@nitrml

As for the use of quotes, they're functioning in my post not as verbatim excerpts but as explainers.

Endantisemitism does it differently. They just put a single word or phrase, eg:

https://mastodon.social/@endantisemitism/116235532159121068

My quoting is trying to capture the same information of addressing the accusation, in a larger context. For me the poster's offensive and hateful comments were problematic, but far more problematic was who was saying them- someone who is representing the Dutch government in an official capacity and is acting as the editorial gatekeeper.

My experience has been an evolution over time.

I used to do long explainers, no one read them.

I then pointed to external resources, people argued with them.

Then I made my own website, people didn't click through.

Now I just put the hate meme in quotes. I'll consider changing that. But let's not let this slide into tone policing, ok?

@stefan @lavaeolus

@nitrml

When someone is actively advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing of 7 million people, or half the world's Jews, as this person does in implicitly calling for the destruction of the state of Israel through de-legitimization, then my read of everything else they say is going to be less generous then it would be otherwise.

If he had simply referred to the issues in the West Bank, ongoing violence, encroaching settlements, unequal treatment by the law, statements by the far-right ministers in Israel- all of which I find morally repugnant, I would have no area of disagreement.

When he starts to de-legitimize the state itself, that shifts the conversation and his specific and deliberate use words and phrases undergo far deeper scrutiny.

Could I be wrong in my interpretation? I might be. But even if you omit the issue of lies, or holocaust denial - the de-legitimization of Israel as a nation is deeply problematic from an official in this position.

@stefan @lavaeolus

@nitrml

Should I go back and focus on the Holocaust Denial part then, rather than the lies?

@stefan @lavaeolus

@nitrml

Hes says two things in the original version:

"This behavior is what you get, and what you make possible, when you spend 80 years talking about the #Palestinian “conflict.” This is not just about far-right #apartheid nationalists in #Israel.

It is all about 80 years of enabling by the “reasonable center” and the “silent majority” in the West."

There are multiple dog whistles at play here. It's a lot of careful writing. You can read it either as Jews are covering up the situation by "re framing" (ie lying) or you can read this as an allusion to the "Jewish Question" 100 years ago in Europe, aka that the existence of Israel is akin to the Holocaust.

I took the *less problematic* view in this post, which is "just" that Jews someone control the West.

But re-reading it today, it's far more obscene in that it's a clear allusion to Holocaust Denial, rather than Jewish governmental control.

@stefan @lavaeolus

@KoosPol

"Such people" is a nice way of calling him and you what you are, Nazis.

@lavaeolus @stefan

@lavaeolus

The thing with such people is that if they didn't go so far, I wouldn't have an issue.

There's nothing wrong with talking about the issues in the West Bank per se (though I'd ask why not discuss other human tragedies and only talk about Israel) but when one talks about Israel as an illegitimate state or makes allusions to antisemitic tropes, it's clear this absolutely doesn't belong on a site like this, and never from an admin.

@stefan

@lavaeolus

@stefan

@stefan

Oh this is the same instance where the admin posted yesterday about how Israel "controls the West" and "has done so for 80 years" (ie all of its existence).

Is making allusions to Jewish lies, Jewish control of government and delegitimatizing a state's existence considered acceptable?

https://social.edu.nl/@wlaatje/117030731621482479

@lavaeolus