So, the school is criticizing Israel for “75 year long illegal military occupation of Palestine” and called Israel an “apartheid state” with a government that uses “genocidal rhetoric and...
So, the school is criticizing Israel for “75 year long illegal military occupation of Palestine” and called Israel an “apartheid state” with a government that uses “genocidal rhetoric and policies”.
I could understand that Jewish people might feel sorta uncomfortable here, with Israel being a part of their identity. And if this was what is was about, then I guess this could be discussed or something. But that ain't it.
“I read that as saying Israel does not have a place in this world, and I understood that meant that Jewish families did not have a place in OUSD,”
“How do we continue to raise children in an environment that doesn’t believe that Jews have a right for self-determination and a right to exist, and it’s so one-sided?”
“It’s bittersweet. I feel like we are fleeing like generations of Jews have fled before us,”
No. Just no. Teachers criticizing Israel is not the same as the Holocaust.
While I do think this publication is not exactly impartial, I can sort of empathize with kids feeling like they're in a hostile environment. I grew up Muslim and after 9/11 I was practically...
Exemplary
While I do think this publication is not exactly impartial, I can sort of empathize with kids feeling like they're in a hostile environment. I grew up Muslim and after 9/11 I was practically begging my parents to take me out of school. This wasn't even in the States, but kids are assholes everywhere and it was the type of trauma I still catch myself thinking about.
Combine that with seeing police cars outside your mosque and people eyeing you in public and your parents being "randomly" searched at the mall. All the while religious leaders are very loudly shaping the narrative to: "The world hates muslims. They are bombing innocent people because they are muslim. The day will come when they will kill you for being muslim. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim." It seems alarmist and extreme in retrospect but for a while, that was a reality and I remember a lot of irrational decision at the time. I do think the lack of social media kept the victimization complex in check in our community at least. While some people could insulate themselves in their echo chambers, most had to go about their lives in an integrated society and life went on.
Fast forward 22 years and its clear that a similar thing is happening on both sides of this conflict but supercharged. I can only imagine that these kids and parents have a curated feed, bombarding with the "most engaging" view of this conflict, which is probably very one sided. And on the other side, I've seen my sisters tik-tok feed and watched my own family discussion become increasingly inflammatory and bigoted. People are being pushed so far that the other side existing is an existential threat.
I know it's important for the world to have eyes on this conflict and I do think the added attention exposes people to the harsh realities of war and geopolitics and could lead to meaningful changes. I just hate that its being seen through the lens of an unmoderated engagement algorithm.
This basically sums up why discussing the current war is so dang hard. People equate Israel with Judaism, so criticizing Israel is the same as being antisemitic to many people. You get people who...
This basically sums up why discussing the current war is so dang hard. People equate Israel with Judaism, so criticizing Israel is the same as being antisemitic to many people. You get people who take any critique as an attack on Jewish people as a whole, and then you also have antisemites who use it as further justification to be antisemitic.
Sometimes you can have civil conversations with people who understand you're criticizing the Israeli government's actions, NOT every single Jewish person in existence. Other times though... Yeah. The circumstances of Israel's founding, being a direct result of the Holocaust, make it even harder.
I hate this so much. The moment I heard about the attack in Israel I tuned out of it because I’m incensed at the atrocities these people commit against each other. When both sides are victim and...
I hate this so much.
The moment I heard about the attack in Israel I tuned out of it because I’m incensed at the atrocities these people commit against each other. When both sides are victim and culprit, there is no redemption, so Id rather not deal with them.
I can understand to an extent the symbolism of Israel to Jewish people around the world, but it has caused this link in people’s mind that people who don’t support Israel - often regardless of reasoning- is somehow antisemitic. And that is a problem. A government is not and should not be a religion. This situation could be illustrative of the worst possible outcome.
I know this isn’t so simple, though. I would imagine that for some people criticizing Israel actually is a veil for their antisemitism. And as someone who ignores news on this topic I am almost certainly missing some information to give it more nuance.
People often talk about conflating Israel and Judaism, but this overlooks another point: it’s also wrong to harass Israeli immigrants because of their country of origin. It’s the same thing as...
People often talk about conflating Israel and Judaism, but this overlooks another point: it’s also wrong to harass Israeli immigrants because of their country of origin.
It’s the same thing as oppressing harassment of immigrants from Russia or Iran or China. Or, historically, the Irish or Italians. All immigrants should feel welcome.
So I do judge people who, with their overheated political rhetoric, don’t distinguish between opposing the Israeli government and saying nasty things about the people of Israel.
(There is some ambiguity because many Israeli support their government’s actions, but not all.)
I'm on my phone so it's tough to give a detailed response, but the issue I see is the term "75 years" and "from the river to the sea." 75 years refers to the 1948 founding of Israel and the...
I'm on my phone so it's tough to give a detailed response, but the issue I see is the term "75 years" and "from the river to the sea."
75 years refers to the 1948 founding of Israel and the subsequent war started by the 5 Arab armies. Generally, referring to 75 years is a dog whistle saying that Israel shouldn't exist.
After the 1948 war, Israel was larger, but didn't include The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, etc. Those came from the 1967 war, started by Egypt, and ended with Israel controlling the West Bank and the Sinai peninsula. Years later, in exchange for recognizing the state of Israel, the Sinai peninsula was returned, and the West Bank was broken into districts with different governing plans and timelines to phase out Israel stewardship.
(Personal opinion) most of the criticism of Israel really should start with the handling of territories post 1967. Going back all the way to 1948 is problematic because it implies the only solution is to destroy the state of Israel. I.e., from the river to the sea.
Here is a copy paste from a prior post of mine that goes into some of the challenges with the clashing narratives in this conflict.
Part of the reason this particular issue is so contentious is because there is a great deal of nuance and history, and people can easily fall prey to confirmation bias by finding what they go looking for. What Hamas does and stands for is wrong. The disproportionate response from Israel, settlers in the West Bank, and lack of adherence to their own standards of engagement is wrong. But deeply rooted in this conflict is the belief that we must pick sides, and that one side must be right and the other wrong. I'm going to share a prior comment that gives of the nuance I mention.
The reality is both Israel and Palestinians are victims; victims of each other, their neighbors, and the world around them. You can make one side look better or worse depending on when you start the clock on the discussion.
When Israel was formed in 1948 there wasn't a Palestinian state, but rather a collection of towns with various ethnic populations including Jewish and Muslims peoples. The area was controlled by Britain in the time before WW2 under a mandate from the league of nations, the precursor to the UN.
In 1948 the UN set a border for Jewish and Palestinian states in the territory that is today known as Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. The Jewish peoples, some who could trace their ancestry in the area to biblical times, and others who settled the area as either a Zionist effort or fleeing the Holocaust, accepted the borders which were much smaller than today's Israel, because it meant they would finally have their own state and land.
The Arabs didn't accept the border for a variety of reasons, and the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia attacked the fledgling Jewish state.
Notably, the Palestinians didn't attack. Though there were tensions between the Jewish peoples and the Palestinians who felt the encroachment of Jewish settlers from Europe, the Palestinian cause was really created and coopted by their Muslim neighbors.
During the war Israel expanded their borders, 700,000 Palestinians were displaced while some were massacred. Some Palestinians fled the war, some were forced out, some left at the call of their Arab neighbors, and some left in fear of being massacred. The armistice that ended the war left Israel larger, Jordan in control of the West Bank, and Egypt in control of Gaza. Note, this was before the West began to provide military aid to Israel.
So the Israel narrative or myth is that they have the pure moral high ground where they win a war for the right to exist. The Palestinian narrative and myth is that they were all violently dispossessed by the Jews and are pure victims. To this day, children born in Palestinian refuge camps are taught about the village they are "from" which often doesn't exist and their family does 70 years ago. Though many were not forced out during the war, the narrative is they were all forced to leave by the Jewish army.
So you have these competing ideas passed down on both sides that are in conflict, and neither one quite right.
When you look at how Palestinians have been treated by their Arab neighbors you see how they have been abused further. For example, Jordan and Egypt could have made the West Bank and Gaza independent Palestinian states, but they didn't. They continued to occupy them, and ultimately lose control after going to war with Israel again in the six day war in 1967, which set the stage for many of the problems today.
Over the years these narratives in conflict have bred real world violence in a tit for tat escalation that spans decades. Israel continues its narrative that it is in a war for its right to exist, which is true, but also doesn't accept responsibility for worsening the situation at times over the years and human rights abuses such as the 24 documented displacements.
Palestinian refugees continue to define themselves as a dispossessed people, teaching their children that they need to reclaim what they lost, while being used by their surrounding Arab religious state neighbors as a proxy battleground against Israel. Palestinian refugee descendants have refused offers to develop permanent housing for fear of would weaken their claim to being refugees, and really live in entrenched slums that they call refuge camps.
The recent events were caused by Hamas, fearing the normalization of Israel relationships and the fading of the Palestinians cause to retake lost land, attacking Israel. Then of course, you have Israels grossly disproportionate response and the horrors therein.
So really the situation is quite a mess, and made worse by people ignorant of the history rushing to support one side or the other. In reality, both sides are prisoners of their own history, and unlikely to set themselves free anytime soon.
If you want a short podcast that goes over this in more detail, I recommend "The Daily" podcast titled 1948, which was released this past November 3rd.
The point here is that the teachers should be able to criticize what Israel is doing, but 75 years and from the river to the sea are dog whistles for the destruction of the Jewish state. I can see why Jewish families wouldn't feel safe sending their kids to that school.
There is wisdom in their strategy. In the U.S., subsidized, barely safe, housing was built for black residents displaced by "urban renewal" initiatives. This housing was meant to be a temporary...
Palestinian refugee descendants have refused offers to develop permanent housing for fear of would weaken their claim to being refugees, and really live in entrenched slums that they call refuge camps.
There is wisdom in their strategy. In the U.S., subsidized, barely safe, housing was built for black residents displaced by "urban renewal" initiatives. This housing was meant to be a temporary solution while better, permanent options were built. That was a promise clearly not kept, and now "the projects" are often pretty awful.
