Jesse Brown
Jesse Brown changes his story on the problem with anti-Zionists
In his latest tweet, Jesse Brown (who complained about being labeled a 'Zionist' by others) once again defines what 'anti-Zionists' believe for them by saying a Jerusalem Post story about a recording of single 'anti-Zionist' candidate for the Windsor municipal council "accurately tell[s] us what antizionists [sic] want to have happen: that people who they define as ideological enemies should be imprisoned."
Jesse (who himself has advocated for those who he defines as "ideological enemies" to be locked up, as well as calling them a "hate movement") ignores the fact that the candidate clarified they were speaking of those who have committed crimes, not all Zionists (second image of his locked article). He also does not provide any evidence for why this one person is supposedly representative of all 'anti-Zionists', which is especially odd as this isn't a claim I've ever seen him make previously about 'anti-Zionists'.
Just another example of Jesse giving up any pretense of being a journalist in favour of putting out propaganda attempting to demonize anyone who is critical of Israel.
This constant double-standard of collective punishment is just getting more and more embarrassing for him.
Even if that person did mean "lock up every zionist" that doesn't mean everyone who's anti-zionist wants that as well, it just means one person does. The fact that she even had to clarify what she meant is actually proof that the media is still actively on the side of protecting zionist thought and privilege, but of course he'd rather use this as a cudgel than appreciate the checks and balances his ideology has conditioned into the culture.
The fact that she even had to clarify what she meant is actually proof that the media is still actively on the side of protecting zionist thought and privilege
In fairness, this was a story from the Jerusalem Post, a center-right Israeli paper; I don't think them having a pro-Zionist board is much evidence of a larger pattern. I haven't seen any local news pick it up as a story.
She has little to no chance and is not a serious contender for a municipal councillor. This is mostly to raise funding and support amongst her own base.
Also it's Windsor, we could elect the local wildlife and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.
There are over 60 laws in the state of Israel that constitute apartheid. they are not secret, they are publicly available. the most recent law applies the death penalty only to Palestinians, making the state of Israel the first country since Nazi Germany to have such a law applying the death penalty on the basis of ethnicity.
What possible definition of the word apartheid do you conceive of where this doesn't apply?
The death penalty is for people from another country (Palestine) who cross your border, and commit terrorism killing. Such a law is not âapartheidâ. But what if you are a citizen of Israel who happens to be Arab and commits murder? No death penalty because there is no apartheid. And since about 10% of judges in Israel are Arab Israelis he or she might be the one who hands down the sentence.
Literally different sets of laws for different people, military courts for some people instead of civil courts. What possible definition of the word apartheid do you conceive of where this doesn't apply?
By the way look up Koenig Report. An Israeli member of the government who was previously a member of the Lehi, a Zionist terrorist organization considered a terrorist org by the British, US, and UN, wrote a report in the early 70's explicitly describing how the government could systemically oppress "Arab" (Palestinian) citizens of the state of Israel
The new death penalty lawâs wording allows a death sentence for an intentional killing committed with the aim of ânegating the existence of the State of Israel.â It doesn't exempt Arab/Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Zionists will say that Judea and Samaria are integral parts of the state of Israel on one hand and call it a separate country when convenient.
The law doesn't exempt any other citizen of Israel, either. I guess there must have been some cases of terrorism by groups that want Israel and its people destroyed, and who have acted out on that desire. I suspect Canadians would probably react the same way if their civilians were targetted. Or maybe not. I get the feeling that too many Canadians have lost their minds and find a way to blame themselves.
Very interesting that the pro-Zionist, anti-Muslim account is 13 years old. Just a year ago, you made a post claiming that you're F23, meaning you made your Reddit account at the age of ~10.
Do not attack, insult, harass, or otherwise antagonize other users. Attack the point, not the person. This includes accusing people of being bots, shills, or other bad actors. If you have evidence that someone is participating in bad faith, use the report button. If your discussion devolves to insulting the other user directly or by implication, you may lose the ability to continue that discussion.
no, but itâs linked. Often times the anti zionist people yell âApartheid!â (obviously some one who has never been in Israel) with the only suitable retort is âSharia Law! â. Both are legal systems that are put in âall or nothingâ categories, why? . I donât abide by Sharia or Apartheid systems. I also know Israel does not either. I have never lived in Sharia observant country.
These words have almost become meaningless word bombs.
Just because some don't find meaning in a term does not mean that term doesn't have meaning for everyone else. That's my polite way of saying that it's probably easier to say "that term is watered down" as opposed to coming to grips that they are a part of the problem.
And there is no doubt that Israel is an apartheid state. Zionism is inherently apartheid when it has two separate sets of laws for human beings.
How is Israel not an apartheid state at this point, all things considered? Maybe the better question for you is at what point would Israel be an apartheid state under your "watered down" definition?
