You sneeringly said someone should read a history book, they posted a picture of the history book on the subject that they had in front of them at that second, and you flipped your shit and pretended it was the only book she had ever read. Because you're not a serious person.
That appears to be you. Though. I haven't read that book. You say to have, and of all the books you read, you chose that one to support your point. Other than the Conner, what in the content specifically makes you point and is better than other books to the point that's the one you choose to share?
I’ll tell you books I’ve read on Palestine:
The 100 years war on Palestine
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
On Palestine
Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab Jew
The Question of Palestine
Justice for Some: Law and Palestine
The Palestine Laboratory
Image and Reality of the Palestine Conflict
Freedom is a Constant Struggle
Decolonizing Israel
Palestine a Socialist Introduction
There’s probably more but I’d have to dig through my old Kindle
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic and criticism of Jewish people who are not Palestinian as being indigenous to the Levant is based on the probably at this point century long scholarly consensus about colonialism and how it operates
Some is antisemitic, some isn't. People have a right to say as they wish, but not a right to be free from their biases being shown.
I'm interested in this "long scholarly consensus" you refer to. Where did you find it? Did you review it for other academic critiques or views? Does it have a name?
Of Indigenous studies and colonialism? There’s whole departments - I think earlier there was a pretty good link up there that specifically addressed it in the context of Israel
But I mean just generically speaking- typically the people who come in, ethnically cleanse people from their ancestral villages, and enforce the superiority of one type of people over another- are the colonizers not the colonized
I could, and did, with the critical awareness of his bias. It's an interesting book, but it's not free of this bias. He pointed it out directly in the introduction. In the edition I have, he appears to have not footnoted these claims even though the rest of the book is rife with footnotes.
It's not antisemitic to deny Jewish indigeneity for the purpose of setting the legitimacy of Israel as a sovereign nation?
If not, I'm curious what you think *is* antisemitic?
If you aren’t Indigenous to a land then you aren’t Indigneous to a land. It’s a political distinction.
The legitimacy of any nation is based on the consent of those who it governs- Israel effectively governs all the people in the Levant without the legitimacy of the majority of them.
Some Jewish people are Indigenous to Palestine- but most are not. Zionism is a 150 year old colonial project that had nothing to do with Indigenous claims (hence why they looked at Argentina and Madagascar and Syria and a bunch of other places first)
Bloodline purity is Nazi and KKK level shit. All Jews are indigenous to Judea, because the Jewish nation is indigenous to Judea. Our "family" is of Judea. It is what defines us.
Sadly they don't even see the antisemitism in their ideology. Of course part of it has to do with a poor understanding of indigenous status and nations. But what can I expect from people who aren't trained anthropologists?
They hold a great deal of ignorance, but I'm not going to apply the label of "bigot" to them because they truly believe they're doing what's in the best interest of the Jewish people. They're dead wrong of course and they're causing great harm to the Jewish people, but they don't see that.
