Going on a protest with a sign saying "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is regarded antisemitic hate speech in Germany, it will be counted as an antisemitic incident and you can go to jail for that.
I Austria, the same is regarded a "encouraging terrorism", also punishable.
The western version may sound nice, but the version used in Palestine is من الماء إلى الماء، فلسطين عربية, "From water to water Palestine will be Arab."
We all know what that actually means, and we're better off acknowledging it instead of using the sanitized version made for westerners so they can lay awake at night and dream of being TE Lawrence 2.0 in a Temu Keffiyeh.
Palestinians have more Canaanite DNA than Jews. The Palestinians, like all Arabs outside the Arabian Peninsula, are just Arabized natives of their region. They were Jewish, then Christian, and now Muslim.
Speaking as a Jewish (dad's side) Palestinian (mom's side), this is dumb fuckin' take. Palestinians are Arabs, and they came to the region during the Arab conquest. Aint no Canaanite DNA there - There haven't even been Canaanites around in the last 3,000 years. Stop trying to erase Jewish history with your revisionist bullshit.
"Palestinians, among other Levantine groups, were found to derive 81–87% of their ancestry from Bronze age Levantines, relating to Canaanites as well as Kura–Araxes culture impact from before 2400 BCE (4400 years before present); 8–12% from an East African source and 5–10% from Bronze age Europeans."
From your own article: A 2010 study by Behar et al. found Palestinians tested clustered genetically close to Bedouins, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians, which was described as "consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula".
...
The majority of Palestinian Christians (31.82%) were a subclade of E1b1b, followed by G2a (11.36%), and J1 (9.09%). The majority of Palestinian Muslims were haplogroup J1 (37.82%) followed by E1b1b (19.33%), and T (5.88%). The study sample consisted of 44 Palestinian Christians and 119 Palestinian Muslims.
Small sample size aside, E1b1b originates in North Africa, J1 originates in Arabia. My own genetic test provided a Jordan/Syria origin for my Palestinian side, and for what it's worth my family has church records in Bethlehem going back a thousand years.
It calls for a Palestinian State (not Palestinians) „from the river to the sea“. So right where Israel currently exists. There is really no debate, whether a slogan that explicitly denies Israel’s existence is antisemitic or not.
Yeah, people who defend it claim that it doesn't mean anything will happen to the Jews. These are the same people who cheered the October 7th rapes and murders so I'm not quite sure I believe them.
I'm not sure in what planet or age you live, but in planet earth 2024, the world is divided in states, which are supposed to provide protection for their people.
The world's reaction after Oct 7th clearly shows that Jews can't count on anyone but themselves for their own protection. This includes the US, which proved to be an unreliable ally.
A world in which jihadism takes over Israel would be a world where the Jews go extinct quickly, and the next target would of course be Europe.
Anyone opposing the existence of Israel while claiming not to be antisemitic is either a liar or a nincompoop.
Yes you can. They do have autonomy over a fair share of their society. But these shares are not a beacon of humanity. Thats the whole point of the conflict. If Palestinians turn their backs to extremism and start to life like a normal society of the 21st century, the conlfict is over.
Sorry apparently I misunderstood and misread every single time this slogan was used. I was under the impression that they said „Palestine will be free“, which would be antisemitic for obvious reasons. But if they only stated „Palestinians will be free“, that’s obviously a wholly different matter.
The Navajo Nation does not claim the entirety of the United States, nor are they known for being genocidal towards non-native Americans. I nevertheless would consider that a strange statement, as succession has been a non-starter since the Civil War.
You’re ignoring the “from the river to the sea” part, which refers to the entire Israel, including Israel proper. Additionally, the original Arabic translation for this slogan is “From water to water, Palestine will be Arab”, which is even more blatantly racist and genocidal.
I mean Israel literally did the exact same thing in 1948. They took Palestine from the river and couldn't go all the way to the sea. They're trying "the sea" part now.
Not really. Israel accepted the partition plan that would have created an Israeli and Palestinian state side by side. The Palestinians rejected it and wanted all the land. Israel did not come close to taking all of the territory of the proposed Palestinian state in 1948, with Gaza and the West Bank being controlled by Egypt and Jordan respectively.
