From a hotel in Kyoto to a sandwich joint in Edinburgh, the world is becoming hostile toward Israelis who are learning that a vacation won’t shield them from the Gaza war.
During the nine months of war the Israeli tourist experience abroad has been marked by fears of antisemitism and efforts to avoid pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
According to reports by Israeli media and posts online, some of those worries have recently turned real for a number of Israeli tourists.Anecdotal incidents at touristic locations around the world are making it clear that even though there is no official policy of excluding Israelis, that is sometimes the situation on the ground.
An especially bumpy week began on June 17 at the Material Hotel in Kyoto, Japan, when an Israeli named Alex was informed that his reservation had been canceled due to the allegations of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. The Material told Alex that it was “not able to accept reservations from persons we believe might have ties to the Israeli army,” as reported by Israeli website Ynet.
The story made the rounds on social media, produced a stern protest letter from Israel’s ambassador in Tokyo, and led to a rebuke by the Kyoto municipality that the hotel had breached Japanese business law and must ensure that such a transgression won’t happen again.
Jews around the word are less safe because of Israel when they were promised the opposite. Their faith has been used as a cover for a land grab and they put your holy symbol on a flag they go to war, and worse, under. It’s no wonder so many Jews at least in the US are critical of Israel. It probably feels a lot like being a regular Muslim watching groups commit violence with their religious iconography and warped interpretations used to create ‘justification’.
Anecdotally, I’ve never met any Jewish people in the US who didn’t have strongly negative opinions of the government/state of Israel.
Some people aren’t okay with their holy texts being warped into a cudgel and used to beat down the innocent.
It depends on your particular social circle but 80-85% of Jews are supportive of Israel. Most oppose Netanyahu.
I think there’s a lot of nuance here, because “supporting Israel” can mean a lot of different things. Generally agreeing with the idea of being allies with a primarily Jewish state and wanting a good well-being for them is very different from endorsing Israel’s genocide against Gaza, but both could be considered as “supporting Israel”.
Some people aren’t okay with their holy texts being warped into a cudgel and used to beat down the innocent.
Damn, if that isn’t a spot-on description of how I feel about my faith right now.
My parents don’t understand why I stopped going to church, amd when I try to explain why, they say that they’re different when they’re really not.
There’s a very logical filter at play here: if you didn’t think seeking beef with Arabs and participating in a colonialist project in the 50s/60s/70s was a good idea, you would have stayed in the US, and otherwise, you would have moved to Israel. This made it so that Jews in the US lean liberal and Jews in Israel lean ethno-nationalistic, in very broad terms.
Plenty of Jews in the West are from ex-USSR though.
Yeah, I mentioned it as a factor, not as an all-determining fact that explains the whole of Israeli demographics.
I notice similar things as well, in that my personal expirences with them, comapred to average US population, US Jews seem to be far more informed on whats happening and far more likely to have at least harsh critisizm for Isreal. Part of why I really hate people conflating the two in order to spread hate.
Not to rain on your experience, but aren’t a lot of Zionists in the illegal land settlements also Americans, and aren’t a lot of the Jewish people participating in “birthright trips” also American?
US Jewish populations are actually really polarized on this topic, they aren’t a monolith. There is definitely more of an age/generational divide regarding Zionism in Jewish communities than a nationality split.
I am very much in contact with the younger, far more left leaning crowd, so my experience is definitely skewed against basically anything modern Israel has done.
I do know a couple loud mouthed older generational Jewish folk who would like nothing more than for Israel to be the dominant power on the planet, and will have no issue telling you that you deserve torture and torment for literally infinite time (hell) for even vocally supporting Palestinians.
That’s why I compare against the average American.
There’s a lot of people in this world who get what they want when other people can’t separate the two in their minds.
A lot like being German in 1949.
The Star of David is not a Jewish holy symbol, having that would be sacrilege anyway, similar to idolatry. It’s not even the Star of David, to be honest.
At some point Jewish secularists in Europe wanted some symbol for the Jewish identity. They picked one very commonly used in the Middle East, by all peoples and religions.
By the way, crescent is not a Muslim holy symbol, too, and with the same implication of idolatry. Though they have in practice accepted it, just like Jews. It’s the symbol of Constantinople, which Ottomans used in line with their pretense to be heirs of Rome (I mean, if Germans can do that, why not them).