Given the history, it is reasonable for Palestinians to doubt that the Israeli government or IDF would build the same quality of development as the settlements.
I agree the projects were a promise unkept, but don't think that was the concern here. Some of these offers long predate the current state of affairs and happened during the height of two state...
I agree the projects were a promise unkept, but don't think that was the concern here. Some of these offers long predate the current state of affairs and happened during the height of two state discussions.
Unfortunately, the reason the refugees refused was to maintain "the right of return" which is the hope to return to hereditary villages. A very sad situation, with people of the present bound up in chains of the past. Many won't take any steps to establish new, better circumstances if it means giving up refugee claims. Ignoring the discussion of what is the right thing here, it is sad to see generational suffering and inability to move past a trauma that keeps dragging new young people into suffering.
I don’t know what is in these folks mind. I do find it a reasonable response in this circumstance to hold out for a full, equitable, and permanent solution rather than accept interim half-measures...
I don’t know what is in these folks mind. I do find it a reasonable response in this circumstance to hold out for a full, equitable, and permanent solution rather than accept interim half-measures which come with a high risk of never becoming whole measures.
Emotionally, I don't disagree. Practically, what cure exists for the descendants of a village that doesn't exist anymore in a land possibly populated, possibly not, but governed in a way unlike...
Emotionally, I don't disagree. Practically, what cure exists for the descendants of a village that doesn't exist anymore in a land possibly populated, possibly not, but governed in a way unlike how it once was? I don't have an answer, and it is rhetorical. I worry that no solution will ever happen in one fell swoop, but rather incremental progress over time. And the first steps are always the hardest.
I think "from the river to the sea" is an ambiguous slogan, where some activists mean it to be a call for a one-state democractic solution encompassing the entirety of Israel/Palestine and others...
but 75 years and from the river to the sea are dog whistles for the destruction of the Jewish state
I think "from the river to the sea" is an ambiguous slogan, where some activists mean it to be a call for a one-state democractic solution encompassing the entirety of Israel/Palestine and others mean it as a call for the eviction of the Jews entirely.
I am also not really sure what you are trying to say with your historical narrative apart from "it's complicated", which is not really a very meaningful historical analysis.
It is also pro-Israeli for example when you say
Palestinian refugees continue to define themselves as a dispossessed people, teaching their children that they need to reclaim what they lost, while being used by their surrounding Arab religious state neighbors as a proxy battleground against Israel...
This seems like you are essentially saying that the Palestinians should "get over it", that they are responsible for their own fate (i.e. victim blaming) and that they are not (as they are) a dispossessed people?
As a very small detail, when you say
ultimately lose control after going to war with Israel again in the six day war in 1967
it is worth mentioning that the six-day war was an Israeli attack on the Arab states, rather than the other way around (of course it was provoked by a massing of defensive troops and the closing of the straits of Tiran).
Here is a reply I gave elsewhere regarding the slogan: The problem with slogans is that they mean different things to different people. What can't be denied is that Hamas uses the slogan and has...
Here is a reply I gave elsewhere regarding the slogan:
The problem with slogans is that they mean different things to different people. What can't be denied is that Hamas uses the slogan and has elements of it in its charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
“From the river to the sea” echoes through pro-Palestinian rallies across campuses and cities, adopted by some as a call for a single state on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
By 2012, it was clear that Hamas had claimed the slogan in its drive to claim land spanning Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
I posted a few other details in a different comment, but the phrase originally referred to the displacement of some 700,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war, whose history is more complicated than either side makes it out.
But quoting one person's opinion on the slogan and concluding it is ok is a bit misleading. Maybe some people don't use it to call for the destruction of Israel, but the people actively plotting for the destruction of Israel use and embrace it.
Beware the company you keep and don't be surprised if you get judged for it. The teachers should have done their research.
Regarding why I posted the history, because many people don't seem to know it. I also feel like people rush to take sides or embrace simplistic solutions because they don't know the complexity of the history.
I think you addressing me giving some of the complications of history as not helpful is symptomatic of the problem. Why do I need to advance an agenda or a solution in my post? Why can't I just explain the issue? Do I have to take sides?
I think I laid out my position fairly clearly. Both sides have been wronged and both sides are doing wrong. Which isn't to falsely equate them. Israel needs to stop settlers in the West Bank and stop indiscriminate military action in Gaza. Right now, in the moment, the wrongs being committed are not the same, but the history is complicated and there are recent historical reasons motivating Israels disproportionate response that probably aren't worth going into now. It doesn't make it right but it does make it complicated.
The challenge comes with what happens next. Israel can't negotiate with Hamas for a two state solution, because Hamas is ideologically opposed to Israels existence. That is the crux of much of the challenge with a two state solution; 3 of the 5 initial Arab countries that attacked still don't recognize their 1949 armistice borders and are inviting violence and destabilizing talks.
Likewise, Israel can't negotiate with the Palestinian authority; they don't have a monopoly on violence, a prerequisite for any state.
Also, I don't see how I victim blamed the Palestinian refugees. I was pretty blunt with what they went through. When I was describing their adherence to the right of return it was to highlight the cross generational challenges involved in fixing this problem, not to minimize their suffering.
Regarding the 6 day war, yes, Israel attacked in response to arms build up and closing of the straights, which is a pretty clear cassus belli.
If you click through my post history, you can see some of my previous discussions on this site from a thread on Zionism There, I explain why many Israelis and diaspora Jews see the only conclusion...
If you click through my post history, you can see some of my previous discussions on this site from a thread on Zionism
There, I explain why many Israelis and diaspora Jews see the only conclusion of Israel no longer existing as a protective Jewish state as likely to lead to Jews being cleansed from the region.
To quickly summarize, it's because most of them are within 3 generations of that actually happening in their previous home country (or surviving an attempt, for Mizrahi Jews). For generations, the most valuable skill a Jew could have was the ability to tell when they needed to flee for their lives. And so should the IDF cease to exist in a format similar to now, it would cause mass emigration of many Jewish Israelis who could afford to get out -- and many don't have anywhere else to go, having been expelled from their originating country inba previous generation
If you think of that state as the only reliably safe harbor for jews fleeing persecution, then yes. They've seen how quickly it can happen in europe, I can hardly blame them for taking their...
If you think of that state as the only reliably safe harbor for jews fleeing persecution, then yes. They've seen how quickly it can happen in europe, I can hardly blame them for taking their safety in their own hands, and deleting Israel from the state removes that security. Of course that's a viewpoint that's going to change depending on perspective. E.g. if you consider jews permanently and reliably safe in western democracies, that is an entirely moot point. But from a jewish perspective? For an Israeli, I think one's view on that position would be quite clear; the removal of the state is unacceptable. For an international jew, feeling even a little bit of kinship with israelis e.g. because you have family there, I don't think it's a reasonable proposition either for most.
TL;DR: It's not directly calling for genocide. But depending on PoV, it might look like possible preparation of one, or at least making it a lot easier.
I don't think that is the same thing necessarily, but I think calling for the destruction of the state is a rather dramatic thing to do and would raise quite a few hackles given the history that...
I don't think that is the same thing necessarily, but I think calling for the destruction of the state is a rather dramatic thing to do and would raise quite a few hackles given the history that led to its creation.
It’s strange to me after seeing the concept that speech is violence was so strongly embraced, so many feel comfortable determining whether some Jewish people’s fears are warranted or not. Using...
It’s strange to me after seeing the concept that speech is violence was so strongly embraced, so many feel comfortable determining whether some Jewish people’s fears are warranted or not. Using rhetoric used by Hamas in a classroom qualifies as violent speech to me clearly. Especially in a time when so many Jewish communities are impacted by hate crimes and threats of hate crimes.
What’s the basis and in what sense? The article is not even about prosecuting speech. It is about Jewish families reacting to speech out of fear and comments are saying that the fear is...
What’s the basis and in what sense? The article is not even about prosecuting speech. It is about Jewish families reacting to speech out of fear and comments are saying that the fear is unwarranted. It’s wild to me that someone feels like they have judgement in a situation they have read an article about to come to a conclusion that a families decision to change their life in a non-trivial way is overly dramatic. The top comment said this is not the same as the holocaust. I don’t think anyone in the article claimed that it was. I can’t imagine people responding to black families reacting to the very real injustice happening today with “this is not the same as Jim Crow”.
I am surprised you would even suggest that Jewish families are not affected by violent speech today. Or that considering this hateful speech to be violent is a mistake. Even if you are Jewish, you certainly cannot speak on behalf of all Jewish families.
I believe "from the river to the sea" (which appeared on a poster in classroom) is generally considered a veiled threat? Or something? Maybe it's not meant that way.
I believe "from the river to the sea" (which appeared on a poster in classroom) is generally considered a veiled threat? Or something? Maybe it's not meant that way.
Right. Basically, the river is the Jordan river and the sea is the Mediterranean. The area between those two bodies is the entirety of the country of Israel. So the slogan - "from the river to the...
I believe "from the river to the sea" (which appeared on a poster in classroom) is generally considered a veiled threat? Or something?
Right. Basically, the river is the Jordan river and the sea is the Mediterranean. The area between those two bodies is the entirety of the country of Israel.
So the slogan - "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is generally interpreted - and meant as - a call for the replacement of the Israeli state in its entirety with a Palestinian state.
As you can imagine, things get very complicated from there and basically break down along the expected lines.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881 ... Check out the map included in this article for a visual of what the slogan means, and the comparison chart of number...
For Nestel, criticism of the slogan is tantamount to anti-Palestinian racism.
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, there are currently 5.9 million Palestinian refugees, a third of whom live in refugee camps across Gaza, West Bank, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Various human rights groups and the United Nations have documented that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank "continue to be deprived of their freedom, dignity and rights by Israel."
Al Malah said the slogan is a response to this situation and doesn't call "for the killing of Jewish people at all. It's basically a way for us to say that we want freedom," she said.
...
"One of the problems with the criticism of the slogan is that it imputes genocidal intent to Palestinians, and there's no evidence that the majority of Palestinians want to eliminate Jews from historical Palestine,"
Check out the map included in this article for a visual of what the slogan means, and the comparison chart of number of Israeli vs Palestinian deaths.