How tf has Israel any right to the Palestinian territories at all?
It wasn't Palestinian territories. It was a British mandate, and before that it was part of the Ottoman Empire.
Partition plan was made by the britiah who just invented the state of Israel.
They "invented" Palestine too. Palestine was not a distinct political entity before 1948. All post-colonial countries (i.e. most of Africa and the Middle East) were also invented by this logic.
Palestinians wanted all the land because it belonged to them.
The area of the Israeli partition had a majority Jewish population. Why did land that was majority Jewish belong to Palestinians?
I mean, many Palestinians witnessed that land become majority Jewish within mere decades of their lifetime as Jews fled from the Nazis. And it's not like the international consensus is that an ethnic group can claim sovereignty over land they emigrate to, most Western countries have supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine even in regions like Crimea that are minority Ukrainian. Obviously a different situation since Palestine may not have been a real political entity, but that didn't make the plight of the 700,000 Palestinians expelled by Israel any less real.
So I mean, an argument that Israel had a right to the land needs to be deeper than just that they had formed a majority or that Britain had a legitimate authority to decide questions of sovereignty. But I can accept if someone argues on the basis that the horrible situation created by Hitler was so far from normal that it couldn't be solved with typical norms of sovereignty.
The area of the Israeli partition had a majority Jewish population. Why did land that was majority Jewish belong to Palestinians?
Palestinians isn't a religion btw Judaism is. There are Christians and Muslims currently and historically living in Palestine.
Indigenous people living in Israel didn't fight the imperial powers to create a state of Israel. It was invented by the British because much of the western world turned away Jews and it was a strategic option to continue the imperialism in the middle east.
You have to be dense and completely ahistorical to keep arguing about a country which never existed before 1948.
That's not the correct argument here. Both phrases are equally problematic.
The main difference is that "from the river to the sea" has enough historic baggage as a phrase that we can confidently assess it to be antisemitic. That's why it has made its way into some high profile German court cases.
If "Gaza needs to be a parking lot" received equal amounts of traction as a slogan for an entire political movement then yea, it should have the same legal consequences.
As it stands there are no protest movements chanting "Gaza needs to be a parking lot" though, it's the usual chronically online posting where that phrase turns up.
So how and where these phrases are used differs massively, and that's why you see a different legal response despite it being equally hateful phrases to say.
The phrase is historically Israeli. the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty”. The current ideology of the Israeli government in 2024 is rooted in Revisionist Zionism, which sought the entire territory of Mandatory Palestine.
This is incorrect. The phrase first appeared in the 60s. Likud's use of it in 1977 was an obvious and tongue-in-cheek reversal of an already well-known phrase.
What? This song is about controlling both sides of the Jordan river. It makes no mention of the sea and is obviously unrelated in meaning and structure to the phrase in question. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
The following are verse 2 and verse 3 of the song:
Though my country may be poor and small
It is mine from head to foot.
Stretching from the sea to the desert
And the Jordan, the Jordan in the middle.
Two Banks has the Jordan –
This is ours and, that is as well.
From the wealth of our land there shall prosper
The Arab, the Christian, and the Jew,
For our flag is a pure and just one
It will illuminate both sides of my Jordan.
Two Banks has the Jordan –
This is ours and, that is as well.
For a supposed hateful statement verse 3 starts on a rather mellow, reconciliatory note, don't you think?
That's in stark contrast to the actual "from the river to the sea" later used, which was "“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab" as the below commenter correctly pointed out.
Considering Jabotinsky admired Mussolini and had quotes “I devote the rebirth of the Jewish State, with a Jewish majority, on both sides of the Jordan”, I don’t think you can call the founder of Irgun reconciliatory.
They are not equally problematic, "from the river to the sea" has many connotations while "turn gaza into a parking lot" only has one. And "from the river to the sea? does not have historical anti-Semetic baggage, it originated from calls for one single state with equal status for jews and Palestinians
A good number of Palestinians already do. Around 20% of Israel's population, as a matter of fact. A two state solution is obviously the preferable alternative, but the idea that the two populations cannot coexist is just blatantly wrong.