Many of the Jews around the world have a very idealized idea of Israel and simply can’t believe it’s bad. See, when you are a member of a demonized (even today) minority, but somewhere is a strong and successful state of your nation that has restored its presence in its cradle 2000 years after being partially wiped out, partially expelled from there, you tend to be irrational.
Also separation of religion and nation is a Western thing, Jewish religion is about a nation, and, by the way, Muslim religion too states that all Muslims are one nation.
EDIT: OK, why the downvotes here? Everything here is factual. And if that’s the paragraph about 2000 years triggering people - that’s a right, yes. The state of Israel sucks, but not the general idea. Same as Sebastia, Malatia, Sis, Sasun, Mush, Van are Armenian till the end of days in my book.
At least the Germans had the Holy Roman Empire. The Ottomans knocked over the Byzantines who actually were the old Eastern Roman Empire. The Ottomans had about as much claim to one of the crowns of Rome as the Netherlands has to the HRE crown.
They took over the Roman Empire. They had a pretty good claim.
Nah it but the time they knocked off Constantinople the Roman Empire was gone. Heck even the later Byzantines got side eye for claiming it.
No, they didn’t get any side eyes. Only maybe from western Europeans who considered themselves that. Even calling them Byzantines is anachronistic, they were called Romans.
Greeks literally mainly called themselves Romans since then till Kingdom of Greece became a thing, and they kinda still do.
Interesting. I never knew that. I still don’t think the Ottomans get to be the Romans any more than modern Italy or Germany but I’ll concede they conquered people who considered themselves Roman still.
Being Armenian, I don’t think they in any way get to be Roman, even less than Russians, but it’s a fact that they called themselves that officially.
Italy speaks Romance languages, except for the parts of its population which speak Greek and Albanian, so of course. And both Italy and Germany are (historically during formation of those nations) Christian.
“warped interpretations”
It’s like how Christians justify raping kids. The select few Christians who “follow Christ” inherit a bad reputation
Sounds like you’re condoning this behaviour.
Edit: good old Lemmy, where saying it’s bad to hate on people just because of where they’re born will get you downvoted to oblivion. You all need to step back and re-examine your views.
It doesn’t say they’re excluding all Jewish people, it says they’re excluding Israelis. You know, people from the country where they all serve in the military, except the most extreme religious extremists (for now anyway), the country actively violating international law in the West Bank and actively committing genocide.
There are plenty of non-Israeli Jewish people. Non-Zionist Jews are lovely people and should not be excluded.
This is the same as refusing to do business with apartheid South Africans.
This is the same as refusing to do business with apartheid South Africans.
Reminds me of some of the tourism sanctions on Russians as well. I don’t like when the net’s cast too wide, I know for a fact there are Israeli and Russian peoples who would stop these conflicts if they could and it sucks they’re caught up in this, but I can understand the premise of barring by nationality. I just also know in the case of Israel, it’s likely going to be taken to far or used as a point to embolden bigots who may try to use this to cover their beliefs about all Jews and make them appear easier for normal folk to tolerate. Really a double edge sword because I do think Israel needs a dose of responsibility, hell if the world had the balls American could use one too.
Of course it hurts the average person similar to the way sanctions against a country hurt the average person. One of the goals is to get the average person upset against their government.
A tourism issue like that is a pretty small annoyance in the grand scheme of things, but it’s one that sends a pretty clear message that’s hard for the individual to ignore.
One of the goals is to get the average person upset against their government.
Not very effective against dictatorships governments, the average person already lost their privilege to “be upset”.
Yup, as an American I will be voting for Biden this year and hoping for the best, but I won’t be surprised if my passport no longer has any staying power if Trump dismantles our democracy, and I won’t blame the countries that deny tourism from the US knowing what half the population will be like at that point
This is some random dude, not Benjamin Netanyahu. Would you support that hotel banning all Palestinians because they are governed by an internationally-recognized terrorist organisation?
Would you support that hotel banning all Palestinians because they are governed by an internationally-recognized terrorist organisation?
When’s the last time Palestinians got to vote for who they are governed by?
Not sure you’re seriously asking but the answer is 2006. Add to that the fact that the median age in Gaza is 18 years and it’s clear that Hamas doesn’t have a legitimate governance mandate. They’re a mob outfit.
Good point. We’d need a whole other thread to hash out the legitimacy of Hamas’ rule. Palestinians right now are a bit like Italians circa 1942.
And Israel is Germany circa 1939.
Because every Israeli voted for the government they now have? It’s stupid to exclude a whole nationality of people from traveling because of their government.