The problem with slogans is that they mean different things to different people. What can't be denied is that Hamas uses the slogan and has elements of it in its charter calling for the...
The problem with slogans is that they mean different things to different people. What can't be denied is that Hamas uses the slogan and has elements of it in its charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
“From the river to the sea” echoes through pro-Palestinian rallies across campuses and cities, adopted by some as a call for a single state on the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
By 2012, it was clear that Hamas had claimed the slogan in its drive to claim land spanning Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former leader, said that year in a speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas. “There will be no concession on any inch of the land.”
I posted a few other details in a different comment, but the phrase originally referred to the displacement of some 700,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war, whose history is more complicated than either side makes it out.
But quoting one person's opinion on the slogan and concluding it is ok is a bit misleading. Maybe some people don't use it to call for the destruction of Israel, but the people actively plotting for the destruction of Israel use and embrace it.
Beware the company you keep and don't be surprised if you get judged for it. The teachers should have done their research.
Although it’s ambiguous, I think any reasonable person would be concerned about “dog whistles” and stop using the slogan to avoid being associated with anti-semites, rather than being defensive...
Although it’s ambiguous, I think any reasonable person would be concerned about “dog whistles” and stop using the slogan to avoid being associated with anti-semites, rather than being defensive about it. (Just like we’re going to avoid using obscure Nazi symbols.)
It’s just a slogan, not particularly precise, and there are other ways to make your point.
This essentially never happens. A movement coins a slogan, the slogan becomes widespread, both supporters and detractors with different motivations come up with different ways to interpret the...
This essentially never happens. A movement coins a slogan, the slogan becomes widespread, both supporters and detractors with different motivations come up with different ways to interpret the slogan until its meaning is completely muddied, and usage continues on anyway because it's just such a dominant phrase that clearly marks someone's political identity (even if their detailed opinions remain unclear). When a slogan like this dies, it's not because everyone collectively realizes it's an ambiguous phrase; instead, it peters out gradually over the years as the movement itself succeeds, fails, or changes.
This is such a common phenomenon because it's a coordination problem. Asking people to simply stop participating in coordination problems is unrealistic.
To celebrate MLK (Jr.) Day, I sat down to read a book on Bayard Rustin, who was an influential advisor of MLK, Jr.—he's the one who studied Gandhi and turned MLK on nonviolent resistance—and the...
To celebrate MLK (Jr.) Day, I sat down to read a book on Bayard Rustin, who was an influential advisor of MLK, Jr.—he's the one who studied Gandhi and turned MLK on nonviolent resistance—and the principal organizer of the famous March on Washington.
Interestingly, the Civil Rights Movement arguably owes its success to its political coordination through organizations like the SCLC, and other organizations like the SNCC, CORE, and others, as opposed to more organic, decentralized movements of today. At various points, the Civil Rights Movement had central-ish points of contact for negotiation.
And there was message discipline: for the March on Washington (for Jobs and Freedom) Bayard and his associates wrote and selected slogans for protesters to bear.
I think that the inefficacy of modern protest movements have shown how incredibly important coordination and message discipline are. The internet has lowered the barrier to entry for both participation and leading, so now there are many low-commitment protesters and amateur/incompetent organizers who unwittingly hurt their cause.
I think about pro-Palestinian protests that targeted a falafel shop and a cancer clinic. I think about the slogan "from the river to the sea".
Although it's true that often we are just observers, this seems a little too fatalistic. There were fair number of words that were once in common use, but people stopped using because there were...
Although it's true that often we are just observers, this seems a little too fatalistic. There were fair number of words that were once in common use, but people stopped using because there were movements to taboo them. It does seem to take quite a lot of effort, though.
Also, we can make our own decisions about what language to use, we can talk about writing, we can be influenced by writing style guides, and so on. Prescriptivism is often futile, but it's possible to have influence.
(More practically, though, I expect my influence over activists is nil. I just wanted to share my own judgement on it here.)
I understand. I try to push back against it myself by avoiding using slogans because they are almost inevitably vague and misleading. But I must admit that the allure of simplicity is too great...
I understand. I try to push back against it myself by avoiding using slogans because they are almost inevitably vague and misleading. But I must admit that the allure of simplicity is too great sometimes. For example, I have at times described myself as "pro-choice" to differentiate myself from "pro-life" people — even though I've met so-called "pro-life" people who favor stronger abortion rights than many so-called "pro-choice" people. Terms like this almost inevitably devolve into a flag people wave to express a political tribe they identify with, and rarely offer insight it their actual opinions.
The other way to push back against it is to not place much stock in any slogan that anyone uses. When they say "taxes are theft" or "believe women" or whatever, don't assume anything; ask them to describe what they think in detail, and reserve judgement until they do. This certainly won't stem the tide of slogan nonsense (which seems to just be the natural churn of human language in general — even non-political words and phrases are constantly losing and gaining meaning and significance in all different contexts), but it at least improves communication on a personal level.
At the same time, why are public schools in Oakland, California weighing in on a decades-long conflict on the other side of the world? What educational purpose does that serve? Unless they're...
At the same time, why are public schools in Oakland, California weighing in on a decades-long conflict on the other side of the world? What educational purpose does that serve?
Unless they're actually teaching the history of the conflict from its proximate roots in the Ottoman Empire and British imperialism, through European anti-semitism and the Holocaust, up to the political climate of contemporary Israel and its US support, there's no effing way they could conceivably be building nuanced understanding in their students. Making pronouncements and tacking slogans up on the wall is so half-assed that it does more harm than good.
Why teach any history at school then, though? All history is interpretation, and even academic history can't capture the nuances of our incredibly complex reality – even if you just compile a list...
Why teach any history at school then, though? All history is interpretation, and even academic history can't capture the nuances of our incredibly complex reality – even if you just compile a list of facts at some point you have to choose which ones you include and which ones you omit.
I don't see how you get from my comment to "history shouldn't be taught unless it's done in a completely objective manner." My point was that it doesn't sound like they're even attempting to teach...
I don't see how you get from my comment to "history shouldn't be taught unless it's done in a completely objective manner." My point was that it doesn't sound like they're even attempting to teach history. They've put up posters with slogans that take a stance on a contemporary political issue without touching upon the origins of the conflict at all.
Having said that, this article has an obvious viewpoint, so I'm not prepared to say it's presenting all the relevant facts. Maybe the schools are using this as an opportunity to teach how history influences geopolitics and the details that prove this run counter to the site's preferred narrative. I don't know.
"Sorta" uncomfortable? Remember you are talking about kids here, with a 6-year old being the article's example. If you had a choice, would you want to put your kids in an environment where the...
I could understand that Jewish people might feel sorta uncomfortable here
"Sorta" uncomfortable? Remember you are talking about kids here, with a 6-year old being the article's example. If you had a choice, would you want to put your kids in an environment where the people that is responsible for caring and educating them openly denounces their state? Would you not be concerned for their safety, social growth and mental wellbeing?
It is very important for kids that age to feel accepted and not facing tension and aggression of varying degrees everyday.
A six year old who was told not to wear his menorah pajamas because his parents thought the other kids, teachers, and staff might be antisemitic towards him. No one, except his parents, told him...
a 6-year old being the article's example
A six year old who was told not to wear his menorah pajamas because his parents thought the other kids, teachers, and staff might be antisemitic towards him. No one, except his parents, told him not to be Jewish, wear the pajamas, or anything else. There was no incident where the child was exposed to an antisemitic remark.
In other words, the parents are projecting their fear onto their child and their child may be being used as a prop for their grievances.
The point of their move is obviously be preventative, not reacting after the fact when the harm is done. The teachers' union heightening the tension is a pretty good reason to be careful, in my...
There was no incident where the child was exposed to an antisemitic remark.
The point of their move is obviously be preventative, not reacting after the fact when the harm is done. The teachers' union heightening the tension is a pretty good reason to be careful, in my opinion.
In other words, the parents are projecting their fear onto their child and their child may be being used as a prop for their grievances.
"Projecting" and "prop" are very loaded terms and while I disagree with the connotation there, it is the parents' job to worry and look out for their kids, not to wait until something goes down and the damage has been done.
So is "fleeing for my life like my ancestors from the Holocaust" but I was trying to choose the least loaded words I could. These are all westerners. The teacher's union stated something that has...
"Projecting" and "prop" are very loaded terms
So is "fleeing for my life like my ancestors from the Holocaust" but I was trying to choose the least loaded words I could.
These are all westerners. The teacher's union stated something that has connotations they don't fully understand and someone got all huffy and freaked out. I'm not saying that they have to be fully passive and reactive to be in the right, I'm saying that no one is threatening them or driving a bulldozer into their house. If little Palestinian six-year-olds are old enough to be put through the displacement and genocide of their people, those parents can explain that to them.
Again, there have been no incidents as far as we know. The idea that these families have to flee (to LA) to avoid 'discrimination' that hasn't happened is ludicrous. Telling your kid not to wear their clothes because they might have teachers yelling at them about a genocide is paranoid. It's not like the teacher's union is posted outside the school like the Westboro Baptist Church waiting for kids in yarmulke to harass.
With all respect, the Jewish experience for children is that they will be called Christ killers, told they're going to hell, dealing with the fact that a large part of the world doesn't really...
With all respect, the Jewish experience for children is that they will be called Christ killers, told they're going to hell, dealing with the fact that a large part of the world doesn't really want you to exist. It is the duty of parents to prepare their children for the realities of the world, but how to do that is hard. It's not insane to struggle with how to do that, and whether now is the right time or not.
Things being utterly unfair and shit for Palestinian children doesn't diminish that, neither should some kid in the US deal with that because of the religion and ethnicity they get from birth.
I won't pretend that those aren't some children's reality but the premise of this article is that the Oakland Teacher's Union's support of Palestine is tantamount to anti-Semitism. Are there lots...
I won't pretend that those aren't some children's reality but the premise of this article is that the Oakland Teacher's Union's support of Palestine is tantamount to anti-Semitism.