I agree. I was speaking specifically to militants, as the “river to the sea” rhetoric is inherently militant imo, and is 100% not a call for a shared secular state
That’s beside the point of what I was making. The comment I was responding to was saying that “from the river to the sea” is a call for a shared single state solution. Which is blatantly false
Most oppressed people have managed to reconcile with their oppressors, what do you think is so different about Palestinians that they cant do the same?
Can you provide examples to back this up. The most prominent case of an overturned apartheid obviously didn't result in the eradication of the oppressor.
Source? The original phrase in Arabic I can find is min an-nahr ʾilā l-baḥr . Also I don’t think the phrase “Palestine will Arabic” even rhymes in Arabic. Also it goes without saying Arabic and Islamic are not synonymous so I genuinely have no idea where you got this from.
Also it’s used from everyone to Jabotinsky to people wanting a one state solution so the idea that it’s inherently militant or that it’s exclusively associated with violent ideologies speaks to larger biased perception of what Palestinians want or are advocating for
Uhm no the fuck we can't. That phrase "from the river to the sea" is only a call for violence if you take the worst possible interpretation when the Bundesverfassungsgericht ruled that in all matters regarding free speech you ought to interpret ambiguous phrases in the most charitable manner. So turning "from the river to the sea" into a criminal offense is a blatant violation of constitutional law and free speech.
Bad analogy. If French Canada and British Canada were separate countries and you said “Atlantic to pacific, British Canada” that wording would absolutely be implying a desire to remove or annex French Canada.
Remember that “from sea to shining sea” was a phrase in the US that was used to promote Manifest Destiny. The US mistreated our native people horrendously to reach that end.
I don't know enough about Canada, but does "British Canada" not more or less spread from ocean to ocean (I thought that the very NE of Canada was also "British").
So that is apparently possible without annihilating French Canada.
When considering ambiguous phrases, German law asks for the "mildest" interpretation, as many phrases can be understood in a malevolent way (e.g. telling a mum with a sick child "I hope your troubles will soon be over" can be understood as a hope for recovery or wishing for the death of the kid).
Clearly the politicians have decided to only use the most imaginable interpretation of the "From the river"-phrase.
Meh, if you have groups like Hamas or BDS adopting the slogan the implication is quite clear.
You don't paint swastikas on buildings in Germany and then claim "it's a buddhist symbol". That's just simply not how any of this ever works or will work.
Advocating for a Free Palestine (especially given Israeli Settler Behaviour and expanionism into the West Bank) is fair. If the implication becomes that a Free Palestine necessarily also terminates Israel's existence as a nation, especially Germany with it's involved history has a right, no, an obligation to take a hard stance.
There is no Hamas in Germany and I'm not sure wtf German protestors have to do with that. BDS is not a group but a loosely organized peaceful boycott movement. Nope, the implication is not quite clear bc it's an ambiguous phrase that can mean a million things, in which case you have to choose the most harmless interpretation in favour of free speech and that's a ruling of the Bundesverfassungsgericht so you're full of shit. There's no such thing as an unconditional right to exist for a country. The DDR existed as well until it didn't, countries come and go and if people want historic Palestine to become its own nation it is their right to do so. Equating a free Palestine with a swastika is so idiotic that I won't dignify it with a response. Calling for a genocide is a crime, calling for a new nation to replace Israel is not and they are not the same thing.
"destroy a people and their culture" is not comparable to "give a people control over their native land back".
from the river to the sea has N E V E R been a call to kill israelis. you fellcfor propaganda.
So Hamas using that slogan, or BDS using that slogan doesn't mean anything here?
Palestinians that are overwhelmingly for a one state solution that does not include Jews are not a factor here?
correct. it doean't mean anything. the BDS movement is a good thing. its insane to say any different.
hamas is obviously in favor of decolonization. no matter how much you disagree with the means they go to, the goal, in theory, is good.
a single palestinian state will not and never had excluded jewish people. there have always been palestinian jews.
don't be dense.