Because every Israeli voted for the government they now have?
Innocent people are being murdered by a government. Telling people represented by that government that they are not welcome is perfectly acceptable. It is in their hands to change their government more than it is mine.
That’s bullshit. The USA kills innocent people, but I wouldn’t ever say all Americans are not welcome. I wouldn’t even say all Russians aren’t welcome. Many people oppose their government and yet can’t do anything about what it does.
Sounds like this is someone with significant ties to the IDF. Although since they force everyone except religious extremists to serve, maybe that doesn’t mean much.
If they’re able to conclusively prove that, then sure, I’m on board with the ban. I would question how some hotel clerk in Japan was able to make that determination, though. It could easily be a case of “most Israelis serve in the IDF and you are Israeli therefore GTFO”
Yeah agreed
Sounds like you didn’t comprehend their comment.
YES.
Denizens of an apartheid regime, beneficiaries of a genocide do not get to enjoy tourism abroad. Is that unequivocal enough for you?
Yes, thank you for being forthright about your views, unlike most others here who are tiptoeing around it.
Does that include Chinese tourists? What about Palestinian Israelis?
Punishing unknown people for the actions of their government?
As a US citizen, this is concerning.My government has done all kinds of shit I have no control over, and don’t condone.
Should I be held responsible for any of it?Punishing unknown people for the actions of their government?
Yes, I agree, killing innocent people because of the country they are in is terrible.
So terrible that the act of limiting the leisure options of the people who support those actions becomes morally acceptable, because shaming bad behaviour is actually a good thing to do.limiting the leisure options of the people who support those actions becomes morally acceptable
I would agree.
But not every resident of a nation supports the actions of their government.The issue is the death of innocent people. Inconveniencing people such that they become motivated to stop their government from doing that seems acceptable, to me.
Maybe America would stop being such a shit show if other countries actually stoped cowtowing to American demands and forced is to behave properly.
Sure. But that’s a different issue. That doesn’t require punishing some random citizen; One who has nothing to do with, and no control over what the US, or Israel governments do.
You don’t have a right to travel abroad. Am i being punished for not being allowed to fly to Russia, Iran or North Korea? I’m not Muslim nor do i work in ONG, so am i being punished for not being able to travel to Saudi Arabia? What about Cuba? South Africans had serious visa restrictions during Apartheid, which was absolutely justified when they were an openly racist regime.
Denial of hospitality is not the same as a punishment. Speak to US soldiers stationed on Okinawa and you’ll hear similar sentiments from the locals towards them
Saying “I don’t want to offer room and board to a IDF soldier who may have been in Gaza” isn’t a big leap for Japanese society, they’ve apologized for and reckoned with their imperialist past and brutal ethnic cleansing, and generally as a nation actively pushed for peace and cooperation globally. Israel hasn’t done the same, and doesn’t work towards the same goal.
I don’t want to be held responsible for the appalling actions of my government, but as a voter I understand why people in other countries would. I have more control over it than they do, so them influencing me influences my government.
Certainly something to think about isn’t it?
That doesn’t answer the question. Is it okay to punish people for something they have no control over?
Im not the one who made the claim, but punishing people over things they have no control over are exactly what sanctions are. Its commonplace and often done simply to protect national interests against foreign ones, no matter who’s right or wrong.
That is true…
Well, like you said USA has punished and still to this day punishes many peoples of the World far far far FAR more severely than forbidding them to go on vacation for doing far less or even nothing at all. All I’m saying is as an American it would be a nice thought experiment for you to consider why you are or should be an exception.
Well the people who don’t agree with their government and the consequences of its decisions should get out and vote instead of letting right wing extremists get their guy in power.
I regret to inform you that according to Lemmy you are personally responsible for the actions of every other American, and are by extension a terrible human being who should never be allowed past the borders of your country.
We are all at least a bit responsible for what our governments do in our names.
Nice awardspeechedit
You aren’t being down voted for saying it’s bad to hate on people because they’re Jewish or Israeli.
You’re being down voted for espousing a false dichotomy, on par with “if you aren’t with us you’re against us”
You’re being down voted for espousing a false dichotomy, on par with “if you aren’t with us you’re against us”
That’s the boldest doublespeak I’ve seen in a long time. I’m not the one supporting a blanket ban of all citizens of an entire country. It doesn’t get much more “with us or against us” than that.
Correct. Citizens of a government that is conducting a genocide ahould not be welcome in other countries.