Are there lots of places that are very unfriendly to people of Jewish descent? Yes but is Oakland County one of those? I would need evidence of an actual occurrence to make that determination.
I don't disagree with you that I'd love a world where we never have to deal with telling children about all the horrible things happening all over the world.
For context, I have, for a few years, been involved in my local Jewish community's efforts and have always felt uncomfortable at the reverence for Israel. How can I feel positively about them when I've watched over a decade of IDF war crimes?
I'm not sure I can give you the evidence you seek. A menorah was thrown in Lake Merritt, and https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/s/AcnPXqaqiD just happened, but I don't really know how to prove it. I...
I'm not sure I can give you the evidence you seek. A menorah was thrown in Lake Merritt, and https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/s/AcnPXqaqiD just happened, but I don't really know how to prove it. I grew up in a place that is also supposedly very hospitable to Jews.
For context, I have, for a few years, been involved in my local Jewish community's efforts and have always felt uncomfortable at the reverence for Israel
I've also felt the same thing at, but always understood why they felt that way. When people feel credible danger for their family they will do awful things. They're still liable for it, but they'll do it. And of course some people are just racists and would do it anyway.
I think it is natural for everyone to desire and feel affinity with a homeland where everyone looks and speaks like them. Children of immigrants in the US often feel a powerful emotional...
I've also felt the same thing at, but always understood why they felt that way. When people feel credible danger for their family they will do awful things. They're still liable for it, but they'll do it. And of course some people are just racists and would do it anyway.
I think it is natural for everyone to desire and feel affinity with a homeland where everyone looks and speaks like them. Children of immigrants in the US often feel a powerful emotional experience when they visit their parents' home countries. Some Black Americans try to retrace their ancestry and visit their ancestral lands: Liberia is the direct product of the Black American desire to reclaim ancestral identity.
Jews have been othered and without a homeland for millennia, so the desire for a sovereign ethnostate that can guarantee Jewish rights by military force is a universal human desire. Even Jewish individuals who are atheist, like Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros, still get othered and put in the box of the "scheming Jew" stereotype.
As an American Jew, the people of Israel don't really look like me (most are Mizrahi AKA of Middle Eastern descent) or speak like me (I don't use Hebrew as a communication language). The appeal is...
I think it is natural for everyone to desire and feel affinity with a homeland where everyone looks and speaks like them.
As an American Jew, the people of Israel don't really look like me (most are Mizrahi AKA of Middle Eastern descent) or speak like me (I don't use Hebrew as a communication language).
The appeal is that they'd accept me when nobody else would. I 100% feel like an American, and would only leave if America decided I was no longer American.
The broader point is that there is a place that you are accepted on an ethnic basis and the identity is such a place is completely of your ethnicity. While you feel 100% American, the Jewish...
The broader point is that there is a place that you are accepted on an ethnic basis and the identity is such a place is completely of your ethnicity.
While you feel 100% American, the Jewish identity is not 100% subsumed in the American identity, otherwise no one would even care to draw boundaries between the Jewish community and the non-Jewish community.
In my reply to @Noblepath, the English or Scottish identity has been fully subsumed in the American identity. No modern American would ever go, “look at that English person!” because, beyond law and in the territory of the American psyche, America’s ethnic identity is fully their identity.
Yes, I agree with you in that point. The big distinction I'd argue is the ethnic identification for Jews is beyond shared language and "traditional" concept of ethnicity.
Yes, I agree with you in that point. The big distinction I'd argue is the ethnic identification for Jews is beyond shared language and "traditional" concept of ethnicity.
It may be common, but I wouldn’t agree it is natural. certainly I feel no affinity for the lands between England and Scotland. I do feel affinity for the lands where I grew up. If what you say...
I think it is natural for everyone to desire and feel affinity with a homeland where everyone looks and speaks like them.
It may be common, but I wouldn’t agree it is natural. certainly I feel no affinity for the lands between England and Scotland. I do feel affinity for the lands where I grew up.
If what you say really is demonstrably true, we need to reconfigure our democratic ideals. If it is not demonstrably true, then it is a potentially very dangerous prelude to harmful racism.
That is because your ethnic group in the US is so completely accepted that it is no longer readily identified. No one would ever single you out as English or Scottish or care to. Imagine an...
That is because your ethnic group in the US is so completely accepted that it is no longer readily identified. No one would ever single you out as English or Scottish or care to.
Imagine an alternate US where it was colonized by East Asians. Though everyone is equal in law, in society your… Englishness is made an object of consideration.
Likewise, Jews are still very much identified and othered in the US.
I don’t disagree that having a home base of allies is comforting when I’m a stranger in a strange (maybe hostile) land. Honestly, being from Asheville I feel alienated in Raleigh. I’m more...
I don’t disagree that having a home base of allies is comforting when I’m a stranger in a strange (maybe hostile) land. Honestly, being from Asheville I feel alienated in Raleigh.
I’m more concerned about the “natural” language, which implies some kind of racial-biological-fatherland kind of identity. And that feels like the beginnings of fascio-nationalism, which is terrifying to me.
Language isn't a necessary part of ethnic identity, but it is a major component. I think that in the very, very long term, the only sustainable option is full assimilation into the majority, such...
Language isn't a necessary part of ethnic identity, but it is a major component.
I think that in the very, very long term, the only sustainable option is full assimilation into the majority, such that the rights and interests of the minority and the majority are one and the same because by then they are one people. Otherwise, a minority is always dependent on the goodwill and vibes of the majority, which can be fickle.
For example, there's a concept of "tribal sovereignty" for federal recognized native American tribes in the US, but it's only paper sovereignty, not real: they have zero military power, only legal protections, and if the US ever changes its mind and thereby its laws, when push comes to shove, the tribes have zero shove and will lose. Tribal nations are as real as Manchukuo.
Maybe in 100 years, in a multipolar world where rare earth metals and battery metals like lithium are even scarcer and more critical to the economy, the US discovers massive deposits on tribal lands and decides that economic and geopolitical interests are more important than tribal sovereignty, and voila, that tribal sovereignty goes poof. Historically, the US has violated treaties with Native American tribes when there were strong incentives to take their land.
A sovereign state must wield true power to advocate and back their interests (and ideally the interests of their people). It is very noteworthy that early Israel used its power as a new sovereign state to hunt down, kidnap and imprison or outright assassinate former Nazis and perpetrators of the Holocaust. It delivers the message that Israel will protect Jewish interests and lives through violence.
Not that I think that this kind of ethnic nationalism is ideal, only real. Personally I think the antidote / final endpoint is the end of racism — but also the end of ethnic distinctions, an ethnic singularity.
I've taken a course in Native American law. Unless our form of government were to change, there would have to be significant legal and political action for the basic structure of tribal...
I've taken a course in Native American law. Unless our form of government were to change, there would have to be significant legal and political action for the basic structure of tribal sovereignty to change. However, specific incidents of mineral resources on tribal land already cause encroachments and exceptions in ways that in my view are tied to corporate economic clout and political corruption. Also, the historic events told in the book and film Killers of the Flower Moon were about wealthy native americans being targeted and murdered for the inheritance rights to their wealth. The problem is not simply for native americans but they are a good example. Unsophisticated random individuals who win the lottery frequently are targeted and lose their wealth also. Successful wealthy people and groups use a variety of skilled agents and industries to protect that wealth and those tactics and skills are not widely taught or known.
Well there you go. For all the talk about no one initiating provocation and threats, you are very quick to put them on the spot against Palestinians as if it's tragedy-measuring contest, like...
little Palestinian six-year-olds are old enough to be put through the displacement and genocide of their people, those parents can explain that to them.
Well there you go. For all the talk about no one initiating provocation and threats, you are very quick to put them on the spot against Palestinians as if it's tragedy-measuring contest, like these families are ones somehow directly responsible. How are 6-year old kids supposed to react and deal with this?
How can people feel safe if others cannot or care not to distinguish the difference between Israel and Jews?
Citizenship does not always equate identity. It is obvious they feel tied to Israel at some level (willingly or unwillingly) otherwise this incident wouldn't even happen in the first place.
Citizenship does not always equate identity. It is obvious they feel tied to Israel at some level (willingly or unwillingly) otherwise this incident wouldn't even happen in the first place.
I don't think a 6 year old can or should understand what's going on in Israel and Palestine, and it would be odd to me if they felt their greatest state allegiance was to Israel despite living in...
I don't think a 6 year old can or should understand what's going on in Israel and Palestine, and it would be odd to me if they felt their greatest state allegiance was to Israel despite living in America. Honestly I don't think a 6 year old should feel much allegiance for any state, but at least feeling it for the state they live in seems that it would come sort of naturally.
Your implication is that having these posters and supporting Palestinian liberation means treating these children without acceptance and with tension and aggression, which I don't think is a fair characterization.
That's my point. They may not understand allegiance, but they almost certainly be aware that Israel's strong connections to the Jewish. Rightly or wrongly many actions of the Israel government...
Honestly I don't think a 6 year old should feel much allegiance for any state
That's my point. They may not understand allegiance, but they almost certainly be aware that Israel's strong connections to the Jewish. Rightly or wrongly many actions of the Israel government will be attributed to Jews overall and there will be fallout.
which I don't think is a fair characterization.
None of this is fair, but I think it's the repercussions of the action of the union. Their message may not have intended to create problem for kids, but I believe will cause massive social tension in an environment where kids are meant to feel safe.
What is the endgame of the union, for them to prioritize political messaging over the safety and growth of the kids they are suppose to look after?
Not every Jewish tragedy is the Holocaust, it could be one of the thousand other times a society decided it didn't really want Jews anymore, and expelled them. The significance of Israel to many...
“It’s bittersweet. I feel like we are fleeing like generations of Jews have fled before us,”
Not every Jewish tragedy is the Holocaust, it could be one of the thousand other times a society decided it didn't really want Jews anymore, and expelled them. The significance of Israel to many Jews is that if that happens, they'll have a place to go.
I really have to disagree that this is some sort of huge jump. This classroom has a "from the river to the sea" poster... that is exactly how these things begin, and what they are talking about is...
I really have to disagree that this is some sort of huge jump.