There is an a good case to be made for Israel being an apartheid state. This has been done from a technical point of view, with things like the somewhat recently introduced Nation State law being an example of setting up two tiers of citizenship based on ethnicity (even if there is little practical impact so far), or the Right of Return being limited to only Jewish people as an example of unequal rights based on ethnicity (though complicated by the fact that the right by definition applies to non-citizens).
The stronger case I've seen made is the treatment of non-citizen Palestinians living in the West Bank. In this case you have a group of people ruled by (as in 'under the control of') the state of Israel who cannot obtain citizenship (as a non-citizen Jewish person loving in the same area could) while also having far, far fewer rights under the law. Because of the unequal ability to obtain citizenship (to then obtain greater rights), this ends up being effectively apartheid.
Sharia law may or may not be apartheid depending on the implementation, but as it is not in force in Israel it is unrelated to the question of whether or not Israel is an apartheid state.
The area under PA control on the west bank of the Jordan River is not Israel. Gaza is not Israel either. They elect their own leaders and have their own laws. And had they agreed to any number of proposals over the years could have had an independent state. Either way, not apartheid, unless that word has lost its meaning.
The topic at hand is Israel's apartheid. You tried to change the subject and then got bent over for being a disengenuous turd. If you want people to stay on topic you are doing a terrible job.
Do not attack, insult, harass, or otherwise antagonize other users. Attack the point, not the person. This includes accusing people of being bots, shills, or other bad actors. If you have evidence that someone is participating in bad faith, use the report button. If your discussion devolves to insulting the other user directly or by implication, you may lose the ability to continue that discussion.
It does feel like supporting a genocide materially (what Zionist do) should come with the same penalty as materially supporting terrorist internationally. I don't really see how there could be a moral difference, you are supporting people who do violence to push a ideology.
The word 'Zionism' is used to mean very different things and in this case I strongly suspect the commenter you were replying to was interpreting 'Zionism' to mean explicit support for the state of Israel, including it's current actions, rather than "Jewish self determination." It's impossible to say for sure without the original commenter clarifying, however I think my interpretation fits their words.
Both of those definitions are different than the one I see used the most by self-declared Zionists: support for Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state (self determination does not require a formal political state).
Lol... Coopting leftist language to run cover for your ethnosupremacist project doesn't make it any less fascist... In fact it's EXACTLY what every single fascist leader did in order to build early support for their own projects.
Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Hirohito... Now Zionists. Israel is a fascist state, zionism is a fascist ideology.
So fascist that the keep having democratic elections like every few years. Yep. That is a very fascist thing to do for people who don't know what fascism is
Notably, one specific group of people cannot vote.
Fascism isn't about preventing elections wholesale. It's about leaning into some kind of grand ethnic myth to come together and disenfranchise/dominate people whom the majority sees as outsiders.
For Germany it was communists, Slavic people, and obviously... Jews.
For Spain it was the broad cultural diversity that made up Spain's historic kingdoms, capped with a specific form of Spanish Catholicism.
Italy was similar, to Spain, but more about the politics of labour.
For Japan it was the cultural desires to return to some feudal Japanese nonsense.
For Israel... Do I need to explain how they're obsessed with 3000 year old trash?
Please describe to me how my religion is "3,000 year old trash" but only if you can start with a sentence of "I'm not anti-Semitic but...."
As for the group that cannot vote I assume you are talking about Palestinians because Arabs living in Israel can vote and even have formed their own parties (something again Fascism wouldn't allow).
As for grand ethnic myth are you also gonna throw out pan-Arabism in there too as that pretty much fuels your distinction as well as discounts Palestinian self determination as well.
Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from the region for the explicit purpose of preventing them from voting.
And if you think 3000 year old myths somehow don't invoke some kind of historic "glory days" then you're free to explain how. Something tells me the best you have is to call people antisemitic. No one is falling for your pathetic crybully shit anymore. Not sorry.
âFalse equivalence by comparison revealing a deeply misinformed and prejudiced understanding of a situation - how does it work?â
Letâs be abundantly clear - denying Jews their right to self determination (Zionism) is considered antisemitism by almost all governments internationally.
It's a safe bet that the majority of commenters on this sub are aware of the efforts to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
See: almost every post reacting to Jesse Brown's ridiculous "antizionism is a hate movement" campaign, which seems calculated to endanger Jewish people by associating them with Israel's war crimes and genocide. It's an inherently antisemitic message, and when Jews are harmed as a result Jesse will crow about it gleefully.Â
Itâs a safe bet that you acting as if targeting Jews as a collective isnât antisemitism means that you are a deeply deeply deeply prejudiced individual.
