Pro-Palestine demonstrators accused of antisemitism after protesting outside Fiddler on the Roof
(www.independent.co.uk)
from gedaliyah@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 07 Aug 2024 15:37
https://lemmy.world/post/18384452
from gedaliyah@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 07 Aug 2024 15:37
https://lemmy.world/post/18384452
The play is not about Israel but instead tells the story of a Jewish man preserving his family’s traditions in a village in imperial Russia at the turn of the 20th century. The performance on Monday went ahead as planned after the protest at the cafe.
“This is a performance of Fiddler on the Roof,” they wrote alongside footage of the protesters. “So, if you’re busy condemning racist demonstrations, but not this, & you don’t think they should be prosecuted, stop preening yourself. You’re happy with racism – it’s only the target that you worry about.”
#world
threaded - newest
The Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Independent:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
> Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/palestine-israel-fiddler-roof-regents-park-b2591807.html
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
That’s pretty stupid.
Are performances about Nakba allowed in Israel? Asking for a friend.
This was in London and has nothing to do with Israel whatsoever, so how is that relevant?
So, are performances about Nakba allowed in Israel?
I have no idea. Again, how is this relevant?
Do you think all Jews are Israeli? Do you think Fiddler on the Roof has an all-Jewish cast? Do you think it’s about Israel?
It is about an individual against the oppressive state. You know, like Palestinians in Israel 🙄
So, what about performances about Nakba? I will give you a hint - organisers of such performances have their funding removed and may be persecuted in “democratic” Israel. Go figure.
Again- this is a musical in London about Jews in Russia in the early 20th century.
Please answer my questions:
Do you think all Jews are Israeli?
Do you think this production of Fiddler on the Roof has an all-Jewish cast?
Do you think it’s about Israel?
So, are performances about Nakba allowed in Israel?
You have one last chance here to explain what that has to do with this before you get banned for trolling.
Can you actually read? I said it quite a few posts ago - it is about an individual and oppressing state. You know, like Palestinians in Israel.
Which has nothing to do with this event unless you think all Jews are Israeli or Israeli sympathizers.
Is that what you believe? This is the third and final time I will ask you.
This poster is being annoying, but flexing mods powers in a pointless argument is gross. You do it a lot. Just let it go.
Sorry, I do not tolerate bigotry.
No need to be sanctimonious. It isn’t always justified that way, and it’s just worth considering, that’s all.
I don’t think FelixCress is arguing in good faith, but to answer their question, yes.
The film Farha was shown in the Israeli town Jaffa, to much debate.
And, to quote the article you linked:
“It’s crazy that Netflix decided to stream a movie whose whole purpose is to create a false pretence and incite against Israeli soldiers,” said Israel’s outgoing finance minister, Avigdor Lieberman, in a statement. Lieberman also said he would look at withdrawing state funding from Al Saraya theatre in the Arab-majority town of Jaffa, which screened the film.
Now go figure.
I don’t know whether or not they’re antisemitic, but they do need to read the fucking room.
It is absolutely antisemitic. Fiddler on the Roof is about the Jewish culture and has nothing to do with Zionism or Israel.
This would be like protesting against Saudi Arabia actions at an Eid festival.
I’m Jewish (I’m even a mod in our Jewish community here on lemmy.world) and I am very sensitive to antisemitism, but there is also a lot of ignorance which you can call a form of soft bigotry if you like, but it does not rise to something I would consider antisemitism.
It could very well be that this was a case of a bunch of ignorant people.
Someone else suggested (based on the article itself) that it may have been coincidental and the protest just happened to be in the vicinity of the musical.
Or they were a bunch of antisemites.
I don’t feel like I have enough information to judge.
While we’re all tip-toeing around the criticize Israel minefield, remember that the Zionists don’t pay any attention to these rules. They’ll couch Israeli policy in Judaism as it suits them. And they’ll raise antisemitism as a bludgeon and the Shoah as a shield.
It’s a big disadvantage when only one side is nervous about appearing as a racist monster while the other is breaking new ground in bigotry and monstrosity.
Who is tip-toeing around the criticize Israel minefield? Criticize Israel all you like, just read the fucking room when you do it.
The article doesn’t have any statements from the protestors about why they were protesting there. Seems like a glaringly obvious omission.
Also, it’s not exactly clear where “there” even was
Was this demonstration actually in response to the play performance or did they just happen to be near each other?
Also, Palestinians are Semites…
That’s not what antisemitism means. This is like thinking that antipasto means someone is opposed to Pasto. Two different words.
Not a good example. Anti = before, pasto = meal. Antipasto is what you eat before the main dish. Whether people have meant antisemitism to mean specifically Jewish persons (a bad reading), the fact remains that Arabs are Semites and Palestinians are Arabs.