This classroom has a "from the river to the sea" poster... that is exactly how these things begin, and what they are talking about is exactly the end result of escalating rhetoric.
Who are we to say they shouldn't feel unsafe? It's their lived experience, not ours, and I am 100% certain that they are perfectly capable of noticing a difference from pre- to post-October 7th. Especially since this story is not rare in any way. Jews now feel more unsafe and that's the way it is in every single country.
Jewish people in Germany were blamed directly for Germany's problems. Other Germans believed that directly enacting those slogans would fix their problems. These people believe that support of the...
Jewish people in Germany were blamed directly for Germany's problems. Other Germans believed that directly enacting those slogans would fix their problems.
These people believe that support of the Palestinian struggle against Israel is a direct threat on their safety.
Should the Dutch living globally felt that any support of Mandela was a direct threat to them? What about Americans reading the slogans of Native American groups wishing to retake their tribal land? How about the British when they hear of a free Ireland, is that a threat to them?
Supporting an oppressed people is not an implication of genocide. I can still support Syrian people while condemning actions taken by the Syrian government against the Kurds. Wishing for a free Kurdistan is not wishing for the destruction of Turkyie, Iraq, and Syria.
We see in the history books that the German population and the world stood idly by while the Jewish were genocided in Europe. Should people not voice their dissent to the actions of Israel because some people might feel uncomfortable 3,000 miles away?
I'm not so naive as to say that no one would ever act on a slogan nor that there are people unreasonable enough to project the crimes of Israel onto the Jewish population elsewhere. I may be callous but I'm not too worried about the feelings of some Californians while the Palestinians are being bombed en masse.
OUSD is a sanctuary district, inside Oakland, a sanctuary city, inside California, a sanctuary state, which means we support all students, families and staff, regardless of religion, heritage, ethnicity, where they came from, or how they got here. We protect all students, and harassment of anyone is never acceptable,” he said in a Dec. 22 email.
“In this time of heightened tensions because of what’s happening in the Middle East, we are regularly communicating to our community, reminding them of our core values of love and support, so it should be clear that everyone is welcome and valued in our schools.”
But they 'feel' unsafe because
Lindsay Ferber said, noting that with the exception of one non-Jewish couple who baked the Ferbers a challah as a gesture of solidarity after Oct. 7, no other non-Jewish parents at Montclair Elementary reached out.
And a pro-Palestinian stance taken by the teachers union.
I'm going to list some things that are tangentially related that I think might provide some context. This is not meant to be complete, just what comes to mind. I hate that people on both sides of...
I'm going to list some things that are tangentially related that I think might provide some context. This is not meant to be complete, just what comes to mind.
I hate that people on both sides of the issue conflate Israel with Jewish people.
I doubt these issues are limited to Oakland. I wonder how Jewish children and parents are feeling in Detroit or other US cities where there has been a high percentage of Muslim immigration right now.
Oakland is an interesting diverse city with a long history of radical protests. It was the home of the Black Muslims and Malcolm X back in the day. Only a few years ago there was a scandal and 'Your Black Muslim Bakery ' was closed by the city after many decades.
It has a liberal/radical constituency who will talk seriously about the need and obligation to return formerly native American land to the descendants of those indigenous people without regard for cost or political practicality. They aren't talking just about for example turning parts or even all of the Dakotas into a buffalo habitat where people can live a hunter gatherer lifestyle although they would consider that a start. They are talking about giving it all back, including Manhattan. The settler colonialism accusations about Israel are widely believed and disdained, and the acts of the Israeli right wing supporting Settlers in the West Bank offer corroborating evidence that this world view is correct. Progressive leftists who reject our colonial settler history find it easy to extend that to Israel.
The school system is large, diverse, frequently avoided by upper middle class families because private schools are academically better and safer. I'm not currently involved but kids getting beaten up for a variety of reasons was always an issue with the schools. Oakland has especially Mexican gangs, not the same gang distribution as Los Angeles, but gangs and organized crime are part of the mix.
We expected the Serbs and Croats and Kosovars in the US to not bring their war here, but Israeli connected Jews and Palestinians and other Muslim immigrants have larger populations and are more politically connected and more active lobbying. Also antisemites and anti Muslims are using the conflict for their own agendas.
San Francisco city council recently unanimously voted to support a ceasefire in Gaza.
My observation is that activists on both sides want to corral discussion into polarized extremes and will deploy accusations and insults accordingly. Not everyone will accuse you of being...
My observation is that activists on both sides want to corral discussion into polarized extremes and will deploy accusations and insults accordingly. Not everyone will accuse you of being antisemitic for wanting a cease fire, but some will. Similar opposite accusations will be made by pro palestinians.
I feel that antisemitism is simmering in Oakland. Last time I took the BART through Oakland I saw “death to Israel” graffiti scrawled on station walls. I think it was either the 16th or 19th st...
I feel that antisemitism is simmering in Oakland. Last time I took the BART through Oakland I saw “death to Israel” graffiti scrawled on station walls. I think it was either the 16th or 19th st stations.
While I lived there, I sensed an undercurrent of inter-minority tension where there is resentment toward “successful” minorities.
Thanks for sharing your observation. I agree. Your comment inspired me to risk sharing a couple of thoughts. As a longtime (white - multigenerational Californian) resident of California and...
Thanks for sharing your observation. I agree. Your comment inspired me to risk sharing a couple of thoughts.
As a longtime (white - multigenerational Californian) resident of California and Oakland, I have definitely observed interminority race and class related tension where cultures and attitudes clash, biases thrive and the less 'successful' resent the 'successful' and vice versa. I remember the Rodney King riots and the neighborhood merchants with their firearms on the rooftops of their businesses.
I am going to risk sharing a personal theory that might be one aspect of a complex multifactorial phenomenon. Feel free to ignore if it isn't interesting or useful, or just tell me I'm full of shit lol. My facts are accurate. My speculations are simply theories that have probably been stated in more nuanced politically correct ways by scholars. Also in my humble experience, every group contains haters and racists and more benign people who are simply more comfortable among their own group.
Historically many African Americans risked punishment or lynching if they were perceived to be 'uppity', including if they were too obviously economically successful. Teaching black people to read was a crime in southern states. There is a long history of bad things happening to black entrepreneurs and business people including The Black Wall Street Massacre. Slavery in particular separated families again and again, impacting black culture in the US.
Immigrants to the US arrive knowing none of that history nor the resentment it breeds toward capitalists, intellectuals, profiteers, bosses, newcomers/outsiders who arrive with wealth or quickly succeed. Edit black migrants to the west coast also don't know the history of asian descended people here. Learned helplessness has been studied in individuals but less so as a generational phenomenon or with regard to large groups. I'm going to stop here as this is all very sensitive and speculative and will always be different for individuals and I'm not a member of the communities I'm discussing, just a keen observer of California's immigrant and multiethnic context in which I live and try to get on with neighbors and friends.
Virulent antisemites exist. The two opinions can coincide in the same person or group. Also as others have said, jewish people have a long history of living within a culture for one or more...
Virulent antisemites exist. The two opinions can coincide in the same person or group. Also as others have said, jewish people have a long history of living within a culture for one or more centuries and then being respectfully or violently required to leave and find a different place to live and survive. One of the selling points for supporting Israel is that it has promised to always be a home for jews worldwide.
I have incredibly conflicted feelings about Israel/Palestine and I despise Netanyahu and the war in Gaza and the aggressive violent expansionism in the West Bank. Palestinians have and are being treated horribly and there is no excuse for it.
Feigelson has joined at least 30 OUSD Jewish families whose requests for transfer were approved between October and Dec. 19 specifically due to issues related to the Israel-Hamas war, John Sasaki, the Oakland school district’s director of communications, said in an email to J. last week.
So, the school is criticizing Israel for “75 year long illegal military occupation of Palestine” and called Israel an “apartheid state” with a government that uses “genocidal rhetoric and policies”.
I could understand that Jewish people might feel sorta uncomfortable here, with Israel being a part of their identity. And if this was what is was about, then I guess this could be discussed or something. But that ain't it.
No. Just no. Teachers criticizing Israel is not the same as the Holocaust.
While I do think this publication is not exactly impartial, I can sort of empathize with kids feeling like they're in a hostile environment. I grew up Muslim and after 9/11 I was practically begging my parents to take me out of school. This wasn't even in the States, but kids are assholes everywhere and it was the type of trauma I still catch myself thinking about.
Combine that with seeing police cars outside your mosque and people eyeing you in public and your parents being "randomly" searched at the mall. All the while religious leaders are very loudly shaping the narrative to: "The world hates muslims. They are bombing innocent people because they are muslim. The day will come when they will kill you for being muslim. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim." It seems alarmist and extreme in retrospect but for a while, that was a reality and I remember a lot of irrational decision at the time. I do think the lack of social media kept the victimization complex in check in our community at least. While some people could insulate themselves in their echo chambers, most had to go about their lives in an integrated society and life went on.
Fast forward 22 years and its clear that a similar thing is happening on both sides of this conflict but supercharged. I can only imagine that these kids and parents have a curated feed, bombarding with the "most engaging" view of this conflict, which is probably very one sided. And on the other side, I've seen my sisters tik-tok feed and watched my own family discussion become increasingly inflammatory and bigoted. People are being pushed so far that the other side existing is an existential threat.
I know it's important for the world to have eyes on this conflict and I do think the added attention exposes people to the harsh realities of war and geopolitics and could lead to meaningful changes. I just hate that its being seen through the lens of an unmoderated engagement algorithm.
This basically sums up why discussing the current war is so dang hard. People equate Israel with Judaism, so criticizing Israel is the same as being antisemitic to many people. You get people who take any critique as an attack on Jewish people as a whole, and then you also have antisemites who use it as further justification to be antisemitic.
Sometimes you can have civil conversations with people who understand you're criticizing the Israeli government's actions, NOT every single Jewish person in existence. Other times though... Yeah. The circumstances of Israel's founding, being a direct result of the Holocaust, make it even harder.
I hate this so much.
The moment I heard about the attack in Israel I tuned out of it because I’m incensed at the atrocities these people commit against each other. When both sides are victim and culprit, there is no redemption, so Id rather not deal with them.
