World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
If you are an anti-zionist Jew in Germany you'll face a brunt of repressions. German "anti antisemitism" comissioners even go as far as calling anti-zionist Jews "allegedly jewish", thereby deciding who are "good" and "bad" Jews.
Do you have sources?
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-strange-logic-of-germanys-antisemitism-bureaucrats
Ctrl+F didn't turn up any results for your quote ("alleged"/"allegedly") , and I'm not going to read the whole article searching for what you might have meant instead.
I am sorry. It was not mentioned in the article, but the podcast.
Here is another interview where it is mentioned
https://jacobin.com/2024/03/the-cost-of-germanys-guilt-politics
Here is the "Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde" (complaint about the violation of duty by a public official) by the German Jewish Voice for Peace reacting to the attack by the anti antisemitism commissioner Michael Blume of the state Baden Wurtemmberg:
https://www.juedische-stimme.de/dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde-gegen-den-antisemitismusbeauftragten-des-landes-bw-dr-michael-blume#_Toc76062334
Here is the Tweet of Blume. His exact wording was "vorgeblich" which translates to "allegedly" but more in the sense of "pretending to be".
https://x.com/BlumeEvolution/status/1409466045987971076
https://dict.leo.org/german-english/vorgeblich
Thanks!
I think "vorgeblich" has some more nuance, as it does not say the claim is necessarily wrong (https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/vorgeblich). But like I said in the other sub-thread: he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job). It's still a different picture than one might imagine when hearing "German government officials are deciding whether you are jewish enough" (which you didn't write, but apparently was understood like that by other commenters).
The key points in this and many other examples where Jewish anti-zionists are targeted, be it by such verbal attacks, deplatforming or police violence are imo.:
So once again German government officials judge as to who are "good" or "bad" or well "real" Jews. The fundamental being that those who fall into the categories acceptable are championed as examples in a sometimes absurd way (philosemitism) and those who are outside these categoroes get targeted with repressions.
But it is very simple. Jewish people are people like anyone else. Be it by religion or ethnicity, there is people of all sorts of personal, societal and political identities. Where they face discrimination because of their jewish identity it needs to be adressed and there should be a special emphasis on this, due to the German history. But it cannot and must not be conflated with the state of Israel and allegiance to it.
> Asks for source
> Unwilling to read source
It's not a source for a quote if the quote does not show up in the link.
edit: the fact that this gets downvoted really says a lot about the quality of the discussion :D
Thanks. So he explicitely was not talking about whether individual persons are jewish or not.
Instead he was questioning if an organisation (that mobilized to a "Glory to the resistance" demonstration on 7th of October 2024) is actually involving a significant amount of people from jewish communities. Which is still shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism, but also different from trying to decide if individual people are jewish or not. And he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take.
The last paragraph is factually wrong though. There are religious communities who are Öffentlich-rechtliche Religionsgesellschaften, but you don't have to adhere to these regulations.
You could perhaps read the first part as that, a matter of % of Jewish people in an organization rather than one of 'true' Jewishness of the members identifying as Jews. Your reading is very generous to him.
But from the second commend it's obvious it's the latter. He is attacking the Jewishness of Jewish members of that organization. That he does it en mass does not make it better.
I don't have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion. It is not relevant that it is wrong. The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.
If it's not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
Yes, as I said: the "Jewishness" of the people should not matter when you're attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn't have said that.
OP's claim was that official call anti-zionist Jews 'allegedly Jewish' (ostensibly actually, a synonym) and that they decided if they are "bad" or "good" Jews. It seems obvious to me from the choice of words as well as the punctuation he is not referring to official acts but bias of the official. Which may well affect their official decisions.
Are the communities not the ones referred to by the commissioner in his defense? That makes them relevant. If the article is wrong that you have to be part of such a community to be "officially" Jewish it's irrelevant, the issue is that the commissioner tried to defend his position by appealing to them.
You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.
OP makes a claim, I asked for a source. That's not an attack.
And how is on the other hand "he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job)" and "shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism," and "he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take" not an "attack" against the commissioner?
edit: anyway, I have spend enough time on this.
"I don't know how to read"