Only in cases of genocide?
You can’t read. Those are facts and written in a passive voice. Condoning the behavior reads something like: “The state of Israel has sown seeds of ill will nurtured by lies and here comes harvest time” or “Yeah fuckers, get dunked on world stage” or something similar and in-between.
How on earth is that passive voice? Their whole reply is devoted to criticising Israel, and not a single word to the effect of “it isn’t OK to treat people badly because of where they are from”. This sounds an awful lot like victim-blaming to me.
Edit: let’s try a little experiment. Imagine me replying this to an article about a Palestinian being banned from a hotel simply for being Palestinian.
Palestinians around the word are less safe because of Hamas when they were promised the opposite. Their faith has been used as a cover for terrorism and they put your holy symbol on a flag they go to war, and worse, under. It’s no wonder so many Muslims in the middle east are critical of Palestinians. It probably feels a lot like being a regular Christian watching Republicans commit violence with their religious iconography and warped interpretations used to create ‘justification’.
Palestine is not committing a genocide.
This is a really weird way of saying “it isn’t OK to ban a random Israeli from your hotel just because they are Israeli”.
Well yeah. Because Israel is committing genocide.
Incredible bigotry and hypocrisy on display here. You know nothing about this “Alex” fellow. Maybe he’s been out in the streets protesting against Likud and calling for an end to the war.
Sounds like you’re butthurt about it.
OP on the other hand sounds like they were explaining what was happening, simple as that.
Found the person that wouldn’t participate in sanctioning apartheid south Africa.
I 100% support sanctions against governments and specific individuals.
That’s not what the article is about though.
It honestly feels like we somehow have to take back the (very loaded) word “antisemitism”, as Israel and its supporters seem intent on making it mean “anything the Israeli government disagrees with”.
I’m not an antisemite, and have no hate whatsoever for anyone because of theirs religious beliefs or where they come from. My views are antizionist and antigenocide. Which are strictly political views, not tied to any specific demographic of people.
This has been going on for years though. In the same way that it is not islamophobic to criticize somebody who happens to be Muslim. It is not anti-semitic to criticize somebody who is Jewish. But you try explaining that to Jewish person and you get pushback as if somehow criticizing the military and their government, is the same as criticizing them even though I never even mentioned them.
According to my parents this argument has been going on since the '60s so I don’t think it’s going to get resolved anytime soon.
Definitely a good point, but not very relevant as the article doesn’t really touch on antisemitism, but more on blanket rejection of Israeli citizens with no regard for what their opinion may be
That’s because Israel got what they wished for when they adopted Herzl’s idea.
Herzl said that Jews will never be accepted as truly American or truly French etc. so they need their own country and form their own distinct nation. Well they got it and found out that form of nationalism is outdated and exposes them to these accusations. Israel claims to speak for all Jews, and thus people draw the false conclusion that Jews worldwide collectively support all Israeli policies even the rightwing and criminal ones. The existence of Israel only worsened the accusations that Jews are a fifth column or secretly more loyal to Israel over their own countries.
It’s actually kinda sad because diaspora Jews are more likely to oppose Netanyahu, and this discrimination is being wielded by Netanyahu to claim they won’t be safe anywhere unless they immigrate to Israel.
Zionism is the belief the Jewish people deserve a place to call their own, similar to the belief the Italian people deserve a place to call their own. Antizionism is the belief the Jewish people don’t deserve a place to call their own.
Had someone came up and said the Italian people don’t deserve a place to call their own, would you not call them racist towards Italians?
Why not the same here?
You can be against the actions of the Israeli government (I definitely am), but saying it shouldn’t exist is a whole other ballpark.
It shouldn’t exist. They had a chance but they fucked around. There’s plenty of nationalities that don’t have sovereign countries. Anthropologists point to roughly 11 nations in the US alone. No government elevating one nation above others should be allowed to continue to exist. Especially where they commit human rights abuses to do so. In fact it’s generally the idea of a single nation country that begets these abuses.
So no. They don’t get a land specifically and only for Jews. They aren’t special.
To further drive the point home, you bring up Italy, but Italy was only recently unified in European history. If you want a Jewish version of Italy then you want a single state solution with equal rights and representation for Palestinians.
Exactly: I am antizionist because Jews getting a place of their own implicitly means that some other group, which currently has that place, must be displaced.