I can understand to an extent the symbolism of Israel to Jewish people around the world, but it has caused this link in people’s mind that people who don’t support Israel - often regardless of reasoning- is somehow antisemitic. And that is a problem. A government is not and should not be a religion. This situation could be illustrative of the worst possible outcome.
I know this isn’t so simple, though. I would imagine that for some people criticizing Israel actually is a veil for their antisemitism. And as someone who ignores news on this topic I am almost certainly missing some information to give it more nuance.
People often talk about conflating Israel and Judaism, but this overlooks another point: it’s also wrong to harass Israeli immigrants because of their country of origin.
It’s the same thing as oppressing harassment of immigrants from Russia or Iran or China. Or, historically, the Irish or Italians. All immigrants should feel welcome.
So I do judge people who, with their overheated political rhetoric, don’t distinguish between opposing the Israeli government and saying nasty things about the people of Israel.
(There is some ambiguity because many Israeli support their government’s actions, but not all.)
I'm on my phone so it's tough to give a detailed response, but the issue I see is the term "75 years" and "from the river to the sea."
75 years refers to the 1948 founding of Israel and the subsequent war started by the 5 Arab armies. Generally, referring to 75 years is a dog whistle saying that Israel shouldn't exist.
After the 1948 war, Israel was larger, but didn't include The West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, etc. Those came from the 1967 war, started by Egypt, and ended with Israel controlling the West Bank and the Sinai peninsula. Years later, in exchange for recognizing the state of Israel, the Sinai peninsula was returned, and the West Bank was broken into districts with different governing plans and timelines to phase out Israel stewardship.
(Personal opinion) most of the criticism of Israel really should start with the handling of territories post 1967. Going back all the way to 1948 is problematic because it implies the only solution is to destroy the state of Israel. I.e., from the river to the sea.
Here is a copy paste from a prior post of mine that goes into some of the challenges with the clashing narratives in this conflict.
The point here is that the teachers should be able to criticize what Israel is doing, but 75 years and from the river to the sea are dog whistles for the destruction of the Jewish state. I can see why Jewish families wouldn't feel safe sending their kids to that school.
There is wisdom in their strategy. In the U.S., subsidized, barely safe, housing was built for black residents displaced by "urban renewal" initiatives. This housing was meant to be a temporary solution while better, permanent options were built. That was a promise clearly not kept, and now "the projects" are often pretty awful.
Given the history, it is reasonable for Palestinians to doubt that the Israeli government or IDF would build the same quality of development as the settlements.
I agree the projects were a promise unkept, but don't think that was the concern here. Some of these offers long predate the current state of affairs and happened during the height of two state discussions.
Unfortunately, the reason the refugees refused was to maintain "the right of return" which is the hope to return to hereditary villages. A very sad situation, with people of the present bound up in chains of the past. Many won't take any steps to establish new, better circumstances if it means giving up refugee claims. Ignoring the discussion of what is the right thing here, it is sad to see generational suffering and inability to move past a trauma that keeps dragging new young people into suffering.
I don’t know what is in these folks mind. I do find it a reasonable response in this circumstance to hold out for a full, equitable, and permanent solution rather than accept interim half-measures which come with a high risk of never becoming whole measures.
Emotionally, I don't disagree. Practically, what cure exists for the descendants of a village that doesn't exist anymore in a land possibly populated, possibly not, but governed in a way unlike how it once was? I don't have an answer, and it is rhetorical. I worry that no solution will ever happen in one fell swoop, but rather incremental progress over time. And the first steps are always the hardest.
I think "from the river to the sea" is an ambiguous slogan, where some activists mean it to be a call for a one-state democractic solution encompassing the entirety of Israel/Palestine and others mean it as a call for the eviction of the Jews entirely.
I am also not really sure what you are trying to say with your historical narrative apart from "it's complicated", which is not really a very meaningful historical analysis.
It is also pro-Israeli for example when you say
This seems like you are essentially saying that the Palestinians should "get over it", that they are responsible for their own fate (i.e. victim blaming) and that they are not (as they are) a dispossessed people?
As a very small detail, when you say
it is worth mentioning that the six-day war was an Israeli attack on the Arab states, rather than the other way around (of course it was provoked by a massing of defensive troops and the closing of the straits of Tiran).
Here is a reply I gave elsewhere regarding the slogan:
The problem with slogans is that they mean different things to different people. What can't be denied is that Hamas uses the slogan and has elements of it in its charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
AP news source
I posted a few other details in a different comment, but the phrase originally referred to the displacement of some 700,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war, whose history is more complicated than either side makes it out.
But quoting one person's opinion on the slogan and concluding it is ok is a bit misleading. Maybe some people don't use it to call for the destruction of Israel, but the people actively plotting for the destruction of Israel use and embrace it.
Beware the company you keep and don't be surprised if you get judged for it. The teachers should have done their research.
Regarding why I posted the history, because many people don't seem to know it. I also feel like people rush to take sides or embrace simplistic solutions because they don't know the complexity of the history.
I think you addressing me giving some of the complications of history as not helpful is symptomatic of the problem. Why do I need to advance an agenda or a solution in my post? Why can't I just explain the issue? Do I have to take sides?
I think I laid out my position fairly clearly. Both sides have been wronged and both sides are doing wrong. Which isn't to falsely equate them. Israel needs to stop settlers in the West Bank and stop indiscriminate military action in Gaza. Right now, in the moment, the wrongs being committed are not the same, but the history is complicated and there are recent historical reasons motivating Israels disproportionate response that probably aren't worth going into now. It doesn't make it right but it does make it complicated.
The challenge comes with what happens next. Israel can't negotiate with Hamas for a two state solution, because Hamas is ideologically opposed to Israels existence. That is the crux of much of the challenge with a two state solution; 3 of the 5 initial Arab countries that attacked still don't recognize their 1949 armistice borders and are inviting violence and destabilizing talks.
Likewise, Israel can't negotiate with the Palestinian authority; they don't have a monopoly on violence, a prerequisite for any state.
Also, I don't see how I victim blamed the Palestinian refugees. I was pretty blunt with what they went through. When I was describing their adherence to the right of return it was to highlight the cross generational challenges involved in fixing this problem, not to minimize their suffering.
Regarding the 6 day war, yes, Israel attacked in response to arms build up and closing of the straights, which is a pretty clear cassus belli.
If you click through my post history, you can see some of my previous discussions on this site from a thread on Zionism
There, I explain why many Israelis and diaspora Jews see the only conclusion of Israel no longer existing as a protective Jewish state as likely to lead to Jews being cleansed from the region.
To quickly summarize, it's because most of them are within 3 generations of that actually happening in their previous home country (or surviving an attempt, for Mizrahi Jews). For generations, the most valuable skill a Jew could have was the ability to tell when they needed to flee for their lives. And so should the IDF cease to exist in a format similar to now, it would cause mass emigration of many Jewish Israelis who could afford to get out -- and many don't have anywhere else to go, having been expelled from their originating country inba previous generation
If you think of that state as the only reliably safe harbor for jews fleeing persecution, then yes. They've seen how quickly it can happen in europe, I can hardly blame them for taking their safety in their own hands, and deleting Israel from the state removes that security. Of course that's a viewpoint that's going to change depending on perspective. E.g. if you consider jews permanently and reliably safe in western democracies, that is an entirely moot point. But from a jewish perspective? For an Israeli, I think one's view on that position would be quite clear; the removal of the state is unacceptable. For an international jew, feeling even a little bit of kinship with israelis e.g. because you have family there, I don't think it's a reasonable proposition either for most.
TL;DR: It's not directly calling for genocide. But depending on PoV, it might look like possible preparation of one, or at least making it a lot easier.
I don't think that is the same thing necessarily, but I think calling for the destruction of the state is a rather dramatic thing to do and would raise quite a few hackles given the history that led to its creation.
It’s strange to me after seeing the concept that speech is violence was so strongly embraced, so many feel comfortable determining whether some Jewish people’s fears are warranted or not. Using rhetoric used by Hamas in a classroom qualifies as violent speech to me clearly. Especially in a time when so many Jewish communities are impacted by hate crimes and threats of hate crimes.
Perhaps this is the example that shows that treating speech as violence is a mistake.
What’s the basis and in what sense? The article is not even about prosecuting speech. It is about Jewish families reacting to speech out of fear and comments are saying that the fear is unwarranted. It’s wild to me that someone feels like they have judgement in a situation they have read an article about to come to a conclusion that a families decision to change their life in a non-trivial way is overly dramatic. The top comment said this is not the same as the holocaust. I don’t think anyone in the article claimed that it was. I can’t imagine people responding to black families reacting to the very real injustice happening today with “this is not the same as Jim Crow”.
I am surprised you would even suggest that Jewish families are not affected by violent speech today. Or that considering this hateful speech to be violent is a mistake. Even if you are Jewish, you certainly cannot speak on behalf of all Jewish families.
I believe "from the river to the sea" (which appeared on a poster in classroom) is generally considered a veiled threat? Or something? Maybe it's not meant that way.
Right. Basically, the river is the Jordan river and the sea is the Mediterranean. The area between those two bodies is the entirety of the country of Israel.
So the slogan - "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is generally interpreted - and meant as - a call for the replacement of the Israeli state in its entirety with a Palestinian state.
As you can imagine, things get very complicated from there and basically break down along the expected lines.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-1.7033881
...
Check out the map included in this article for a visual of what the slogan means, and the comparison chart of number of Israeli vs Palestinian deaths.
Edit better map and history of the conflict
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts
The problem with slogans is that they mean different things to different people. What can't be denied is that Hamas uses the slogan and has elements of it in its charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
AP news source
I posted a few other details in a different comment, but the phrase originally referred to the displacement of some 700,000 Palestinians during the 1948 war, whose history is more complicated than either side makes it out.
But quoting one person's opinion on the slogan and concluding it is ok is a bit misleading. Maybe some people don't use it to call for the destruction of Israel, but the people actively plotting for the destruction of Israel use and embrace it.
