• acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Which is exactly why Germany should make a sustained, honest and deep commitment to make Germany a sanctuary for Jews (and Roma people by the way), and a place where Jews would be guaranteed safety. Instead of outsourcing its responsibility to a country in some faraway war-torn region, Germany should establish a right of refuge in Germany for any person of Jewish decent anywhere in the world.

      If they made a law saying that to become a German citizen, one must assume the historical burden of the Holocaust and wholeheartedly take on this historic debt to Jews (and other impacted peoples, again let’s not forget the Roma people), nobody would bat an eyelid.

      Frankly this goes more generally to insane statements like the ones made by US President Biden that Israel is the safest country in the world for Jews. Motherfuckers, there is literally nothing stopping you from making your own countries safe for Jews. If I were the chancellor of Germany I would be PROUD for Germany to be SAFER for Jews than Israel.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      Zionism is a political philosophy. Israel is a secular political state. Judaism is a religion. Jewish is an ethnicity as well as followers of a religion.

      One can support Jews and Judaism without supporting the rightwing Israeli government or the country. Millions of Jews worldwide already do.

      Germany condemns Iran, does that mean they’re anti-Persian? No.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Germany is being consistent in its support for a diaspora of European Jewish people forming a settler-colonial apartheid ethnostate. The Nazis tried to do that very thing themselves (against Jewush people and slavs, of course) and even worked with Zionists to get Jewish people to “self-deport”, providing substantial financial assistance for this early part of the Holocaust. They even used the same forms of self-serving rationalizations for genocide, simultaneously portraying themselves as a victim and ethnically superior.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        No, there really isn’t. The Nazis collaborated with the founding Zionists, Israel has always been a genocidal settler-colonial project and Germany has retained support of it.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes, it is complicated which is why I said “not 100% awful” instead of completely justified or something like that.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s pretty cut and dry that the original Zionists were anti-yiddish anti-Communist anti-semites that allied with prominent anti-semites against diaspora in order to pursue their settler-colonial project, which the Nazis gleefully worked for.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yes, antisemetic Jewish people living in different countries deliberately spreading antisemetic lies that they can’t integrate and need an ethnostate. The fact that they were Jewish doesn’t make settler-colonial genocide “not cut and dry.”

                • GarrulousBrevity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  So, your argument that it’s not complicated is that Israel was founded by antisemitic Jews? I’m not even saying that you’re factually wrong, but you keep insisting that this isn’t complicated. It is complicated, and the more you insist that it’s simple, while giving increasing amounts of fine details is not particularly convincing

              • Drop Bear@theblower.au
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                I think you’ll find that all of the “original Zionists” were Christian @GarrulousBrevity
                What we now call “Zionism” grew after the Protestant Reformation, and is rooted in 17th-century English Puritanism.

                It had two significant streams:

                1. the return of Jews to Palestine (basically, a way to rid Europe of its Jews - a form of antisemitism, a couple of centuries before that term was coined);
                2. the second coming of Jesus (Jews who want to survive don’t remain Jewish).

                At the time, Jewish communities weren’t impressed. In the 19th century, Herzl and his friends exploited the movement to their own ends.
                @Cowbee

                #Israel
                #Palestine
                #Zionism

                • GarrulousBrevity@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  I think you’re conflating being Jewish with Judaism. His religious beliefs aren’t really what’s in question here, @[email protected]’s comment sums the idea up well. Herzl was, with no ambiguity, a member of the Jewish community.

          • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            There is nothing inherently correct or false when it comes to black and white vs. gray. These are not real moral or epistemological quantities. Sometimes there are salient and clear-cut characterizations and this is the better way to think of a topic. Sometimes it is better to adopt multiple angles because no single view is usefully capturing a topic.

            Instead of being indirect and appealing to false logic, why not just say what you actually find objectionable?