Saying that Jews should have a place of their own is not comparable to saying that Italians should have a place of their own, because being Italian is tied to having hereditary ties to the place that is Italy, whereas being a Jew has no tie to a specific piece of land. It is rather comparable to saying that Christians, Muslims, the Amish, or some other group of people that are dispersed and unified by beliefs not tied to a place should have their own place, and that if such a place does not exist it is legitimate to displace others to establish it.
I firmly believe that Israel should never have been created. As do many Jews (often ultra orthodox ones). However, I recognise the reality on the ground, that the state now exists and that many of those that moved there have now lived there for up to several generations. I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, and as such, I’m not a proponent of dissolving the state of Israel and displacing the Jews that now live there to make room for those displaced following 1948. However, I do believe that the displaced Palestinians should be allowed to return and have equal rights within the now existing state of Israel.
You mix up the religion Judaism with the ethnicity and culture. The jewish cultural and ethnic group is amongst the least religious peoples in the world, as many as 75% according to a study a few years back being atheist or agnostic (myself included).
The various jewish ethnic groups do have genetic ties to a geographic area and have diseases almost entirely unique to that ancestry.
That does however beg the question of whether ancestry is any sort of motivation to lay claim to an area of land in the first place. A question that can be endlessly debated and if accepted at face value opens up endless cans of worms. (How far back? Forever? Can it be lost? What if multiple peoples have claim to an area? etc. etc.)
No I didn’t mix it up, I included the Amish, could have included Romani, and specified that I was talking about geographically dispersed ethnicities in general.
Yes, some Jewish people have ties to what is Israel today, and no it really doesn’t open a can of worms. I was very clear that displacing any group of people is wrong: Hence, the state of Israel should never have been created, but now that it exists, we need to figure out a solution that doesn’t involve displacing any more people.
To answer the “how far back” etc: Quite simply put, everyone today (sans a couple hundred thousand stateless Palestinian refugees, and a few others) have some citizenship and live on some land. Nobody has the right to displace others to claim that they have “more” of a right to that land. Thus: If you have ties to some land, and someone else lives there, you’re shit outta luck unless they want to negotiate with you. If, like the Kurds, your living in the place you have ties to, but don’t have your own state, you have a decent case.
It really isn’t that complicated: Don’t displace/murder people. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Fair, I was confused by your parallell between religious groups (christianity, islam) vs ethnicities (amish or ethnic jews). Now that you clarified, your argument makes more sense to me.
I agree with you - nobody should be displaced from their homes, even in the face of somebody elses “home claim”, since this would eternally perpetuate the same problem.
There is some food for thought that follows from this reasoning also. The foundation/creation/growth of almost every nation/state (I’m sure there is some unique obscure one somewhere who can claim to be the first humans to settle their land) has involved displacing people, and almost every settled people has done so by displacing those who came before. Does this not mean almost every other past creation/perpetuation/growth of a state/nation/settled people was wrong? (Even the kurdish people settled their current territories by force, just a long, long time ago)
It’s true that a lot of peoples (maybe most?) today live in a place which they took by force from someone else, though you don’t have to look far to find areas that are still inhabited by the first people that arrived there. Still, for a fair comparison you need to separate between those that took areas by force either from necessity (e.g. they were displaced themselves) or otherwise before any kind of international regulation existed.
You cannot compare a tribe or small kingdom taking land by force 2000 years ago to a modern state annexing land, just like you cannot compare the sacking of a city 1000 years ago to a modern genocide. The world has changed.
They deserve a place, they don’t deserve to steal someone else’s place.
The Italians already had Italy.
In this case, a proper analogy would be if furries demanded a place to call their own.
Would you just give it to them?
Or in a less ludicrous example, Romani people. It would still be met with relentless opposition from whoever you were trying to take the land from.
Not really, the Romani people are a temporary thing
Lmao and here bro shows his cards
What? Travellers rock up, stay for a while then move on.
The analogy doesn’t work the same as a group of people who claim an entire country and stay there permanently
Travellers?.. Are you American?
Italy is a worse example than that even. It wasn’t unified until 1861 and even then it was a country of two peoples. The North ruled at the expense of the South. (Yes I know there appear to be parallels to another, larger country with an 1861 event. But they are only skin deep.) And after World War 2 the country took care to be a democracy that represented the north and south.
They use Italy as an example like it was always around and unified. But it really wasn’t.
Don’t furries have IT offices to call their own? Furlandia!
Here in America a lot of whites want “white people to have a place to call their own”.
