“UK’s chief rabbi is a mouthpiece for fascistic genocidal regime”
Saying the IDF are murderers is not antisemitism it’s the truth. Equating the IDF with all Jews is antisemitism. So who’s the antisemite here?
This is the same guy who convicted a Viner for teaching his gf’s dog to sieg heil, right?
By this logic the rabbi seems to be saying something horribly antisemitic doesn’t he? Because if all Jews are represented by the IDF, and the IDF murders children with Glee, isn’t that saying that all Jews are baby killers? Cuz that’s something I’ve heard antisemitic people say before. Now I guess it includes this rabbi.
Saying antizionism=antisemitism is saying genocide is a core part of Judaism. and I don’t think you can say anything more antisemitic
It wasn’t though, was it. The IDF are not Jews in general; they are multi-ethnic and are the armed forces of a country at war. Would a chant of “death to the Russian Armed Forces” be Russophobic? “Death to the Wehrmacht” for anti-German during World War 2? “Death to Hamas” for Islamophobia?
Identification of the armed forces of a state with a state is a sign of fascism, and the identification of the state with an ethnic group is a sign of extreme nationalism - though admittedly that is less the case with Israel and Jewish people.
Chanting “death, death to the IDF” is violent and inappropriate at a music festival. “Fuck the IDF” would’ve been fine though.
Chanting “death, death to the IDF” is violent and inappropriate at a music festival. “Fuck the IDF” would’ve been fine though.
No it’s not. Mass music festivals are perfectly acceptable places to make political statements. This has been done for generations now, i.e. Rage Against the Machine.
And when we say “Death, death to the IDF”, we are accurately talking about the IDF like the monsters they are. For a scathing rebuke of respectability politics, I defer to this essay:
I am so fucking mad, sad, angry, and enraged at the actions of the elite and the hateful reality they’ve structured; that the only honest way to express my emotions is to wave a giant neon hatecock in the face of these hypocritical lying shitmongers. I don’t care if they hear me – they would never care, even if I was “respectable.” But they can’t fucking ignore me. They can’t fucking look away. They can only shake their head and claim, ever more shrilly as our world spirals deeper into shit, that “You’ll never convince a moderate with that language!” Fuck you. I don’t want to convince moderates. I want to fucking change shit. I want to inspire people, to get them angry. And if that offends you, if my anger, my emotions, my rage at getting fucked over, over and over and over again, bothers you? Take a step back, and think about what you truly value. Is it the messenger? Or the message?
Mass music festivals are perfectly acceptable places to make political statements.
I didn’t say anything about political statements, I mentioned violent statements. There is a big difference between wishing death on people and expressing your disapproval with them, and anyone who can’t express the latter without the former should, generally, expect to be censured (and censored). The angry person you quote doesn’t even express violence.
I didn’t say anything about political statements, I mentioned violent statements.
Politics is already violence. For example, even though no gunshots are going to be fired, millions of vulnerable US-Americans are about to lose their state medical insurance. What is this if not social murder?
Politics is systematic social violence, but it is structured in such a way that the systemic aspects are abstracted away from all individuals.
anyone who can’t express the latter without the former should, generally, expect to be censured (and censored).
I reject this notion. For example, I support stopping the IDF from committing the genocide of Palestine. Do I support stopping them peacefully? Of course it would be fantastic if we could peacefully get them to stop what they’re doing, but…this would have to happen immediately, since every moment of every day the IDF is continuously destroying Palestinians. Said differently: we could only afford to work at the pace of liberal democracy if that pace was immediate.
This should not be even remotely controversial!
Like be serious for a minute: would you have a problem if Jews living under Nazi regimes and their allies said “Death to the Wehrmacht”? Well with 80 years of hindsight of course you would now not have a problem with that. But since it’s happening now in Palestine and on a smaller scale than the Nazi Holocaust, you’re having problems with coarse violent opposition rhetoric because you haven’t successfully learned to apply the lessons of the Holocaust to current events!
The term “social murder” is co-opting violent language to describe things that are not violent. I’m sure you can understand the difference even if you do like to use the term. What you mean is that the consequences of politics can be extremely severe, but once you see that is not the same as violence the way we both understand the term literally, you see that “politics is violent” is not a useful reply.
What you seem to be trying to say is that, because political decisions can cause mass deaths, violent language is by default justified in political discourse. That’s dangerous and wrong, and leads to politicians getting killed. And it’s not going to be right-wing politicians who get killed the most, because right-wingers are more l ikely to carry out political violence, once it becomes normalised through violent political discourse.
But this was about Israel more than the USA.
There are significant relevant differences between Britain and Israel today compared to German Jews and Germany in the late 1930s. But the same calculations need to apply when you allow violence into your speech: is it going to increase the risk of violence against innocent people? Anti-semitic assaults in the UK rose by approximately 50% in the wake of October 7th. (I was not able to find comparable figures for Islamophobic assaults, unfortunately), so this is against a backdrop in which Jews are at an increased risk of violence. So although “death to the IDF” does not call for violence against Jews in general, as the Chief Rabbi wrongly claimed, it does increase that risk.
Coming from the other direction, shouting “death to the IDF” does not materially call for justified action in a way that “fuck the IDF” does not; they are both merely expressing directionless disapproval. They will be seen too as calls for the governments to stop funding Israel, providing it with weapons, and associating with a government actively and brazenly carrying out ethnic cleansing.
We can also see that things are different for the people directly affected by violence. If a Palestinian shouts “death to the IDF” I don’t see that as unacceptable violent speech; I see that as an inevitable response to the violence enacted upon them. But Bob Vylan is not a Palestinian being attacked by the IDF so we shouldn’t give him the same latitude.
Imagine the Pope, saying that calling for the death of paedophile priests was a call for the death of all Christians.
