France’s interior minister ordered local authorities to ban all pro-Palestinian demonstrations amid a rise in antisemitic acts since Hamas attacked Israel over the weekend.
Fighting in the Middle East in the past has led to tensions in France, which is estimated to have the world’s third-largest Jewish population after Israel and the U.S., and the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.
The French government has reported 24 arrests for more than 100 antisemitic acts in France since Hamas attacked Israel on Saturday, including verbal abuse, people caught with knives near Jewish schools and synagogues and a drone equipped with a camera spotted over a Jewish cultural center. More than 2,000 cases of antisemitic speech have been reported to an online watchdog force.
It said pro-Palestinian demonstrations should be banned and those who defy bans should be arrested, ‘’because they are susceptible to disrupt public order.’’
Pro-Palestinian associations decried the move. The National Collective for a Fair and Lasting Peace between Palestinians and Israelis said it ‘’denounces this threat to freedom of expression,’’ and pledged to continue holding actions to support the Palestinian people.
Denouncing Hamas as a terrorist group, Macron called for peace efforts that would ensure both Israel’s security and a Palestinian state.
The Hill, Rising video mentions article
Journalist Glenn Greenwald weighs in on a meeting to discuss peace in Middle East was barred from happening by Germany amid the Israel-Hamas war.
Glenn Greenwald on Rising: HYPOCRITES Exploiting Israel Conflict To Justify CENSORSHIP
I’m pro-Palestine all day but I don’t like this line of questioning. The only reason I see to make this argument is to try to erase the very real horrors the Jewish people survived.
However debate lords are still gonna want an answer (not trying to imply you are one). If I had to respond I would say:
English is a living language. The definition of words is determined by how we use them. Think of “literally”. It meant one thing but it was so misused that the definition had to change because the common use was completely disconnected from the textbook definition.
The words “Semitic” and “anti-semitic” did not come into existence at the same time, similar to matter and Antimatter. “Anti-Semitic” is specifically “anti-Jewish” because that how the phrase was used.
It’s not a word whose definition comes from the literal sum of its parts, it refers to a specific phenomenon.
Interesting that you use the idea that English is a living language to push back against people using a term in a way you’ve decided is incorrect. Seems like you don’t think English is that alive after all if you refuse to incorporate all Semitic people into the concept of antisemitism.
You can’t cite descriptivist arguments to defend your prescriptivist attitude towards the term antisemitism. It betrays your own bias and deflates your argument.
Language evolves, just like you said. Which is why people are realizing the double speak nature of this idea that antisemitism is only when you’re prejudiced against a specific Semitic people group and the others don’t get a term to describe prejudice against them. Your position is an Orwellian attempt to deny a group of people the ability to specifically identify their oppression and it’s sad.
You can argue about it all you like, but if you say the word “antisemitism” then people will assume you mean anti-Jewish sentiment. Because that’s the agreed-upon meaning. Pineapples aren’t really apples, but that doesn’t cause confusion because people know what the word “pineapple” means.
Like you said, language evolves. People are deciding that the definition you follow is very limited and constrains dialogue by being needlessly exclusionary. So they’re seeking to expand the definition to its logical conclusion.
You can throw a fit about other Semitic people being recognized or you can accept that language changes to fit our current understanding of the world.
Antisemitism still refers to prejudice against Jewish people. It’s also being extended to all Semitic people as to disallow them the ability to categorize prejudice against them is to obfuscate and to an extent even deny their own reality.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
I’m pro-Palestine all day but I don’t like this line of questioning. The only reason I see to make this argument is to try to erase the very real horrors the Jewish people survived.
However debate lords are still gonna want an answer (not trying to imply you are one). If I had to respond I would say:
English is a living language. The definition of words is determined by how we use them. Think of “literally”. It meant one thing but it was so misused that the definition had to change because the common use was completely disconnected from the textbook definition.
The words “Semitic” and “anti-semitic” did not come into existence at the same time, similar to matter and Antimatter. “Anti-Semitic” is specifically “anti-Jewish” because that how the phrase was used.
It’s not a word whose definition comes from the literal sum of its parts, it refers to a specific phenomenon.
That’s not an answer to the question.
Interesting that you use the idea that English is a living language to push back against people using a term in a way you’ve decided is incorrect. Seems like you don’t think English is that alive after all if you refuse to incorporate all Semitic people into the concept of antisemitism.
You can’t cite descriptivist arguments to defend your prescriptivist attitude towards the term antisemitism. It betrays your own bias and deflates your argument.
Language evolves, just like you said. Which is why people are realizing the double speak nature of this idea that antisemitism is only when you’re prejudiced against a specific Semitic people group and the others don’t get a term to describe prejudice against them. Your position is an Orwellian attempt to deny a group of people the ability to specifically identify their oppression and it’s sad.
You can argue about it all you like, but if you say the word “antisemitism” then people will assume you mean anti-Jewish sentiment. Because that’s the agreed-upon meaning. Pineapples aren’t really apples, but that doesn’t cause confusion because people know what the word “pineapple” means.
Like you said, language evolves. People are deciding that the definition you follow is very limited and constrains dialogue by being needlessly exclusionary. So they’re seeking to expand the definition to its logical conclusion.
You can throw a fit about other Semitic people being recognized or you can accept that language changes to fit our current understanding of the world.
Antisemitism still refers to prejudice against Jewish people. It’s also being extended to all Semitic people as to disallow them the ability to categorize prejudice against them is to obfuscate and to an extent even deny their own reality.