That you accuse me of falling for propaganda when you say such ridiculous things as "bds is a good thing" and use "decolonization" as if the term had any meaning at all in this context... juicy.
there have always been palestinian jews
And... the point being? There have also always been Arabs that are citizens in Israel. Sooo, should the one state solution now be one solely under Israeli leadership because of that?
Again you are missing the forest for the trees, show me where Palestinian leadership ever really tried for an actual workable one state solution including jews and i'll give you credence. Until then... meh. Oslo and Camp David disagree with your take on history.
fun how you try to talk history when you don't even know the basics of the zionist movement and how it was literally created with the goal of colonizing palestine with that exact wording
The main difference is that "from the river to the sea" has enough historic baggage as a phrase that we can confidently assess it to be antisemitic. That's why it has made its way into some high profile German court cases.
what historic baggage exactly? doesnt the fact that its used by israelis prove that atleast they dont think it has any negative meaning in itself?
Eh, this seems weak. If the law is meant to stop hate speech, then it's not doing that because they deem hate speech towards Palestinians as okay. We can be honest about their racism on a thread about racism.
That's reductionist and dangerous to broadly claim systemic racism like that.
Also (I'm assuming you are rather left leaning here) it's a bit weird that you'd argue for more state surveillance like this, because that's the only way you'll get enforcement of hate speech laws to the level that you are asking for here.
Here in Germany we have a saying: "wo kein Kläger, da kein Schaden" (="If No lawsuit was filed, no damage was caused").
If you can show me court cases on anti-palestinian hate speech that got tossed out because the judge was racist, maybe I'll give you more credence.
The more likely reality is that you never even bothered to report those cases of hatespeech you encountered. Probably for good reason as, especially online, it's a futile battle.
That's reductionist and dangerous to broadly claim systemic racism like that.
It's calling a duck a duck. If the law stops you from saying racist things against Jews, to the point where criticizing Israel itself tows the line, but you can say genocidal things about palestinians. It's fair to infer there might be some biases against them systemically. I think hate speech laws are bad for this reason, the chance that it's not equally applied is super high, especially in societies that have histories of racism
I know, I'm saying the point was to be racist towards palestinians and prevent criticism of israel. It's just that you have people who run from this fact, cognitive dissonance maybe
You compare the Gaza Strip to the technically advanced and mighty Third Reich and you compare Israel to Poland with its outdated military that was conquered in a matter of weeks.
It’s not about technology, it’s about ideology (Hamas is very close to the NSDAP in its views on the Jewish question) and who started the war. Again, it is a small Israel compared to the vast and hostile Arab world.
Hamas is official and democratic elected government of Gaza. They started full scale offensive against Israel. IDF treats the people way better than Soviet artillery or usaf bombers.
Anyone who says that Gaza should be destroyed is as morally repellent as those who want to ethnically cleanse Jews from the River to. The Sea. An area that is the last place in a while region Jews are allowed tive.
Exactly. To many people escpecially ones that aren't even directly affected by the war don't want to understand that conflicts can be more nuanced and complex than "oh you aren't pro-y so you must be pro-x". Like no I'm nothing other than pro-"make peace or get fucked".
Criticizing the tons of shit Israel does doesn't mean I hate Jews and want Israel to get erased from the map and being against terrorism, islamism and dumb fucks committing senseless violence doesn't mean I hate muslims and want Gaza to be carpet bombed.
See, the problem is that even favoring a "make peace and keep your current borders" stance is Pro-Israel, since they have been steadily encroaching on palestinian territory since, oh... the late 40s.
There really isn't a 'third way' in the gaza conflict. It's either pro-israel or pro-palestine, they have managed to turn the conflict that infected.
That's why I try to ignore the conflict as much as I can. But there are plenty of "third way" solutions but speaking most of them out loud gets you hated by everyone.
I think the Palestinians have to be realistic here they won't get any now de-jure Israeli land back so the best they can realistically hope and fight for is a true two state solution where Israel has to completely leave Palestinian land with the two states being strictly separated by an international military force. That's not the best or most peace ensuring solution(if such a solution even exist is doubtful itself) but it's the best deal they can realistically(!) achieve.