There’s a few points of critique.
Religion is not the same as nationality, there isn’t a country that is dedicated to Christianity for example. (well, you have the Vatican but you get what I mean, it’s not a nation) It’s a different thing, so you can’t argue that Jews have no home since they too have a nationality from the country they were born in, like everyone does regardless of religion. I’m not arguing against Isreal existing to be clear, just that having a country for a religion isn’t some given right that only Jews don’t have. They mgiht be the only ones to have it depending on how interpret it.
There’s interpretations of zionism. At its core it’s the belief that the religion should also be a nation. But different sides form around the “how” part. While having a country to live in isn’t bad itself, if zionism means driving out others or straight up genocide of others, then it’s fair to bluntly oppose it.
Isreal exists now, but the continued killing and takeover of Palestine is horrible. And these days many bind zionism to the acts and opinions that flourish in Isreal that portray Palestinians as some evil that should be removed. It think opposing an nationalistic view like Zionism is a reasonable action when the country is engaging in invasion.
A point of critique to your critique. There are ethnic jews, cultural jews and religious jews. Most ethnic/cultural jews are not religious jews. See more in my other comment
Just because someone is born in a country doesn’t automatically make them “of that nation” identity-wise first and foremost. Take the romani peoples as another example, they often identify first and foremost as romani, rather than by the country of their birth.
That’s a good clarification, but I do not feel it changes much. A non-Isreal nationality now is still a thing they possess. No one chooses where they are born either way. Their ethnic identity is still there, but I do not think it gives them ground for land after they were dispersed originally. But regardless of that, they got Israel. It’s there now, and removing it also not an option.
It’s rather ironic, Jews are now killing off another ethnicity from the very same lands they themselves were driven out of. Sounds like a revenge story, but it’s just a cruel inversion of the same antisemitism that Jews have suffered at least twice now with their initial dispersion and during the second World War.
In your opinion am I a Zionist?
I believe Israel should be forced back to 1947 borders and there should be thousands of deportations to The Hague for war crime trials. I’d also like part of Jerusalem to be removed from both Israel and Palestine and turned into a world heritage site administered by UNESCO.
I am anti colonization and don’t think they should have created Israel as a nation state displacing an existing community but that horse has bolted.
was “not able to accept reservations from persons we believe might have ties to the Israeli army,”
Doesn’t Israel have mandatory service of 1-2 years for young adults? This means every citizen has ‘ties’ to their army. I wonder whether the news is avoiding that fact since it changes a few narratives, if so.
It makes things very complicated.
Recently Israel bombed a medic and claimed he was a combatant. They had a picture of someone that looked like the man sitting in a military uniform in 2019. However that person was not an active combatant at all.
Their only intelligence to designate him as Hamas was a deep learning match on the picture and the man’s face.
Assuming it was realy the medic in the picture, If any person that was ever affiliated with Hamas is a valid target the same would count for the IDF.
Meaning all Israeli civilians that ever served in the IDF suddenly count as military targets.
If you do what “they” do as a way to retaliate, are you any different from “them”? We need to be better than that.
There’s a difference between bombing somebody and not serving somebody
I’m responding to
Meaning all Israeli civilians that ever served in the IDF suddenly count as military targets.
Yes. Pretty much every Israeli citizen will have “ties to the Israeli army”.
mandatory service
It’s in the name, what are you going to do?
But generally, people who don’t want to can avoid going to combat roles.
1–2 years
They are increasing it to 3 years for men. Read up on the situation to get a taste of sweet Israeli domestic politics
Cut it out with this antisemitism bullshit. Nobody cares that you’re Jewish. People care about genocide no matter what invisible sky being you prefer.
So banning innocent people who might even agree with them is totally fair? Just because they’re from Israel or because of their religion?
They are banned for possible connections to a country and an organization (IDF) that have been confirmed to perform war crimes.
If you willfully target children no matter your skin colour, creed, religion or whatever arbitrary set of parameters you are a criminal.
Israelis are now discovering the price of being associated with war criminals.
Sorry but that’s a load of BS. I guess Americans should be banned everywhere because we are possibly connected to our country whose government has funded a shit ton of war operations? By that logic, almost nobody would be welcome in anybody else’s country.
A lot of Israelis are forced to fight in the IDF. They have mandatory service. A large amount, if not a majority, of Israelis have participated in the occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.
This word, forced, means that as individuals they didn’t have a choice. Why punish them rather than the ones giving the orders?
