Also, please note that while there were jews occupying the region since very ancient times, the creation of Israel AT THAT POINT IN TIME was practised with acts of dispossession to palestinians who HAD ALSO OCCUPIED THAT REGION for generations. And that the sionists occupying the region starting from the 19th centuries were not the same as jewisch communities living there for generations and were deeply informed by nationalist theories of the 19th century that hold a view of the relationship between land and people that was not necessarily the same of jews living in the region before sionism in the 19th century. And far from being a simple "safe haven" for jews after the holocaust, the politics of holocaust survivors going to Israel is way more complicated. Survivors could be treated with hostility by the communities who came in the wave of sionism. But it is way easier and more convenient to put all complexities under the "post colonialism" moniker.
Furthermore, there is a rich intellectual history of jews who criticized sionism and there are many jews of today that criticise the creation of Israel and/or the Israeli politics regarding Palestine and Palestinians and the current Israeli military actions. If you take the word of Jews as authoritative, I wonder why you solemnly choose to ignore them.
The evidence surrounding the october 2023 hospital explosion is highly inconclusive and does not point to a misguided Palestinian rocket as the "most likely cause". I also completely agree with some of the points made by "La Republique" in this comment section, regarding other people's perceived indifference and the double standards argument.
While I agree with its premise, this piece would have benefited from being a little more thought out.
not to mention that people who worry about freedom of thought and the truthfulness of information should be very wary that Israel severely restricts the possibilities for investigating and checking information. there is a blatant conflict of interest to any declaration of an organisation with that level of military power over that territory when it comes to beind made responsible for their actions.
I think the poor global coverage on conflicts and human rights violations taking place everywhere is sad, but is not at all because people are antisemitic. There are studies showing that coverage of global issues in the "west" has been dwindling for a while. There are many factors to that - the de-politicization of the global information sphere, the decadence of the business model of journalism, among others. They all sadden me profoundly. In the end, Israel is more not because people do not care about other injustices, but because the "West" has become more self centered on one hand, and on the other the "western" governments have chosen Israel as a more important topic than others - this is reflected in military budgets. It is not something that some bureaucratic poli sci person in the EU chose as important. This person is reacting. And if someone cares about the fate of jewish communities, they should be worried because the so-called western powers are doing it because they are willing to sell their self proclamed values for keeping an important ally, not because they are worried about antisemitism (which, of course, does not mean that the people involved do not also see it/frame it in terms of values, because humans rationalize their actions in those terms).
I am very left wing, granted. I had a, granted, also left-wing Israeli flatmate in Berlin. She says that she and her friends of course do not think Israelis should not be displaced from where they are. They have different different views on the idea of one Israeli state - rather than, say, one single state for Israelis and Palestinians. They absolutely think that anti-semitism (in the form of tropes, ideas) shows up pro-palestine activism, but they do not think it dominates it or is a core reason behind it. Seriously, people in the pro-palestine camp are mostly not dumb. That said, they do not have faith in Israel as it is. Most of her friends who were there are simply fleeing because they do not see how anything being done now can bring long-lasting peace. What this guy labels as "impossible standards", they see as not only making things right but as the admittedly hard way to set foundations for a more humane future, more sustainable relations between both peoples, and long-lasting peace. They do not see a political horizon in Israel for this conversation of for things getting better for everyone. What is "post-colonial" about this? Nothing. The only explanation to label this as post-colonial is the refusal to take this position seriously.
"For me, the line is crossed when somebody obsesses over Israel/Palestine to the exclusion of all other conflicts" wouldn't this apply to you, however? would you comment on other people's indifference if it did not conflict with your own views in question? while all those conflicts are worthy of our attention, it is puzzling to me that some seem to only think of them when they are an opportunity to downplay criticism against other specific actors. also, RE charge of "holding Israelis to impossible standards": first, assessing the actions of IDF or the Israeli government is not quite the same as assessing the behavior of "Israelis" at large. second, would you say this about other actors in other conflicts? Would you interpret criticism at other armies as "holding them to impossible standards while downplaying attacks on them"? Rwandan aggression in neighboring countries is informed and justified publicly by the trauma of the genocide and the stated need to protect groups from minorities that were slaughtered in the genocide. Would you say the same about the Rwandan armed forces, as well as the other armed groups backed by them? If you cannot rule on this comparison for lack of information about Rwanda I am sorry, but it feels like you pay attention to Israel to the exclusion of all other conflicts. Furthermore, you hold other people and their choice of attention to impossible standards. On top of that, you downplay aggression when committed by Israel in a way you would not downplay if it was committed by other actions.
The IDF lying blatantly is extensively recorded in reports of serious human rights organisations that are far from being left wing (if you think Human Rights Watch or the Amnesty International work under "left-wing" frameworks, please go study political theory). And she did not say that jews control international organisations, you interpreted that - she said that Israel is able to evade even investigations of responsibility for crimes, which is absolutely true. This has been less true in the past, it is more true now. More than that, the international right backing Israel now because it is more convenient to them for a number of reasons regularly uses antisemitic tropes and can be overtly antisemitic. How much time do you dedicate to criticize them - or is antisemitism only useful if you want to downplay IDF actions?