That military force will have to prevent Palestinians invading Israel or firing thousands of missiles into Israel.
Would the current Palestinian leadership be prepared to stop trying to kill Israelis in large numbers? Because if they had already there would be a very different Middle East and probably a Palestinian State already,. And that Palestinian State would have levels of prosperity close to Israeli levels.
If a new Palestine decides to continue fighting to acquire the entire area between the River and the Sea, and using the same tactics as so far? What then? Will this international border force permit them to fire rockets into Israel? Send in waves of terrorists? Then prevent a counter attack? If so they are acting as part of the Palestinian military.
If they react by trying to eliminate launch sites or close the border to terrorists they will be seen as tools of the Israelis and be called genocidal apartheid war criminals.
Going on live TV and making references to biblical genocides will get you a standing ovation in US congress and handshakes and funding from Germany and Europe...
Good. Espousing the erasure of Israel should be criminal as it would mean sending Jews 'back to their homeland' which they don't have apart from the 3500-year-and-counting nation of Israel, or live in constant fear of Palestinian reprisals/hate/terrorism. It's calling for ethnic cleansing without saying those words. Or maybe the pro-Pallie gang can get Madagascar to get on board to send them there? /s
Espousing the erasure of Israel should be criminal as it would mean sending Jews 'back to their homeland' which they don't have apart from the 3500-year-and-counting nation of Israel,
Most of the Israelis in the historical state of Palestine aren't from the region. They're immigrants from the US and Europe.
The Palestinians have been living in Palestine continuously, and are genetically descended from the Jews who lived there historically.
or live in constant fear of Palestinian reprisals/hate/terrorism.
The amount of terror attacks has been entirely one sided. I believe for every Israeli that died due to terrorism, 20 to 100 Palestinians have died.
Before October 7th, Israel was murdering children and journalists. If you think that Israel can deploy force due to X dead civilians, why isn't Palestine allowed to for 20x dead civilians?
It's calling for ethnic cleansing without saying those words.
Israel is literally ethnically cleansing Palestine
Sending them 'back' to the lands their ancestors lived (and were genocided for two millennia) is still ethnic cleansing. Own up to it. Also, there has been a Jewish presence in the region for 2000 years longer than any Muslim even existed, so your argument is bunk in at least two ways.
The terror died down somewhat since Israel was forced to construct the border walls to protect itself after 100 years of relentless and unending attacks. And the rocket rains kept coming ever since. But folks like you never mention that, do you?
Sending them 'back' to the lands their ancestors lived (and were genocided for two millennia) is still ethnic cleansing.
Ancestors? Who said anything about ancestry? About a quarter of the Israeli Jews are foreign born.. a third are children of foreigners...
Also, there has been a Jewish presence in the region for 2000 years longer than any Muslim even existed, so your argument is bunk in at least two ways.
And? Those Jews converted to islam and became Palestinians?
The terror died down somewhat since Israel was forced to construct the border walls to protect itself after 100 years of relentless and unending attacks.
100 years? Israel didn't exist until 1948...
And the rocket rains kept coming ever since. But folks like you never mention that, do you
Whatever date you pick for the Jews being present is the exact same date you have to pick for Palestinians being present as the people who were Jews in 1500 BC converted to Islam and stayed living there.
What don't you understand about 'continuous Jewish presence'? There have never been no Jews in Israel. You really do seem to have a very limited scope of language, history, reasoning and human decency. I pity your lack of education.
Also, seeing as they were the original inhabitants, which even genocidal good old you seems to acknowledge, your wanting to ethnically cleanse the region could just as easily be turned around on the Palestinians. Muslims came 2000 years later.
But unlike you, I have learnt from history and wouldn't argue for ethnic cleansing.
The phrase that lost people's jobs. I am not going to repeat it because we both know it is not safe to repeat hate speech.
A somewhat irrelevant trolling question to the point. I can support people not being murdered and wiped from existence.
It is a real and genuine question. How does apartheid end? Is the only thing that stops it outside forces. slapping the country until it stops? You brought up South Africa and clearly don't know enough about it to engage with my question.