You could claim that they should refuse the orders, and this the responsibility is theirs, but in a country with mandatory service this does not usually play out well for you.
So you penalize people who are “forced” to do something that they may not want to?
That’s not what they said
Sounds a lot like what Americans faced when Bush attacked Iraq. And just as justified (ie not unjustified, but perhaps taken to extremes).
Israelis: Your government has made your nation a pariah. You are the people best positioned to change that. Get those motherfuckers out of office.
Israelis: Your government has made your nation a pariah. You are the people best positioned to change that. Get those motherfuckers out of office.
They’re trying… but for some inside perspective: the atmosphere feels somewhat oppressive. All mainstream media (except for this same Haaretz newspaper) get their info directly from the IDF, not considering other sources. And the right’s decades-long campaign to convince the majority of the populace that peace is impossible seems to be working (it’s a really complicated situation, made worse by people who actively want to make it worse). Compound that with the police becoming increasingly politicized (not that they weren’t discriminatory at all before), and you get a recipe for just a mess. You would just as well be asking why Russians haven’t got rid of Putin, Hungarians of Orbán, etc.
And despite that, there are protests. There are demonstrations. But dear Netanyahu doesn’t want to call an election. One can only hope that his coalition collapses over internal issues (look up: conscription of ultra-orthodox Jews, a hostages-for-ceasefire deal), though that is unlikely.And this is even more horrible when you consider that Netanyahu’s policy of strengthening Hamas and weakening the PA/PLO, in order to lessen the chance of peace and, in his view, better Israel’s security, has led to the country actually losing territory for the first time in decades! Israelis would literally be safer if the Oslo accords had continued, to actual peace. But good luck convincing them (even those who oppose the current government) of that after years of right-wing government which made it seem impossible.
I want to stress that I don’t think your average Israeli citizen is an evil person. Not even your average IDF soldier (except those that actually call the shots). They believe that what they’re doing is necessary, because of (justified) anger at the 7th of October events, as well as the incredible success of the right in general to move the political climate in its direction. Might this be stupid? It might, but there are consequences for falling out of line (especially in the army, as you might imagine). That hasn’t stopped some admittedly brave people from doing it.
We’ve already seen that Netanyahu doesn’t care about protests; those are perpetual in Israel. He will only resign if he is absolutely convinced that it is better for his personal well-being to do that (currently, he doesn’t. He’s on trial for corruption).
The people themselves migrated there and are direct actors inthe ethnic cleansing
That is simply incorrect. Most Israeli citizens were born in Israel
That is also true but look up “Aliya”.
At least in the UK a lot of this was irritation that, yet again, our country was being drawn into a war that had nothing to do with us. It wasn’t aimed at individuals (although certain people decided to take it like that), it was the American government that we were annoyed with.
Everyone knows being rude to Americans is bad for mental health, because they’re the only group that will complain about it. For ages.
Why though? We’re nice people we swear! Everyone says we’re the nicest. Nice people just can’t get ahead in this world without people being rude to them.
(luckily I have ADHD, so ages ends…now.)
Many of them want to vote these bastards out, but they didn’t succeed so fuck em all? Pretty intense absolutism ya got there.
nondescripthandle made an excellent comment along these same lines: https://alexandrite.app/lemmy.world/comment/11202637
You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said fuck 'em. I said keep fighting.
Not a shock. The war has changed a lot.
Waffen-IDF and acolytes will not be granted room and board haha
Chad Japan hotel!
deleted by creator
Knowing Japan, it probably is in there somewhere.
You can’t not serve someone because of their country - the hotel doesn’t know whether this man is a soldier or not, just that he’s Israeli.
deleted by creator
- He could be an Arab Israeli
- He could be ultra-orthodox
- He could have had a medical exemption
- He could have received Israeli citizenship later in his adult years after conscription.
- He may have served but in a role that isn’t committing human rights abuses (say working on missle defense)
- He may have served but his political views have since developed and he’s now pro-peace / anti-apartheid.
To generalize and assume that nearly all Israeli men are war criminals is to generalize on the basis of national origin which in most jurisdictions is rightfully assumed to be racist.
deleted by creator
So that person could have fled the conscription?
Back in the 2000s I met two Israelis that were traveling to Central America to avoid the draft.
So at least two.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Apparently you can.
The term isn’t war criminal, I mean he might be a war criminal, but we don’t know that. The term is politically exposed. He has an infinitely greater potential to be a war criminal in a way that Joe Average from Australia doesn’t have.