Also, please note that while there were jews occupying the region since very ancient times, the creation of Israel AT THAT POINT IN TIME was practised with acts of dispossession to palestinians who HAD ALSO OCCUPIED THAT REGION for generations. And that the sionists occupying the region starting from the 19th centuries were not the same as jewisch communities living there for generations and were deeply informed by nationalist theories of the 19th century that hold a view of the relationship between land and people that was not necessarily the same of jews living in the region before sionism in the 19th century. And far from being a simple "safe haven" for jews after the holocaust, the politics of holocaust survivors going to Israel is way more complicated. Survivors could be treated with hostility by the communities who came in the wave of sionism. But it is way easier and more convenient to put all complexities under the "post colonialism" moniker.
Furthermore, there is a rich intellectual history of jews who criticized sionism and there are many jews of today that criticise the creation of Israel and/or the Israeli politics regarding Palestine and Palestinians and the current Israeli military actions. If you take the word of Jews as authoritative, I wonder why you solemnly choose to ignore them.
The evidence surrounding the october 2023 hospital explosion is highly inconclusive and does not point to a misguided Palestinian rocket as the "most likely cause". I also completely agree with some of the points made by "La Republique" in this comment section, regarding other people's perceived indifference and the double standards argument.
While I agree with its premise, this piece would have benefited from being a little more thought out.
not to mention that people who worry about freedom of thought and the truthfulness of information should be very wary that Israel severely restricts the possibilities for investigating and checking information. there is a blatant conflict of interest to any declaration of an organisation with that level of military power over that territory when it comes to beind made responsible for their actions.
I think the poor global coverage on conflicts and human rights violations taking place everywhere is sad, but is not at all because people are antisemitic. There are studies showing that coverage of global issues in the "west" has been dwindling for a while. There are many factors to that - the de-politicization of the global information sphere, the decadence of the business model of journalism, among others. They all sadden me profoundly. In the end, Israel is more not because people do not care about other injustices, but because the "West" has become more self centered on one hand, and on the other the "western" governments have chosen Israel as a more important topic than others - this is reflected in military budgets. It is not something that some bureaucratic poli sci person in the EU chose as important. This person is reacting. And if someone cares about the fate of jewish communities, they should be worried because the so-called western powers are doing it because they are willing to sell their self proclamed values for keeping an important ally, not because they are worried about antisemitism (which, of course, does not mean that the people involved do not also see it/frame it in terms of values, because humans rationalize their actions in those terms).
I am very left wing, granted. I had a, granted, also left-wing Israeli flatmate in Berlin. She says that she and her friends of course do not think Israelis should not be displaced from where they are. They have different different views on the idea of one Israeli state - rather than, say, one single state for Israelis and Palestinians. They absolutely think that anti-semitism (in the form of tropes, ideas) shows up pro-palestine activism, but they do not think it dominates it or is a core reason behind it. Seriously, people in the pro-palestine camp are mostly not dumb. That said, they do not have faith in Israel as it is. Most of her friends who were there are simply fleeing because they do not see how anything being done now can bring long-lasting peace. What this guy labels as "impossible standards", they see as not only making things right but as the admittedly hard way to set foundations for a more humane future, more sustainable relations between both peoples, and long-lasting peace. They do not see a political horizon in Israel for this conversation of for things getting better for everyone. What is "post-colonial" about this? Nothing. The only explanation to label this as post-colonial is the refusal to take this position seriously.
"For me, the line is crossed when somebody obsesses over Israel/Palestine to the exclusion of all other conflicts" wouldn't this apply to you, however? would you comment on other people's indifference if it did not conflict with your own views in question? while all those conflicts are worthy of our attention, it is puzzling to me that some seem to only think of them when they are an opportunity to downplay criticism against other specific actors. also, RE charge of "holding Israelis to impossible standards": first, assessing the actions of IDF or the Israeli government is not quite the same as assessing the behavior of "Israelis" at large. second, would you say this about other actors in other conflicts? Would you interpret criticism at other armies as "holding them to impossible standards while downplaying attacks on them"? Rwandan aggression in neighboring countries is informed and justified publicly by the trauma of the genocide and the stated need to protect groups from minorities that were slaughtered in the genocide. Would you say the same about the Rwandan armed forces, as well as the other armed groups backed by them? If you cannot rule on this comparison for lack of information about Rwanda I am sorry, but it feels like you pay attention to Israel to the exclusion of all other conflicts. Furthermore, you hold other people and their choice of attention to impossible standards. On top of that, you downplay aggression when committed by Israel in a way you would not downplay if it was committed by other actions.
The IDF lying blatantly is extensively recorded in reports of serious human rights organisations that are far from being left wing (if you think Human Rights Watch or the Amnesty International work under "left-wing" frameworks, please go study political theory). And she did not say that jews control international organisations, you interpreted that - she said that Israel is able to evade even investigations of responsibility for crimes, which is absolutely true. This has been less true in the past, it is more true now. More than that, the international right backing Israel now because it is more convenient to them for a number of reasons regularly uses antisemitic tropes and can be overtly antisemitic. How much time do you dedicate to criticize them - or is antisemitism only useful if you want to downplay IDF actions?
Perfectly put. It "should" be obvious, but it's eloquently spelled out in your column for all to see.