Hey, I'm against the genocide of the Palestinians taking place right now. Guess that's hate speech against Jews/Isreal, whatever.
Why are Palestinian lives worth more to you than Jewish lives? Why is it okay to create a hierarchy amongst humans that you clearly are comfortable with?
Using the n-word is quite diffefent than a political slogan used for or against a very problematic middle eastern country. No one get jailed for talking against others problematics countries like China, Russia, Qatar, Saudi Abaria, Iran, the UAE and such.
The phrase advocates genocide against Jews in the region (or as some pro-Palestinians argue, Muslims). Repeating a phrase associated with anti-Semitism should be discouraged.
Get creative, say something else and ensure that means "Unite Palestine under a free and secular single state." Reappropirating a phrase used to advocate a genocide is a bad look.
The only reason this isn't obvious is the social media refs agree that with the genocidal intent.
Isn't the same slogan part of the elected Likud government chapter? Also this isn't about Jews, this is about Israel and you should probably be more critical to current government who are actually doing mass killing and displacing the population than randos living in the western world and who will never even step foot in this country.
SO STOP DEFENDING THE USE OF A PHRASE USED BY BOTH SIDES TO ADVOCATE GENOCIDE. It is simple. There is no defense for the slogan.
I am defending the slogan I am saying that it is entirely different than saying the N-word. I personally have no dog in this fight. Two groups of brainwashed individuals are going at it in the middle east, but I still don't think they should be jailed for their opinion about a middle-eastern conflict. It is also not very nice to say something wrong about Saudis or Russians, but people shouldn't be jailed for talking shit about a country which is very different than actual hate crime like attacking your place of worship or using the N-word.
I mean how else can a phrase like that be interpreted by Israelis or Jews? The phrase was originally, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be arab"
Maybe given the ICJ has ruled that Israel has been illegally occupying Palestinian territories for the last 50+ years and denying Palestinians their right to self determination...it means an end to said occupation and restoration of their rights?
Okay but their right to self determination DOESN’T override Israel’s right to existance, you wack job. Choose a different slogan that isn’t steeped in racism or genocidal aspirations.
Are you fucking insane? Czechoslovakia is LITERALLY the perfect example of a TWO STATE solution. No one’s trying to impose a unitary state on Czechs and Slovaks the way people on the far left want to do to Israelis, you psycho
You probably want to research more what Israelis think of a 2-state solution lol. It's just a way for western states to pretend they want peace (while also not recognizing the state of Palestine for some reason).
The 2-state solution is moot and everyone from the river to the sea knows it
You probably want to research what Israelis think about the 2-state solution now and what they thought about it in September 2023.
Home assignment: why did that change?
There will never be a one state solution, my brother. I’m literally willing to DIE to defend Israel. You’re just some anti-Semitic dipshit sitting behind a computer screen
Don't call me brother and dipshit in the same breath.
Israelis don't want a 2-state solution or a 1-state solution, they want a "only Israel" solution. And the US and most of the western world are enabling that.
Don't worry you won't need to die. But countless more thousands of Palestinians will need to die to get some basic rights. And don't say that "Israel has tried everything". Colonizing the West Bank and protecting settlers has been Israel policy for 75 years
The peace deal that Bibi got caught on camera bragging that he sabotaged it? Anyway go spread your hasbara with your fellow zionists I don't care for it
For one, because it's not a widely used phrase. But also the double standards are blatant in German society and among right-wingers.
Talking about the thousands of Palestinians killed in Gaza and criticising Israel may be seen as Antisemitism, so make sure to also mention the terror attack from October 7th and also state that Israel has a right to defend itself.
Really, there were incidences like that ("Newspaper A questioned the IDF's attack on a safe zone that resulted in the deaths of 50 people without mentioning the horrible Hamas' terror attack and the continuing hostage-taking of over 100 innocent Israeli citizens" … that happened more than half a year ago)
What tf are you smoking. Get off of that right wing twitter kush und go outside. There was an organized Palestinie demo near my place a few weeks ago. There where police to observe but noone got arrested and everyone lived happily ever after... except the plaestinians in gaza.