Of course both could be war criminals, and neither could be war criminals, but you have to work on probabilities.
That’s just profiling with extra steps lol
Whoever said history repeats itself was spot on
What are you referring to? This about the war in Gaza.
What are you referring to?
Similarities to efforts to collectively end apartheid in South Africa.
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/bookauth/zionism/america.htm
It is an atlantic article but it’s from the 90s and an excerpt from a book. America was already Zion, but Jews integrated too much for the hyperconservatives.
deleted by creator
That sounds like a unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech and religion corporations enjoy.
Who am I kidding, of course they aren’t consistent.
Truth is that many don’t care that they get called anti semitic because one small subset of a religion over applies the term entirely out of context. They made it a meaningless slur on anyone who is against genocide.
Something tells me that when they say anti semitic, they mean against Jewish interests. Of course they also believe Israel is a big component of said interests.
The Israeli government sucks, but it’s not fair to punish its traveling citizens for that.
Yes it is.
The Israel government does not exist in a vacuum. Its Israelis running the government, Israelis committing war crimes, and its Israelis who should be held accountable for their actions.
“The American government does not exist in a vacuum. It’s Americans running the government, Americans committing war crimes, and it’s Americans who should be held responsible for their actions.”
Glad you get the picture
As long as you’re consistent. Also make sure to replace the country name with pretty much every large country, since they all commit war crimes. Something about glass houses and throwing stones applies.
Nah actually I won’t do that. The USA is special for its status as the hegemon and for the amount and viciousness of the atrocities it committed to uphold that status throughout history. It’s up there right next to British and Roman empires and maybe the Mongols.
Don’t mistake the inability to commit war crimes at the scope the US does with an unwillingness to.
“You forget Poland!”
— George W. Bush
Where do you live?
You are not making the point you think you are.
So logical fallacies are valid to you?
Its Israelis running the government
Elected government. Have you heard of majority rule? The government needs only 50% + 1 votes to get in power. Also consider the low voter turnout.
Also consider the low voter turnout.
Isn’t that an argument for blaming them? Their govt is ducked and they can’t be bothered to vote
Maybe? But then you’d have to blame Arab citizens of Israel (however they may identify) the most. They make up a fifth of the population only about 15% of voters (in the last election). There’s a comparison to be drawn to the “not voting for Biden” crowd[1].
[1] - It is different, as Biden is too moderate for some people, but that’s not an issue with Arab parties in Israel. It’s more a feeling that, even with a high seat count, nothing can be done, which may or may not be true.
Oh, so civilian Palestinians are therefore wholly responsible for Hamas attacks in October and suffer reasonable consequences?
Civilians are NOT RESPONSIBLE, I can’t believe I have to explain that.
Gaza isn’t a democracy and the average Palestinian wasn’t even born yet when Hamas gained power.
So no.
In a democracy, where the people have the say, they have the responsibility for who they elect to represent and act for them.
In a perfect democracy, 49% of people can be strictly against the government and its actions, yet you suggest they are responsible for it.
Many Israelis and Jews have denounced the attacks, and should not be responsible for what happens.
Reminder that the current israeli government got only 49% of the votes. They lost the popular vote so to speak.
Go look up some interviews of Israeli citizens on the street, their Tik Tok videos, etc. and find out what the average Israeli citizen has to say about Palestinians. The entire society has been brainwashed into being genocidal maniacs. The vast majority of the citizens are just as bad as the government.
They all serve in the IDF. They have all been actively involved in war crimes. There are no innocent Israeli adults.
They have not all beem involved in battle in Gaza, and some could also flee to avoid serving.
I can’t believe we have to explain that not all citizens are responsible for war when Israel makes such wide radical assumptions to raze Gaza.
You’re playing the wrong (Israeli) side when you assume civilians are to blame.
This is going to get you nowhere. What are you saying? Lock everyone up? Despite being wrong and immoral, it’s also impractical.
I didn’t say any of that shit you made up. It is not immoral for a business to deny service to war criminals and child killers. I’ll stand on that any day of the week.
They all serve in the IDF. They have all been actively involved in war crimes.
How does that follow? In your opinion, is
involed in war crimesthe same aswar criminals, and that the same aschild killers? Where do you make the distinction, if not?I didn’t say any of that […]
I know. That’s why I added a question mark.
OK, why not? Deport them all to their countries of origin and have them tried for their crimes.