Beware the company you keep and don't be surprised if you get judged for it. The teachers should have done their research.
Although it’s ambiguous, I think any reasonable person would be concerned about “dog whistles” and stop using the slogan to avoid being associated with anti-semites, rather than being defensive about it. (Just like we’re going to avoid using obscure Nazi symbols.)
It’s just a slogan, not particularly precise, and there are other ways to make your point.
This essentially never happens. A movement coins a slogan, the slogan becomes widespread, both supporters and detractors with different motivations come up with different ways to interpret the slogan until its meaning is completely muddied, and usage continues on anyway because it's just such a dominant phrase that clearly marks someone's political identity (even if their detailed opinions remain unclear). When a slogan like this dies, it's not because everyone collectively realizes it's an ambiguous phrase; instead, it peters out gradually over the years as the movement itself succeeds, fails, or changes.
This is such a common phenomenon because it's a coordination problem. Asking people to simply stop participating in coordination problems is unrealistic.
To celebrate MLK (Jr.) Day, I sat down to read a book on Bayard Rustin, who was an influential advisor of MLK, Jr.—he's the one who studied Gandhi and turned MLK on nonviolent resistance—and the principal organizer of the famous March on Washington.
Interestingly, the Civil Rights Movement arguably owes its success to its political coordination through organizations like the SCLC, and other organizations like the SNCC, CORE, and others, as opposed to more organic, decentralized movements of today. At various points, the Civil Rights Movement had central-ish points of contact for negotiation.
And there was message discipline: for the March on Washington (for Jobs and Freedom) Bayard and his associates wrote and selected slogans for protesters to bear.
I think that the inefficacy of modern protest movements have shown how incredibly important coordination and message discipline are. The internet has lowered the barrier to entry for both participation and leading, so now there are many low-commitment protesters and amateur/incompetent organizers who unwittingly hurt their cause.
I think about pro-Palestinian protests that targeted a falafel shop and a cancer clinic. I think about the slogan "from the river to the sea".
Good PR is hard. Bad PR is easy.
Although it's true that often we are just observers, this seems a little too fatalistic. There were fair number of words that were once in common use, but people stopped using because there were movements to taboo them. It does seem to take quite a lot of effort, though.
Also, we can make our own decisions about what language to use, we can talk about writing, we can be influenced by writing style guides, and so on. Prescriptivism is often futile, but it's possible to have influence.
(More practically, though, I expect my influence over activists is nil. I just wanted to share my own judgement on it here.)
I understand. I try to push back against it myself by avoiding using slogans because they are almost inevitably vague and misleading. But I must admit that the allure of simplicity is too great sometimes. For example, I have at times described myself as "pro-choice" to differentiate myself from "pro-life" people — even though I've met so-called "pro-life" people who favor stronger abortion rights than many so-called "pro-choice" people. Terms like this almost inevitably devolve into a flag people wave to express a political tribe they identify with, and rarely offer insight it their actual opinions.
The other way to push back against it is to not place much stock in any slogan that anyone uses. When they say "taxes are theft" or "believe women" or whatever, don't assume anything; ask them to describe what they think in detail, and reserve judgement until they do. This certainly won't stem the tide of slogan nonsense (which seems to just be the natural churn of human language in general — even non-political words and phrases are constantly losing and gaining meaning and significance in all different contexts), but it at least improves communication on a personal level.
At the same time, why are public schools in Oakland, California weighing in on a decades-long conflict on the other side of the world? What educational purpose does that serve?
Unless they're actually teaching the history of the conflict from its proximate roots in the Ottoman Empire and British imperialism, through European anti-semitism and the Holocaust, up to the political climate of contemporary Israel and its US support, there's no effing way they could conceivably be building nuanced understanding in their students. Making pronouncements and tacking slogans up on the wall is so half-assed that it does more harm than good.
Why teach any history at school then, though? All history is interpretation, and even academic history can't capture the nuances of our incredibly complex reality – even if you just compile a list of facts at some point you have to choose which ones you include and which ones you omit.
I don't see how you get from my comment to "history shouldn't be taught unless it's done in a completely objective manner." My point was that it doesn't sound like they're even attempting to teach history. They've put up posters with slogans that take a stance on a contemporary political issue without touching upon the origins of the conflict at all.
Having said that, this article has an obvious viewpoint, so I'm not prepared to say it's presenting all the relevant facts. Maybe the schools are using this as an opportunity to teach how history influences geopolitics and the details that prove this run counter to the site's preferred narrative. I don't know.
"Sorta" uncomfortable? Remember you are talking about kids here, with a 6-year old being the article's example. If you had a choice, would you want to put your kids in an environment where the people that is responsible for caring and educating them openly denounces their state? Would you not be concerned for their safety, social growth and mental wellbeing?
It is very important for kids that age to feel accepted and not facing tension and aggression of varying degrees everyday.
A six year old who was told not to wear his menorah pajamas because his parents thought the other kids, teachers, and staff might be antisemitic towards him. No one, except his parents, told him not to be Jewish, wear the pajamas, or anything else. There was no incident where the child was exposed to an antisemitic remark.
In other words, the parents are projecting their fear onto their child and their child may be being used as a prop for their grievances.
The point of their move is obviously be preventative, not reacting after the fact when the harm is done. The teachers' union heightening the tension is a pretty good reason to be careful, in my opinion.
"Projecting" and "prop" are very loaded terms and while I disagree with the connotation there, it is the parents' job to worry and look out for their kids, not to wait until something goes down and the damage has been done.
So is "fleeing for my life like my ancestors from the Holocaust" but I was trying to choose the least loaded words I could.
These are all westerners. The teacher's union stated something that has connotations they don't fully understand and someone got all huffy and freaked out. I'm not saying that they have to be fully passive and reactive to be in the right, I'm saying that no one is threatening them or driving a bulldozer into their house. If little Palestinian six-year-olds are old enough to be put through the displacement and genocide of their people, those parents can explain that to them.
Again, there have been no incidents as far as we know. The idea that these families have to flee (to LA) to avoid 'discrimination' that hasn't happened is ludicrous. Telling your kid not to wear their clothes because they might have teachers yelling at them about a genocide is paranoid. It's not like the teacher's union is posted outside the school like the Westboro Baptist Church waiting for kids in yarmulke to harass.
With all respect, the Jewish experience for children is that they will be called Christ killers, told they're going to hell, dealing with the fact that a large part of the world doesn't really want you to exist. It is the duty of parents to prepare their children for the realities of the world, but how to do that is hard. It's not insane to struggle with how to do that, and whether now is the right time or not.
Things being utterly unfair and shit for Palestinian children doesn't diminish that, neither should some kid in the US deal with that because of the religion and ethnicity they get from birth.
I won't pretend that those aren't some children's reality but the premise of this article is that the Oakland Teacher's Union's support of Palestine is tantamount to anti-Semitism.
Are there lots of places that are very unfriendly to people of Jewish descent? Yes but is Oakland
Countyone of those? I would need evidence of an actual occurrence to make that determination.I don't disagree with you that I'd love a world where we never have to deal with telling children about all the horrible things happening all over the world.
For context, I have, for a few years, been involved in my local Jewish community's efforts and have always felt uncomfortable at the reverence for Israel. How can I feel positively about them when I've watched over a decade of IDF war crimes?
I'm not sure I can give you the evidence you seek. A menorah was thrown in Lake Merritt, and https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/s/AcnPXqaqiD just happened, but I don't really know how to prove it. I grew up in a place that is also supposedly very hospitable to Jews.
I've also felt the same thing at, but always understood why they felt that way. When people feel credible danger for their family they will do awful things. They're still liable for it, but they'll do it. And of course some people are just racists and would do it anyway.
Well, that's certainly evidence of something going on and might be informing the parents actions.
I think it is natural for everyone to desire and feel affinity with a homeland where everyone looks and speaks like them. Children of immigrants in the US often feel a powerful emotional experience when they visit their parents' home countries. Some Black Americans try to retrace their ancestry and visit their ancestral lands: Liberia is the direct product of the Black American desire to reclaim ancestral identity.
Jews have been othered and without a homeland for millennia, so the desire for a sovereign ethnostate that can guarantee Jewish rights by military force is a universal human desire. Even Jewish individuals who are atheist, like Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros, still get othered and put in the box of the "scheming Jew" stereotype.
As an American Jew, the people of Israel don't really look like me (most are Mizrahi AKA of Middle Eastern descent) or speak like me (I don't use Hebrew as a communication language).
The appeal is that they'd accept me when nobody else would. I 100% feel like an American, and would only leave if America decided I was no longer American.
The broader point is that there is a place that you are accepted on an ethnic basis and the identity is such a place is completely of your ethnicity.
While you feel 100% American, the Jewish identity is not 100% subsumed in the American identity, otherwise no one would even care to draw boundaries between the Jewish community and the non-Jewish community.
In my reply to @Noblepath, the English or Scottish identity has been fully subsumed in the American identity. No modern American would ever go, “look at that English person!” because, beyond law and in the territory of the American psyche, America’s ethnic identity is fully their identity.
Yes, I agree with you in that point. The big distinction I'd argue is the ethnic identification for Jews is beyond shared language and "traditional" concept of ethnicity.
It may be common, but I wouldn’t agree it is natural. certainly I feel no affinity for the lands between England and Scotland. I do feel affinity for the lands where I grew up.
If what you say really is demonstrably true, we need to reconfigure our democratic ideals. If it is not demonstrably true, then it is a potentially very dangerous prelude to harmful racism.
That is because your ethnic group in the US is so completely accepted that it is no longer readily identified. No one would ever single you out as English or Scottish or care to.
Imagine an alternate US where it was colonized by East Asians. Though everyone is equal in law, in society your… Englishness is made an object of consideration.
Likewise, Jews are still very much identified and othered in the US.
I don’t disagree that having a home base of allies is comforting when I’m a stranger in a strange (maybe hostile) land. Honestly, being from Asheville I feel alienated in Raleigh.
I’m more concerned about the “natural” language, which implies some kind of racial-biological-fatherland kind of identity. And that feels like the beginnings of fascio-nationalism, which is terrifying to me.
