1w ago

Israeli foreign minister says arms embargoes will lead to 'second Holocaust' and end of Israel

www.middleeasteye.net Israeli foreign minister says arms embargoes will lead to 'second Holocaust' and end of Israel

Israel’s foreign minister has said that an arms embargo on his country would lead to the elimination of the Israeli state and “a second Holocaust”.

Gideon Saar was speaking on Tuesday at an international conference on antisemitism in Jerusalem.

World News @quokk.au

Israeli foreign minister says arms embargoes will lead to 'second Holocaust' and end of Israel

www.middleeasteye.net /live-blog/live-blog-update/israeli-foreign-minister-says-arms-embargoes-will-lead-second-holocaust

14 7

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

80 comments

It doesn't sound like that to me at all? What about that phrase signals anything about the destruction of anything except the entity of Israel? Outside of the way it's propagandized against which would happen to any phrase.
- You are probably very steeped in theory, and such words have a precise meaning to you. That's awesome btw that you read and think about this a lot, but the people we need to advertise to don't.
  "destroy israel," "israel doesn't have the right to exist" and so on just sound to me like a call to evict israelis from the land. I have seen people on lemmy make this exact inference. A common response is "but what you want is also genocide," indicating that people think those phrases really mean physically destructive action.
  
  What is the alternative which wouldn't be warped by Zionist propaganda? They literally frame everything as a call for their destruction, the OP is them framing calls to stop directly arming their genocide as such.
  "BLM" was met with "white lives don't matter?"
  "Defund the police" was met with "so you want crime to run rampant?"
  "Abolish ice" is met with "so you want open borders?"
  "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is met with "so you want to genocide the Jews".
  You don't combat this by simply switching language as your new choice will also be attacked in the same vein. Conceding on these fronts only serves to legitimize the framing Of the original message as extreme.
  If we constantly shift to avoid their criticism, we will inevitably end at "all lives matter" and something like "Israel has a right to defend itself...but so does Palestine" (and even this would be ruthlessly attacked by Zionist propaganda).
  Our goal is to transform/counter the narrative pushed from authority towards the masses (that Israel has the right to defend itself and what we are seeing is them enacting that right, the might just be going a little too far), towards what we believe (that settler colonial regimes have no such rights as they are inherently the aggressor and Palestinians deserve to live not under the boot of their oppression) not to fit inside of it.
  We are to be "the vanguard", leading the masses towards a future of our making, not "the rearguard" focussed on following the masses towards wherever they march as led by borgious propaganda.
  We do this by standing firm in our principles and making access to our way of understanding readily available to any who question from a position of good faith.
  TLDR: They will attack and warp anything we say. We don't avoid this by constantly switching to something less radical, we fight against it via educating those willing to listen.
  
  BLM was met with "all lives matter" which was met with "that's racist" which was met with "no it's not racist" and loops the last two forever. I don't see any easy gains here; BLM as a slogan seems fine to me.
  "Defund the police" would do much better as "Replace the police." Not joking, most people seriously think the "defund the police" have no alternative in mind. I'd call that a non-starter, so the slogan is bad.
  No comment about ICE. Haven't thought about it. I'm not American.
  RttSPWBF begs the question, since that's essentially the same as "destroy israel."
  You don’t combat this by simply switching language as your new choice will also be attacked in the same vein.
  Hard disagree. If something can be improved by being phrased better it should be. I cannot see how anyone would consider making a slogan more precise to be failing somehow. If the slogan is misunderstood, and there's a good alternative, it's sensible to switch. If you're coming at this from the perspective that you won't be able to change anyone's mind anyway, then I can see why you'd abandon rhetoric.
  we fight against it via educating those willing to listen
  So you are not abandoning rhetoric. The message should be optimized to not be rejected on sight by those willing to listen.
  Our goal is to transform/counter the narrative [...] not fit inside it
  How did you get from "we should improve the slogan to be clearer" to "let's fit inside the existing narrative"? I am not advocating for being less radical; and I wouldn't consider "coming up with a better slogan" to be the same as not holding firm.
  
  From the River to the Sea being "essentially the same as 'destroy Israel'", is a perfect example of the attacks not ceasing if you get rid of "no right to defend itself" style language, it's possibly one of the most targeted slogans, but it says nothing in the negative of Israel/Israeli existence, only the positive of freedom for Palestine/Palestinians. The negative connotation is entirely fabricated away from the slogan and the same would happen to any other phrase created trying to tow the line.
  If something can be improved by being phrased better it should be. I cannot see how anyone would consider making a slogan more precise to be failing somehow
  I'm not against it as a 100% firm principle. I asked for your alternatives which fit your view for a reason, not just rhetorically. These slogans have been around for decades. Masses of people have rallied around these slogans in protest against Israel, they work. I'm arguing that a simple change of slogans will not win anyone over. The problem isn't these slogans, but it the institutional stance against what the slogans represent.
  How did you get from “we should improve the slogan to be clearer” to “let’s fit inside the existing narrative”?
  Because a slogan will always have enough ambiguity for them to propagandize against it, and they will do so, rendering that slogan now a "radical" slogan in the same vein as the current ones. The established powers will always work faster to discredit and muddy the slogan than you can clarify/clear it.
  "Decolonize Palestine" would be met with the exact same arguments as "Israel has no right to exist".
  "Free Palestine" is already treated as an "anti-Semitic dog whistle".
  Ultimately: If you want to propose new, sanitized/clear slogans, absolutely feel free to so, do it here and if I find them compelling I might use them. Do it at a meeting of any action group you are a apart of and I'm sure they will do the same and/or also think of new slogans along those lines. If you are right and these new slogans are more effective, I'm sure they will grow. Otherwise, this isn't something that will be solved here. We are going to talk in circles.
  
  I don't have any particularly good slogan in mind. That's why I asked if anyone else did.
  Why have you argued at length against new slogans, only to end off with "but feel free to suggest a new slogan!" Like man you're just wasting my time.
  
  I haven't been arguing against new slogans, I've been arguing in defense of existing slogans and pointing out that the slogans themselves aren't as flawed as you perceive, but that your perception of their flaws is a result of circumstances that would exist even if we changed the slogans.
  
  You're talking about people having knee-jerk reactions to slogans like "destroy Israel" due to established powers. In this case, I don't think the established powers need to do anything to cause this knee-jerk reaction. It's quite automatic when somebody says something like "destroy <somebody's home>." The problem is that the slogan itself is not that it's incendiary, but misleadingly incendiary.
  I even think it might be a Motte-and-Bailey -- it sounds obviously physically destructive, but when interrogated, proponents of the slogan retreat to "no, we just mean societal restructuring, in the abstract sense." I'll admit, I don't know if there's any way that one can defend against being accused of a Motte-and-Bailey, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
  My tinfoil hat theory is that the established powers seeded the phrase "destroy Israel." I think it's that self-defeating of a slogan.

80 comments