It’s pretty fucking gross that the media is making the folks literally shooting live ammo at refugees as the victim.
They do what their boss tells them to do, are fired, or they resign.
All the respected journalists already resigned.
“The boss” is a billionaire, because billionaires own all mass media. They dictate what you do and do not see, and what side is given more or less support.
It has been this way in the past, it got a little better, now it’s completely out of control. If you let billionaire nazis have full control of your press, you’re going to have a completely nazi press.
The pope would never call for the death of pedophiles.
„Death penalty for pedophiles“ is a common slogan used by neonazis.
Pedophiles need psychological treatment or prison if they are a danger.
It’s also a dogwhistle since Nazis call anyone they don’t like a pédophilie (while they themselves love diddling kids)
Yes, it’s usually followed up by death for LGBT.
I was about to build a whole hypothetical analogy out of Vatican City and the Piazza San Pietro, but I couldn’t be arsed.
So he is equating the IDF, a genocidal gorganization, priding itself in executing medics, sniping children and starving millions of people while baiting some of them with the promise of food into a kill zone, with Judaism and Jews in general.
That sounds like an extreme version of the blood libel to me.
Pretty sure it meets their strange definition of antisemitism.
Even the semites are antisemites.
People use religions to commit hate, murder, and genocide. Both islam and judiaism do this regularly. All other religions do as well.
Not all religious people are extremists, but they do support extremist hate religions.
“But I don’t support the hate parts of my religion that are clearly printed in my holy hate book”. Yeah, right. Fuck religions and those that support them.
What a load of bigoted bullshit.
There is about 2 billion Christians in the world and 1.8 billion Muslims. If they were to “support extremist hate” like you describe it, we would be at a global war that would dwarf any war before it.
Meanwhile people who are outspoken Anti-theists, often support the most vile supremacism, combining their belief of intellectual supremacism with beliefs of racial, cultural, ableist or other ideas of supremacism and subsequently justify bigoted violence including genocide. This also holds true for Zionism that for its longest time was a secular movement that faced heavy criticism by religious Jews and took a long time to create its warped understanding of Judaism in service of its imperialist ideology.
Of course it is convenient to blame imperialist violence on religion so as to distract from the imperialist and racist violence in your own ideology. This is also why some of the staunchest anti-theists are big supporters of US Fascism under Trump, willing to work together with the Evangelicals as the main goal is Fascism.
Anti-theists, often support the most vile supremacism
Wrong. Meanwhile “Yahweh was an ancient Semitic deity of weather and war”. The flaws we see in others are often the flaws we see in ourselves.
Okay Jesus Christ dude you didn’t have to just do the same fallacies in the other direction… What edgy atheist hurt you?
Unlike the comment i replied to, i do distinguish between the people who are aggressive about their anti-theism and atheists/anti-theists in general.
Blaming the violence that resulted from centuries of colonial oppression and the resistance against it on religion is a pretty tired trope that is intellectually lazy and deeply ingrained in overt and subtle beliefs of Supremacism in “Liberal” countries.
There is no doubt that the majority of Jews, Christians, Muslims and people of other faiths are just normal people, not holding more hate and not being more prone to violence than other communities. Calling them all " do support extremist hate religions" or referring to scriptures as “holy hate book” is lacking any differentiation.
Saying that critcism of Israel is antisemitic is echoing the view of bigots that antisemitism is a legitimate response to protest the actions of Israel. Nice to see that Israel and antisemitic bigots agree on something.
Unfortunately this type of logical fallacy is used across the political spectrum. It’s an easy defense that makes people feel justified without having to do any critical thinking.
You don’t like something about my beliefs? You’re a bigot.
Incitement to kill is not criticism.
Every “anti-semitic” and “islamophobia” is just stealth blasphemy laws trying to control what you can and can’t say about religion.
“You can’t talk bad about my religion or I’ll kill you” is the standard response of all religions. If they can’t kill you, they’ll use every means possible to silence you. Legal or not. It’s been going on for thousands of years amongst thousands of religions.
Fuck religions and those that support them.
That’s not the argument here, actual antisemitism (which this is not) is still unacceptable prejudice against a people and not “stealth blasphemy laws”, this has nothing to do with religion.
The UK needs a new chief rabbi. Justifying sucking Bibi’s cock with Zionism isn’t a legitimate religion.
I’d replace him with a rabbit.
The UK needs no chief rabbi. Why does the UK have a chief rabbi?
This is like having the President of a sports association or any other community tbh.
Most organized religions have a heirarchical structure based around regions. This is the norm.
Every cult needs a leader. Without a cult leader, people just make up their own religious bullshit. With a cult leader, the religious bullshit is still completely incoherent, but only coming from one source.
They should be held completely responsible for their religious lies.
Which religion? All of them. Fuck religions and those that support them.
All religions, or just officially recognized ones?
Because there’s plenty of modern religions out there that claim to be anti-religion. Groupthink hiding behind ideologies that are fine in and of themselves, but twisted to keep people in line.
The problem isn’t religion; it’s people.
The same reason it needs an Archbishop of Westminster, who is in charge of catholicism in england & wales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Nichols#Archbishop_of_Westminster
Don’t need that one either but it’s there.
No it wasn’t, fuck every zionist and every person who thinks what Israel is doing is ok. **** **** to the IDF!
Streisand Effect yet again. Never knew of Bob Vylan before. Funny that all the protestations to his very clear message have only spread it further. Truth will not be silent.
But they complained about liberal media…am I to believe it was all a lie‽
Death to the idf the occupying force who is comiting a genocide
Is Bob Vylan’s name intentionally based on Bob Dylan and meant to rhyme with it?
Not long ago people would chant for peace at Glastonbury. Now they demand more death, destruction, and war.
