often come in bad faith) of why we are foregrounding the Jewishness of this thing. And indeed why? I'm against this because I'm against ethnic and religious persecution, against land grabs, against oppression, against the killing of civilians *in general* - not specifically when it is done by Zionists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent post, as usual, RR

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 18 minutes ago
Look at how Zionism is viewed and regarded by the orthodox Jews - the proper hardcore and religious Jews and not the wishy washy, half hearted ones.

They absolutely hate Zionism and call it out for what it is.

Racist ideology.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hezzman, some Orthodox Jews are hostile to Zionism. Some are not. There are Orthodox Jewish political parties participating in Netanyahu's governing coalition right now. Furthermore, you're on very thin ice talking about who are 'proper' Jews.

The more one learns about the Zionism, the more one understands it has a complex history, and has never been a homogeneous movement. It has roots in European Jews looking to escape extermination, and its key thinkers have varied from figures (like Netanyahu's predecessors) who have foreseen a militant, purely Jewish state to those who envisaged Jews living peacefully and as equals among Arabs.

The current atrocities are of course tinged with the racist strands within Zionist thought. They are also examples of an all too familiar, universal capacity for humans to channel tribal feelings to kill and steal from their neighbours. The government of Myanmar, with extensive support from the Buddhist majority (including enthusiastic backing by Buddhist priests), has channelled demonisation of the Muslim Rohingya minority to justify mass violence and destruction. The logic of that operation is fundamentally the same, but we don't feel the need to use some special term to root that in the cultural/ethnic/religious identity of the Burmese-Buddhist people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Great points mate. Agree.

I can sometimes come across as over simplifying things at times but it's probably because I get wound up by some of the residnts on here too easily and don't have enough patience as you do 👍🏾

Hezzman, it was clear your comments are coming from a good place. I maybe wouldn't feel the need to be pedantic about using that term if it wasn't for the fact that apologists for genocide exploit the anti-Semistism charge so effectively, and also that there is actual anti-Semitism exploiting the natural outrage against Israel for its own malicious purposes.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Hezzman, it was clear your comments are coming from a good place. I maybe wouldn't feel the need to be pedantic about using that term if it wasn't for the fact that apologists for genocide exploit the anti-Semistism charge so effectively, and also that there is actual anti-Semitism exploiting the natural outrage against Israel for its own malicious purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly the whole "anti-semitic" term has sadly been hijacked from what it really means.

Like my comments previously that surely that term than should apply to anti-arab sentiments/comments as that's a semite language in origin too.

But we all know the MO of the corrupters, confuse and divide the general populous who will then war against one another whilst they laugh and rule and push through their own agendas.

Its a classic tactic from the dawn of civilization til the end of it no doubt.