LeninWeave [none/use name]

  • 2 Posts
  • 56 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 18th, 2021

help-circle





  • I’ve seen Nagarjuna on here for years and figured that maybe he ran into some actual antisemitism that pissed him off.

    I actually agree with you (I’ve also seen him on here for years), but this post just ends up being counterproductive and promoting antisemitism (as discussed) and it really is far beyond tone deaf to do any excusing of Israeli settlers (almost blaming everything on the IDF, Likud, and the USA when this is the nature of the Israeli colonial project), especially given the current context.

    I do think this post was emotionally motivated (as you say) and it does contain valid points that are important, but it’s definitely doing more harm than good and undermines those valid points in the later parts. I’m not trying to argue for a condemnation of Nagarjuna here, just to be clear. I’m just bothered by this post. It initially rubbed me the wrong way, and some of the comments in this thread helped me realize why.



  • The lecturer said the revolution happened because people disliked the Shah having more than others, but she did not elaborate this in any way.

    The revolution happened because the Shah was an imperialist dog ruining the lives of the people and his agents disappeared and murdered anyone who opposed this.

    Now my understanding is that the social democratic movement there was destroyed by the West in the 50s and the following twenty+ years under the Shah led to a sort of pseudorevolution that wasn’t entirely progressive in nature. Is this correct or wrong?

    As far as I know, your understanding is generally correct.

    The CIA imposed the Shah on Iran, and when it was clear he was on the way out, the assisted the Ayatollahs. Both political systems were imposed on Iran by outside pressure - in the first case entirely, and in the second case only partly.

    Edit: removed some text, had misread your comment.


  • Conflating Jews in Israel with Zionists.

    Unfortunately, he does it in this very post.

    When people talk about “jews” or “israelis” generally as perpetuating the murder of children, they are engaging in the blood libel trope.

    Those two statements (with “jews” vs with “israelis”) are in no way the same. The first is antisemitism, the second is objective fact and the policy of the Israeli state. To conflate the two is antisemitic, and also plays into Israeli propaganda that they are the representatives of Jews and Judaism.


  • This is just conflating Israeli and Jew and my problem with it is not tone-policing, but rather that it itself falls into an antisemitic conflation of the two, and importantly portrays the IDF as outside of Likud and the US. They are going at great lengths to distance Israelis and even the literal members of the Israeli death squads from the violence they represent and commit. That is actually offensive and gross.

    GOOD post. OP makes some good points, but they could have been made without settler apologia, IDF apologia, and (ironically, and clearly unintentionally) antisemitism. Saying that it’s blood libel to say “Israelis are murdering Palestinians” is absolutely ridiculous, and as you said implies that “Jews” = “Israelis” and criticisms of Israel are antisemitic.

    As a note, even if you were to say “Jews”, it wouldn’t be blood libel. Absolutely antisemitic, but not blood libel. Blood libel is specifically about accusing Jews of using the blood of children in rituals. You can expand that definition reasonably to include a lot of accusations about using the blood of children, but it’s clearly not applicable here. It’s a specific antisemitic trope with a specific meaning and history, and it’s probably counterproductive to stick the label on every antisemitic statement involving accusations of violence.