This article has nothing to do with Semites. You are wandering down a pointless thought experiment, and likely attempting to derail the conversation. I can understand your confusion; antisemitism as a word is historically derived from the same root as Semite, much as “antipasto” and “pastor” are derived from the same Latin root, although they have no common meaning today. Antisemitism is and has always been a specific prejudice against Jews.
Merriam-Webster | Oxford | Cambridge | Dictionary.com | Collins | American Heritage | The Atlantic (article)
That was something you just made up.
If you want to throw a definition at me that shows that antisemitism only applies to Jewish persons, then I can just as easily show you a definition that the word “literally” now means “really a lot” as in “I literally died when I heard that”. Language use changes.
What on earth are you talking about? You give me an awful lot of credit if you think I made up EVERY dictionary. I don’t think I missed any except for the community forums like wiktionary and urbandictionary. Of course language changes. That’s why professional linguists are employed by professional dictionaries to study the language and why words are frequently added or changed. That doesn’t mean words mean whatever you feel like at the moment.
You understood the use of the word in the article. You are trying to derail the conversation to make it about etymology rather than the subject of the news. You are wasting my time, as I’ve already sent you links to SIX dictionaries and an article in a major publication. You sent nothing but your personal feelings.
This hilarious part is that I am actually a linguist. But you’re obviously sensitive to this topic so I’ll walk away.
Sensitive? You are the one arguing that every dictionary is wrong. If you have an axe to grind, take it up with your editors - not me.
You could have walked away just now, you had every chance.
You’re acting in bad faith. Stop putting words in my mouth, stop projecting yourself at me. Whatever is going on here comes from your own insecurities. You appeal to authority in every exchange, and you are gatekeeping how other are allowed to use language as if there was some objective truth in the use of language. Every part of this is done for your own purposes that have nothing to do with this conversation.
Walk away, stop talking.
Just as an fyi it’s first use is in 1881 as interchangeably anti Judaic and anti semitic.
The use of anti semitic to mean anti Judaic is in fact bigoted as fuck. The word is literally taken from a racist who thought openly that Arabs were lesser than a Jew and didn’t care he was throwing them under the bus right alongside Jews. Just say anti Judaic since it’s actually accurate to an inarguable level and doesn’t make some weird bigoted class system.
Many Jewish organizations have advocated using the term “Jew hate” in order to avoid the linguistically and historically problematic “antisemitism” or “anti-Semitism,” but I am skeptical of the success.
By the way, you are close, but to clarify: the term was originated by Wilhelm Marr, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Anti-Semites) in 1879. This organization was not concerned with Semites in general, but with Jews in particular, as evinced by publications such as “Do not choose a Jew!” “Jew’s Mirror,” and “The War of the Jews.” You are absolutely right in that it is bigoted and coined by a bigot.
I’m for anti Judaic, follows the same form but it’s accurate.
www.etymonline.com/word/anti-Semitism
No I’m correct, it want used until 1881 not 1879 and Wilhelm was scared of Jews he however didn’t think much of and disliked arabs. He only added specificity to make sure people knew he was against semites generally and Jews specifically. I dunno if you’ve actually read his book but it makes it pretty clear.
I’m not sure where they are getting the date - maybe that was the first use in English? The group was founded in 1879. The term (at least in German) traces to that date.
I don’t speak German and I haven’t read any of his works, so I appreciate your educating me on that point. If there is an English-language resource I can learn more about his anti-Arab views, please share it. TIA
They sourced it boss. It’s the first published use, could it have been used before? Sure, we just have evidence of it.
I have a translated copy somewhere, I’ll dig to see if I can find it.
I’m confused about the reply - is it possible you missed a word? In any case, you can see from the source I mentioned that the word dates from at least 1879 in German print, but again, we are arguing about 2 years. It looks like Douglas Harper made a small error on his excellent website, but no one’s perfect. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to share. Which book are you referring to though? He has several as I mentioned.
(see also Encyclopedia Britannica, German Digital Library, Brill)
Dictionaries aren’t great with etymology just as an fyi.
The league was forged in 79, correct. The word wasn’t used in a known publication that we can verify until 1881, first known publication is always the winner in etymology because publication generally equals acceptance. I dunno if you’ve seen mean girls but it’s “fetch” in example of you get my meaning.
You’re being very confusing now. I didn’t say anything about a dictionary in our conversation. I sent you links from a research encyclopedia, a scholarly series, and two different records of the primary source. Did you have trouble viewing them? Let me know if you need others or if there is a problem I’m missing. Sorry if I’m asking you to simplify things too much as this is not my area of study.
Were you able to find the name of that book by the way? I have not seen any translations online, but in the German I have not been able to find any references to Arabs at all. It would help if I knew where you were looking.
Britannica is both a dictionary and an encyclopedia bud.
It’s Wilhelm’s book dude, your citing its author who coined the term in the later book after creating the society like three years earlier.
Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum – Vom nichtconfessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet.
Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum is only one of a half-dozen books and other publications Marr wrote. It does not discuss, nor even mention Arabs.
Thanks anyway. Have a good one.
It does but sure, have a nice night.
You are mistaken, once again. I’m not sure why you continually double down on easily disproven facts, even after seeing evidence.
There is a brief passage about the “Jewish Press” siding with Turkey in the Russo-Turkish War, but that is framed entirely as a criticism of the “Jewish press,” not a criticism of the Turks. It makes no mention of Arabs whatsoever.
Marr references “Semites” or “Semitism” (etc.) 26 times in the work, and those are explicit, exclusive references to Jews or the Jewish people all 26 times. This is all plain for anyone to see. The entire work is publicly available. I’m sorry, but there doesn’t seem to be anything I can learn from you on this subject.
What disproof? Nuh uh isn’t a refutation.
Dude I’m not going to explain to you how to read nuance that Ctrl f doesn’t give.
You already said good day, are you going to say that every time and keep contradicting yourself?
The person we are responding to has an agenda. They aren’t in it to exchange ideas, they are in it to force you to accept their view of world. This person is offended personally that we don’t automatically agree.
There’s tons of that here, same as Reddit just more echo chambers.
You notice it when you’re downvoted heavily and go back an hour later to see that you’ve been voted into the low positives again. It’s really sad how people astroturf so often.
I don’t care about downvotes, I find it funny more often than not especially if they come with a ban for a odd reason.
This Lemmy instance seems to be pretty light on bans but others are not so much.
How is that relevant?
I was noticing that, and a suspicious lack of reason for why this play would be singled out. Those kinds of omission make this super sketchy imo, it often indicates not that the protestors had no point or were antisemitic, but that they had a point and the article is withholding it to paint them as antisemites. Hopefully there are first hand sources or less biased news articles that explain it
Because the play involved Jewish protagonists even though it had nothing to do with Israel or Palestine? That’s the point.
Pro-Palestinian protests are justified, but when they do things like this or things like defacing the statue of Anne Frank, they are clearly being appropriated by those who say Zionism so they can avoid the antisemitism label.
People are dying in a literal genocide and this garbage gets upvoted?
Oh shit a protest was near a fucking play, stop the press who cares about genocide against the Palestinians let’s focus on bogus claims of antisemitism instead.
This is an obvious case of trying to tar pro-Palestine supporters as antisemitic, same as has been done every other day by the media and zionists.
I think it would be disingenuous to claim there aren’t a lot of antisemites involved in Pro-Palestinian protests.
It would be disingenuous to claim that antisemitism isn’t being weaponised by Zionists and their allies to muzzle free speech.
Both are true, so why do you seem to suggest they are mutually exclusive?
Because only one of those is given currency by Corporate media.
My definition of truth tries to be objective, not subjective to wanting to dismiss something because Corporate media pushes it.
How many articles have you seen from mainstream media suggesting that anti semitism accusations are just cover for silencing Pro Palestinian voices?
Now compare that to the number of articles saying that Palestinians supporters in the West are Hamas supporters, hate marches, anti semites and Iranian backed.
The narrative is hard to miss once you spot it.
The challenge with the left is that any attempt to call out that antisemitism or those individuals is seen as an attempt to undermine the entire movement.
I would love to see a free and safe Palestine alongside a free and safe Israel. Some will accuse me of being hateful or at least delusional for wishing for peaceful co-existence.
The problem is (until recently) Zionists used soothing words about a two state solution while building illegal settlements in the West Bank and enforcing a brutal apartheid.
The only solution is one state with equal rights for all. But that is the one solution no one in the West is talking about because it goes against the ethno state’s raison d’etre.
If Isreal gets it’s way, it’ll be 1 state, but we won’t like how that sausage gets made.
Yup. The important part of that previous poster’s statement is with equal rights for all. Israel wants one-state but not that part, which is basically what they have now.
The real solution is a no-state solution.
Depends how you quantify “a lot”. More then none, much less than a majority.
It’s an uneven distribution, like the post demonstrates.
Uneven with what?
There’s a second layer of heavy irony here when you look at what led to the Zionist movement in the first place.
Jewish persecution across Europe had always been a thing, but following the Russian revolution, there were pogroms of Jews, who were scapegoated by Tsar supporters as responsible for the revolution.
This was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It led a prominent Jewish thinker/author to conclude that Jews would never have safety or security unless they had their own country. Simultaneously, Jewish culture was undergoing changes and enlightenment at the time. All of this taken together is what gave rise to a powerful Zionist movement.
Fiddler of the Roof is the last thing anyone should protest, because preserving Jewish culture in Russia and hostilities from Russia towards it are what led to Israel in the first place!
Morons. I support the other pro-Palestinian protests.