What do you think "from the river to the sea" means? The phrase was coined to represent eliminating all of Jewish rule and influence between the river Jordan and the Med. If you go look at a map, that's literally 100% of the country of Israel. And, if you poll Palestinians, they overwhelmingly want all Jews removed from all of that land. Palestinians overwhelmingly want ALL Jews, everywhere, eliminated. It's been shown in poll after poll and it's been supported by their actions for most of the last century.
What does that mean? Does that mean they're fair? I don't really know where any Israeli Institute stands, outside of the (executive) government being bananas.
Define fair? A large part of the student body is Palestinian-israeli (i.e from within the 1948 borders) and it's known as a leftist institution. They consistently take an anti-government stance. There are often pro-Palestinian demonstrations at the university gates. Intellectuals are famously pro human rights and anti fascist, why would it be any different just because they're Israeli? They've under attack from the right wing establishment for as long as I can remember. There's a website keeping score of anti Zionist faculty and TAU has an impressive representation there. They haven't fired any faculty or expelled any students for anti israeli expressions since October, which can't be said of other Israeli institutions.
The "official" definition of antisemitism includes being critical of the state of Israel. So being pro-palestinian would certainly be counted as being anti-semitic.
You're full of shit. The methodology section of the report reads: "antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
You have to read a bit further. Two examples used by the official definition are below:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by
claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Pro-palestinian protesters often deny right of Isreal to exist and refer to the ongoing "conflict" as a genocide. But, of course, Israel can't commit a genocide because that's what the Nazis did.
"That's what Israel does" doesn't really count as a reason, especially if you can't back it up. And "most Palestinian institution/university" is a VERY, again, VERY low bar right now for obvious reasons.
I didn’t back it up with anything because i honestly didn’t expect such a huge discussion. I thought it would be obvious what i meant. But i‘m gonna withdraw from this „discussion“ now, begause i really don’t see the point tbh. Congrats to you for staying calm and being aware of discussing things in an unheated manner
"Because that's what Israel does" so you just pulled it out of your ass, thanks. This is a university, not even part of the state apparatus. This is what dumb people do when something goes against their narrative, just claim that the other side is lying and nothing they say can be trusted. Jews have heard this narrative for thousands of years.
No thanks, if you make dumb comments, I'm gonna call you dumb. Accusations of apartheid are nothing new, as Israel has been accused of every crime under the sun since its founding. That's why the ICJ quickly rejected the accusations of genocide, as there was no evidence for it. Ask yourself why is Israel accused of it and not other nations in the region with far higher death tolls and far mor brutal means of waging war? Why not Hamas? The assumption that a university must be in lockstep with the government shows a fundamental ignorance of academia and its diversity as well as if the Israeli government. With that logic, you could just trash all data that comes from universities, but of course you only do it when it doesn't suit your narrative.
It would be useless to further discuss with you. I hope you have a good day, and I also hope that you‘ll realize one day what kind of brutal stuff the IDF did in the past and still does, and that it can’t be justified by any means. Farewell
You're absolutely talking out of your ass here. The university's president has been consistently under fire for allowing Palestinian and pro-Palestinian demonstrations at the university gates. Almost no academic institution in Israel is anywhere near in line with the government. Don't talk about things you know nothing about.
I gotta agree with you and i have to admit, i was not well informed enough to make this statement about the Tel Aviv University. I‘m gonna delete my comments, since they do seem to be quite false. Assuming that the largest university in the country must be intertwined with the government really wasn’t the most objective assumption
They are counting Pro Palestinian protests as antisemitism in these reports when there’s actual hate crimes like murdering Palestinians and muslims all of the world but no talk about the rise in anti Palestinian or islamophobia?
it wasn't in Europe, but there was that incident at Yale wherein their dining services dropped the word 'Israeli' from a salad with the name of 'Israeli couscous salad with spinach and tomatoes'.
This was reported as anti-semitism.
wondering how many of these are similar kinds of events
205
u/ItsCalledDayTwa 6d ago
I would highly question how accurately these are tracked. I expect Germany, Austria, and France are tracking this way more than other countries.
in Germany, just being publicly pro Palestinian can be called antisemitic and could be logged that way.