Language isn't a necessary part of ethnic identity, but it is a major component.
I think that in the very, very long term, the only sustainable option is full assimilation into the majority, such that the rights and interests of the minority and the majority are one and the same because by then they are one people. Otherwise, a minority is always dependent on the goodwill and vibes of the majority, which can be fickle.
For example, there's a concept of "tribal sovereignty" for federal recognized native American tribes in the US, but it's only paper sovereignty, not real: they have zero military power, only legal protections, and if the US ever changes its mind and thereby its laws, when push comes to shove, the tribes have zero shove and will lose. Tribal nations are as real as Manchukuo.
Maybe in 100 years, in a multipolar world where rare earth metals and battery metals like lithium are even scarcer and more critical to the economy, the US discovers massive deposits on tribal lands and decides that economic and geopolitical interests are more important than tribal sovereignty, and voila, that tribal sovereignty goes poof. Historically, the US has violated treaties with Native American tribes when there were strong incentives to take their land.
A sovereign state must wield true power to advocate and back their interests (and ideally the interests of their people). It is very noteworthy that early Israel used its power as a new sovereign state to hunt down, kidnap and imprison or outright assassinate former Nazis and perpetrators of the Holocaust. It delivers the message that Israel will protect Jewish interests and lives through violence.
Not that I think that this kind of ethnic nationalism is ideal, only real. Personally I think the antidote / final endpoint is the end of racism — but also the end of ethnic distinctions, an ethnic singularity.
I've taken a course in Native American law. Unless our form of government were to change, there would have to be significant legal and political action for the basic structure of tribal sovereignty to change. However, specific incidents of mineral resources on tribal land already cause encroachments and exceptions in ways that in my view are tied to corporate economic clout and political corruption. Also, the historic events told in the book and film Killers of the Flower Moon were about wealthy native americans being targeted and murdered for the inheritance rights to their wealth. The problem is not simply for native americans but they are a good example. Unsophisticated random individuals who win the lottery frequently are targeted and lose their wealth also. Successful wealthy people and groups use a variety of skilled agents and industries to protect that wealth and those tactics and skills are not widely taught or known.
I agree with your point, but one tiny quibble, sorry. This is the City of Oakland, in Alameda County.
Thank you, had the right Oakland in mind but used the wrong words!
Well there you go. For all the talk about no one initiating provocation and threats, you are very quick to put them on the spot against Palestinians as if it's tragedy-measuring contest, like these families are ones somehow directly responsible. How are 6-year old kids supposed to react and deal with this?
How can people feel safe if others cannot or care not to distinguish the difference between Israel and Jews?
These are US citizens you're talking about. Teachers aren't denouncing their state, unless you're assuming that Jews aren't really Americans.
Citizenship does not always equate identity. It is obvious they feel tied to Israel at some level (willingly or unwillingly) otherwise this incident wouldn't even happen in the first place.
Yes. Many Jews, even in the United States, view Israel as a backup option. Israel goes away, no-more backup option.
I don't think a 6 year old can or should understand what's going on in Israel and Palestine, and it would be odd to me if they felt their greatest state allegiance was to Israel despite living in America. Honestly I don't think a 6 year old should feel much allegiance for any state, but at least feeling it for the state they live in seems that it would come sort of naturally.
Your implication is that having these posters and supporting Palestinian liberation means treating these children without acceptance and with tension and aggression, which I don't think is a fair characterization.
That's my point. They may not understand allegiance, but they almost certainly be aware that Israel's strong connections to the Jewish. Rightly or wrongly many actions of the Israel government will be attributed to Jews overall and there will be fallout.
None of this is fair, but I think it's the repercussions of the action of the union. Their message may not have intended to create problem for kids, but I believe will cause massive social tension in an environment where kids are meant to feel safe.
What is the endgame of the union, for them to prioritize political messaging over the safety and growth of the kids they are suppose to look after?
Not every Jewish tragedy is the Holocaust, it could be one of the thousand other times a society decided it didn't really want Jews anymore, and expelled them. The significance of Israel to many Jews is that if that happens, they'll have a place to go.
Totally agree. Love how the jump was "they've criticized Israel. They must want me dead."
I really have to disagree that this is some sort of huge jump.
This classroom has a "from the river to the sea" poster... that is exactly how these things begin, and what they are talking about is exactly the end result of escalating rhetoric.
Who are we to say they shouldn't feel unsafe? It's their lived experience, not ours, and I am 100% certain that they are perfectly capable of noticing a difference from pre- to post-October 7th. Especially since this story is not rare in any way. Jews now feel more unsafe and that's the way it is in every single country.
Jewish people in Germany were blamed directly for Germany's problems. Other Germans believed that directly enacting those slogans would fix their problems.
These people believe that support of the Palestinian struggle against Israel is a direct threat on their safety.
Should the Dutch living globally felt that any support of Mandela was a direct threat to them? What about Americans reading the slogans of Native American groups wishing to retake their tribal land? How about the British when they hear of a free Ireland, is that a threat to them?
Supporting an oppressed people is not an implication of genocide. I can still support Syrian people while condemning actions taken by the Syrian government against the Kurds. Wishing for a free Kurdistan is not wishing for the destruction of Turkyie, Iraq, and Syria.
We see in the history books that the German population and the world stood idly by while the Jewish were genocided in Europe. Should people not voice their dissent to the actions of Israel because some people might feel uncomfortable 3,000 miles away?
I'm not so naive as to say that no one would ever act on a slogan nor that there are people unreasonable enough to project the crimes of Israel onto the Jewish population elsewhere. I may be callous but I'm not too worried about the feelings of some Californians while the Palestinians are being bombed en masse.
But they 'feel' unsafe because
And a pro-Palestinian stance taken by the teachers union.
I'm going to list some things that are tangentially related that I think might provide some context. This is not meant to be complete, just what comes to mind.
I hate that people on both sides of the issue conflate Israel with Jewish people.
I doubt these issues are limited to Oakland. I wonder how Jewish children and parents are feeling in Detroit or other US cities where there has been a high percentage of Muslim immigration right now.
Oakland is an interesting diverse city with a long history of radical protests. It was the home of the Black Muslims and Malcolm X back in the day. Only a few years ago there was a scandal and 'Your Black Muslim Bakery ' was closed by the city after many decades.
It has a liberal/radical constituency who will talk seriously about the need and obligation to return formerly native American land to the descendants of those indigenous people without regard for cost or political practicality. They aren't talking just about for example turning parts or even all of the Dakotas into a buffalo habitat where people can live a hunter gatherer lifestyle although they would consider that a start. They are talking about giving it all back, including Manhattan. The settler colonialism accusations about Israel are widely believed and disdained, and the acts of the Israeli right wing supporting Settlers in the West Bank offer corroborating evidence that this world view is correct. Progressive leftists who reject our colonial settler history find it easy to extend that to Israel.
The school system is large, diverse, frequently avoided by upper middle class families because private schools are academically better and safer. I'm not currently involved but kids getting beaten up for a variety of reasons was always an issue with the schools. Oakland has especially Mexican gangs, not the same gang distribution as Los Angeles, but gangs and organized crime are part of the mix.
We expected the Serbs and Croats and Kosovars in the US to not bring their war here, but Israeli connected Jews and Palestinians and other Muslim immigrants have larger populations and are more politically connected and more active lobbying. Also antisemites and anti Muslims are using the conflict for their own agendas.
San Francisco city council recently unanimously voted to support a ceasefire in Gaza.
My observation is that activists on both sides want to corral discussion into polarized extremes and will deploy accusations and insults accordingly. Not everyone will accuse you of being antisemitic for wanting a cease fire, but some will. Similar opposite accusations will be made by pro palestinians.
I feel that antisemitism is simmering in Oakland. Last time I took the BART through Oakland I saw “death to Israel” graffiti scrawled on station walls. I think it was either the 16th or 19th st stations.
While I lived there, I sensed an undercurrent of inter-minority tension where there is resentment toward “successful” minorities.
Thanks for sharing your observation. I agree. Your comment inspired me to risk sharing a couple of thoughts.
As a longtime (white - multigenerational Californian) resident of California and Oakland, I have definitely observed interminority race and class related tension where cultures and attitudes clash, biases thrive and the less 'successful' resent the 'successful' and vice versa. I remember the Rodney King riots and the neighborhood merchants with their firearms on the rooftops of their businesses.
I am going to risk sharing a personal theory that might be one aspect of a complex multifactorial phenomenon. Feel free to ignore if it isn't interesting or useful, or just tell me I'm full of shit lol. My facts are accurate. My speculations are simply theories that have probably been stated in more nuanced politically correct ways by scholars. Also in my humble experience, every group contains haters and racists and more benign people who are simply more comfortable among their own group.
Historically many African Americans risked punishment or lynching if they were perceived to be 'uppity', including if they were too obviously economically successful. Teaching black people to read was a crime in southern states. There is a long history of bad things happening to black entrepreneurs and business people including The Black Wall Street Massacre. Slavery in particular separated families again and again, impacting black culture in the US.
Immigrants to the US arrive knowing none of that history nor the resentment it breeds toward capitalists, intellectuals, profiteers, bosses, newcomers/outsiders who arrive with wealth or quickly succeed. Edit black migrants to the west coast also don't know the history of asian descended people here. Learned helplessness has been studied in individuals but less so as a generational phenomenon or with regard to large groups. I'm going to stop here as this is all very sensitive and speculative and will always be different for individuals and I'm not a member of the communities I'm discussing, just a keen observer of California's immigrant and multiethnic context in which I live and try to get on with neighbors and friends.
Virulent antisemites exist. The two opinions can coincide in the same person or group. Also as others have said, jewish people have a long history of living within a culture for one or more centuries and then being respectfully or violently required to leave and find a different place to live and survive. One of the selling points for supporting Israel is that it has promised to always be a home for jews worldwide.
I have incredibly conflicted feelings about Israel/Palestine and I despise Netanyahu and the war in Gaza and the aggressive violent expansionism in the West Bank. Palestinians have and are being treated horribly and there is no excuse for it.
From the article: