Pete, one of the things I really respect about you - and one of the reasons I'm a subscriber - is how you engage with people you disagree with and bring their volces into the conversation without wavering on your values. Thanks for modeling that very difficult work.
When Proud Bear Jews yell, sing, or chant “Am Yisrael Chai,” they don’t actually mean “long live the Jewish nation or Jewish people.” They mean “Medinat Yisrael Chai”— “long live the State of Israel.” What military has a higher child death count than that of the State of Israel? What state has attacked more neighboring countries or intervened in more local elections than Israel?
When I see you wave an Israeli flag, don IDF dog tags, or wear a Z”HL t-shirt to school, the message is unambiguous. “I support killers and thieves.” I hate you for this and will do whatever I can to resist you, but I have no illusion that outlawing a phrase or censoring you for using it will change outcomes.
Another Shock Doctrine example? The destruction of Gaza after 10/7.
I don't know if one could outright BAN the expression but one could discourage its use! You can split hairs till the cows come home and talk about how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but the fact remains that when people hear "globalize the intifada," they hear "JIHAD." That's why the phrase is so offensive to so many people. OK, now for whom I should like you to interview--Mayor Zohran Mamdani (he will be Mayor by the time you do it).
Thank you for this process. Going From January to December, I nominate these interviews: Rashid Khalidi, Mahmoud Muna, Omar El Akkad, Fania Oz-Sulzberger and Aziz Abu-Sarah, A. Stain on Judaism, A kingdom of wickedness, the author of the IHR definition of anti-semitism, A short History of the Gaza Strip.
I really loved the episode with Gideon Levy. Very useful and enlightening. Also on slogans: I love “one state solution” as a descriptive term but really question use of “anti-Zionism”…. Find it disturbing and suggestive of clearing area of Jews. Maybe an episode where you discuss terminology would be useful? I wonder how people feel about this generally. Thanks.
Cheeto’s art of projection becomes painfully obvious as he falsely attributes qualities or traits to people, agencies, or institutions that he himself possesses Lying about something or someone just supports what Cheeto is or does
When Cheeto says that Joe Biden is this or that in derogatory terms he is merely recognizing those same qualities in himself and projects those qualities onto Biden
When Cheeto says that the military should do such and such tasks he is showing what he himself would do if he was in the military
When Cheeto complains that CBS or Time are not covering him honestly he is simply complaining about the fact that he deserves to be covered dishonestly and that the media should lie about him since he always lies about himself
The psychological study of this sick sick mind and body can become a good learning experience for the American electorate And don’t forget the Republican Nazis who support the malignant narcissist
As always the voice of reason. I 100% agree. I understand that there are Jews who hear “Globalize the Intifada” and feel threatened (i heard that from some of my friends). That said it - for many it holds the meaning of “Rise up against oppression”. Which was done in South Africa and Northern Ireland. There is something extremely ominous in how i feel this oppression of our rights and freedoms is being done in the name of Antisemitism. What up? Yes it is on the rise, as is Islamophobia and hate in the US. It’s not good to single out one group in this way. It doesn’t feel right.
Honestly, I don't see the hang up on words to be that important. As long as the slogan is precise why should one cling to a word that acts likes a propername and can be redefined outside of its native speaker population. Why not use resistance or equal rights for all in Palestine. Something clear. This is the mirror problem of the antisemite(TM) archaism from the 19th century. while Jew hatred "theory" would be more precise and less vulnerable to murederous immunity abuse by applied linguistics technology for public opinioin massaging. I would not feel like I would have to explain at each sentence that my moral injury, in increasing awareness of the world reality that is hard to get withiout all sorts of filters, when I am forced to either be antisemite or genocidal, is not Jew hatred, even if Israel blasts it is The Jewish state, I don't buy it. sorry but I have am pissed at this imposition of moral nature. Language needs to be cleaned up. and a centralized propaganda industry can't fool the many and their diversity of thinking. it shows in talking point pattern propagating. the imagination room within real moral universal stance is large. The room for propaganda fooler is small. what can I say. I deplore all murders equally. but some have a systemic and own society collaboration centuryt old moral injustice to it.
Your conclusion may be true but I think your argument for it is not good. "Globalize the intifada" doesn't just support intifada. It advocates intifada. Your examples are example of supporting violence not of advocating it. Again, I'm saying your argument is not good. I'm not criticizing or addressing your conclusion (namely, that the chant should not be banned). I'd like to hear a stronger argument for it.
Yes, freedom of speech is a key foundation for democratic freedoms. So "globalize intifada" shouldn't be banned. Though it's implications should be questioned, and Zohran Mamdani said he would not encourage use of that expression, for good reason. An interesting development about freedom of speech just happened in Israel. The "ultra" fans of the left-wing soccer club Hapoel Tel Aviv, my team (yes, in Israel and much of Europe, sports clubs have political associations), wore shirts to a recent game with three circles crossed out - The Israeli police (under extreme right-wing National Security Minister Ben-Gvir), Kach (Meir Kahane's fascist party that Ben-Gvir was educated in) and the rival "enemy" Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer club, calling all of them "scum". The police forced them to leave the stadium with the charge of incitement. The Hapoel ultra fan club appealed to the Supreme Court, that still has a liberal Chief Supreme Court Justice, which declared that the police action was illegal, and an infringement on freedom of expression. The fans were allowed to come the stadium in the following games wearing the shirt.
I understand and agree with your logic - that it is not right to legislate the phrase be banned. However, I think we need to be honest that the phrase is very uncomfortable to hear given its recent history of being used for indiscriminate violence.
I recognise that Israel enacts indiscriminate violence but that doesn’t make it okay to do the same.
We also need to be honest that both people who call for Israel to “defend itself” and people who call for “globalise the intifada” both do not recognise that what they’re saying could be interpreted as indiscriminate violence, as I don’t think that’s either party’s intention.
That said, I’m not sure why we’re even talking about this phrase as those who committed the massacre do not appear to have any ties to the Palestinian movement… aside from being Muslim - which is obviously a stretch..
Pete, one of the things I really respect about you - and one of the reasons I'm a subscriber - is how you engage with people you disagree with and bring their volces into the conversation without wavering on your values. Thanks for modeling that very difficult work.
Correctamundo.
When Proud Bear Jews yell, sing, or chant “Am Yisrael Chai,” they don’t actually mean “long live the Jewish nation or Jewish people.” They mean “Medinat Yisrael Chai”— “long live the State of Israel.” What military has a higher child death count than that of the State of Israel? What state has attacked more neighboring countries or intervened in more local elections than Israel?
When I see you wave an Israeli flag, don IDF dog tags, or wear a Z”HL t-shirt to school, the message is unambiguous. “I support killers and thieves.” I hate you for this and will do whatever I can to resist you, but I have no illusion that outlawing a phrase or censoring you for using it will change outcomes.
Another Shock Doctrine example? The destruction of Gaza after 10/7.
I don't know if one could outright BAN the expression but one could discourage its use! You can split hairs till the cows come home and talk about how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but the fact remains that when people hear "globalize the intifada," they hear "JIHAD." That's why the phrase is so offensive to so many people. OK, now for whom I should like you to interview--Mayor Zohran Mamdani (he will be Mayor by the time you do it).
Thank you for this process. Going From January to December, I nominate these interviews: Rashid Khalidi, Mahmoud Muna, Omar El Akkad, Fania Oz-Sulzberger and Aziz Abu-Sarah, A. Stain on Judaism, A kingdom of wickedness, the author of the IHR definition of anti-semitism, A short History of the Gaza Strip.
I really loved the episode with Gideon Levy. Very useful and enlightening. Also on slogans: I love “one state solution” as a descriptive term but really question use of “anti-Zionism”…. Find it disturbing and suggestive of clearing area of Jews. Maybe an episode where you discuss terminology would be useful? I wonder how people feel about this generally. Thanks.
Thank you Peter
Peace
Free Palestine ✌🏼🙏🏼
Lying Cheeto And Projection
Cheeto’s art of projection becomes painfully obvious as he falsely attributes qualities or traits to people, agencies, or institutions that he himself possesses Lying about something or someone just supports what Cheeto is or does
When Cheeto says that Joe Biden is this or that in derogatory terms he is merely recognizing those same qualities in himself and projects those qualities onto Biden
When Cheeto says that the military should do such and such tasks he is showing what he himself would do if he was in the military
When Cheeto complains that CBS or Time are not covering him honestly he is simply complaining about the fact that he deserves to be covered dishonestly and that the media should lie about him since he always lies about himself
The psychological study of this sick sick mind and body can become a good learning experience for the American electorate And don’t forget the Republican Nazis who support the malignant narcissist
As always the voice of reason. I 100% agree. I understand that there are Jews who hear “Globalize the Intifada” and feel threatened (i heard that from some of my friends). That said it - for many it holds the meaning of “Rise up against oppression”. Which was done in South Africa and Northern Ireland. There is something extremely ominous in how i feel this oppression of our rights and freedoms is being done in the name of Antisemitism. What up? Yes it is on the rise, as is Islamophobia and hate in the US. It’s not good to single out one group in this way. It doesn’t feel right.
Honestly, I don't see the hang up on words to be that important. As long as the slogan is precise why should one cling to a word that acts likes a propername and can be redefined outside of its native speaker population. Why not use resistance or equal rights for all in Palestine. Something clear. This is the mirror problem of the antisemite(TM) archaism from the 19th century. while Jew hatred "theory" would be more precise and less vulnerable to murederous immunity abuse by applied linguistics technology for public opinioin massaging. I would not feel like I would have to explain at each sentence that my moral injury, in increasing awareness of the world reality that is hard to get withiout all sorts of filters, when I am forced to either be antisemite or genocidal, is not Jew hatred, even if Israel blasts it is The Jewish state, I don't buy it. sorry but I have am pissed at this imposition of moral nature. Language needs to be cleaned up. and a centralized propaganda industry can't fool the many and their diversity of thinking. it shows in talking point pattern propagating. the imagination room within real moral universal stance is large. The room for propaganda fooler is small. what can I say. I deplore all murders equally. but some have a systemic and own society collaboration centuryt old moral injustice to it.
I had heard that "intifada" means "struggle". Can anyone verify that? That definition might feel somewhat less threatening to some.
Your conclusion may be true but I think your argument for it is not good. "Globalize the intifada" doesn't just support intifada. It advocates intifada. Your examples are example of supporting violence not of advocating it. Again, I'm saying your argument is not good. I'm not criticizing or addressing your conclusion (namely, that the chant should not be banned). I'd like to hear a stronger argument for it.
Sharp and true. G.O.
Yes, freedom of speech is a key foundation for democratic freedoms. So "globalize intifada" shouldn't be banned. Though it's implications should be questioned, and Zohran Mamdani said he would not encourage use of that expression, for good reason. An interesting development about freedom of speech just happened in Israel. The "ultra" fans of the left-wing soccer club Hapoel Tel Aviv, my team (yes, in Israel and much of Europe, sports clubs have political associations), wore shirts to a recent game with three circles crossed out - The Israeli police (under extreme right-wing National Security Minister Ben-Gvir), Kach (Meir Kahane's fascist party that Ben-Gvir was educated in) and the rival "enemy" Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer club, calling all of them "scum". The police forced them to leave the stadium with the charge of incitement. The Hapoel ultra fan club appealed to the Supreme Court, that still has a liberal Chief Supreme Court Justice, which declared that the police action was illegal, and an infringement on freedom of expression. The fans were allowed to come the stadium in the following games wearing the shirt.
Arab Barghouti
I understand and agree with your logic - that it is not right to legislate the phrase be banned. However, I think we need to be honest that the phrase is very uncomfortable to hear given its recent history of being used for indiscriminate violence.
I recognise that Israel enacts indiscriminate violence but that doesn’t make it okay to do the same.
We also need to be honest that both people who call for Israel to “defend itself” and people who call for “globalise the intifada” both do not recognise that what they’re saying could be interpreted as indiscriminate violence, as I don’t think that’s either party’s intention.
That said, I’m not sure why we’re even talking about this phrase as those who committed the massacre do not appear to have any ties to the Palestinian movement… aside from being Muslim - which is obviously a stretch..