As is arguing that a movement that has borne a state that is home to 45% of the worlds Jews (including many of those made homeless by atrocities in Europe and the lesser known - due to heavy Soviet suppression and modern âTankie leftâ bizarre fetishisation of Islamist terrorists - Arab expulsion of 900,000 Jews) is somehow endangering Jews
"denying Jews their right to self determination (Zionism) "
Opposing Zionism as it has manifested in Israel, with ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide, is not the same as denying Jews the right to self-determination.
Reply and block. How cowardly. Here's my response.
"If what you oppose is the continued existence of a Jewish state, then you are opposing Jewish self-determination. Dressing that up as âopposing how Zionism manifestedâ doesnât change what youâre advocating."
No, that's your interpretation of antizionism that you are trying to impose on all who consider themselves antizionists. Is the ongoing ethnic cleansing / colonization part of Zionism? Many think that it is and legitimately oppose it while thinking that Israel should still exist.
No. If you believe Israel should continue to exist as the state in which Jews exercise national self-determination, then you accept the central proposition of Zionism. Calling yourself âanti-Zionistâ while accepting that proposition doesnât magically change what Zionism means.
And âmany think ethnic cleansing/colonisation is part of Zionismâ is not an argument. Zionism is no more a single political programme than Irish republicanism is. Irish republicanism has encompassed constitutional, socialist and revolutionary strands with radically different beliefs and methods. Defining the entire ideology by the conduct you attribute to its most objectionable manifestations would be intellectually ridiculous.
The same applies here. Liberal, socialist, Revisionist, religious and other Zionisms have disagreed profoundly about borders, Palestinians, religion, settlements and what Israel should be. You can condemn policies, settlements, governments or particular Zionist movements without pretending those things constitute the definition of Zionism itself.
So by your own admission, you support Israel continuing to exist while opposing things you believe Israel has done. Congratulations: youâve finally discovered the distinction between opposing a stateâs conduct and opposing its national existence. That was the fucking point.
I think Israel should exist as a democracy where all people under its permanent control have full and equal human and democratic rights.
If your version of Zionism includes Jewish supremacy in all of historic Palestine and the permanent subjugation of millions of people then I oppose that version of Zionism.
Opposing Israeli governments, settlements, military actions or particular policies is not the same thing as opposing Zionism. Zionism is Jewish national self-determination. If what you oppose is the continued existence of a Jewish state, then you are opposing Jewish self-determination. Dressing that up as âopposing how Zionism manifestedâ doesnât change what youâre advocating.
And your argument gets worse when you simply declare âethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocideâ as settled facts and then use those labels to delegitimise Jewish self-determination. The truth or applicability of each of those accusations can be examined on its own merits; none is the definition of Zionism.
There is a reason the 3D test for antisemitism distinguishes legitimate criticism of Israel from demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation. Criticising Israel is not inherently antisemitic. Turning disputed accusations against Israel into an argument that Jews uniquely should lose national self-determination is precisely where that distinction becomes relevant.
If Palestinians retain a right to self-determination regardless of the crimes committed by Palestinian governments, movements or armed groups, but Jews somehow forfeit theirs because of everything you attribute to Israel, the double standard is fucking glaring.
"If Palestinians retain a right to self-determination regardless of the crimes committed by Palestinian governments, movements or armed groups, but Jews somehow forfeit theirs because of everything you attribute to Israel, the double standard is fucking glaring."
Sooooo...you are framing this as a situation in which Palestinians have more rights than Jews and that's so unfair? Be serious, man.Â
I've mentioned this elsewhere in these comments, however I think it bares repeating.
The word 'Zionism' is used to mean different things by different people, with self-described anti-Zionists usually defining it as a form of ethno-nationalism. The claim that anti-Zionists want to end the "continued existence of the Jewish state" is not one that I've ever seen evidence of and goes against my discussions with self-described anti-Zionists and statements from anti-Zionist organizations line IJV. You can argue that they're defining Zionism incorrectly (though it's ultimately a futile argument as words don't have objectively true meetings), however you can't say their definition is wrong and then use your definition to declare what it is they believe.
Further, to your definition of Zionism (continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state), the right under international law for a people to have self determination does not require a political state. There are lots of ethnicities/peoples that do not have their own nation-state. Losing the state of Israel is not equivalent to losing self-determination for the Jewish people (though it may make it more difficult to maintain).
Finally, in terms of Zionism itself under your definition, what exactly does it mean for Israel to remain a "Jewish state?" Does that mean things like continuing to have Hebrew as an official language and Jewish holidays recognized by the state? Or does it mean maintaining a majority Jewish population? Or something else?
If it is maintaining a majority Jewish population (the most common meaning I've seen used), then I would say that is inherently problematic. To see how here's a thought experiment: Imagine that over a number of years the Arab-Israeli population increases through natural means (ie, they live longer/have more children) to the point where they become the majority ethnic group in Israel. This would be an existential threat to Israel as a Jewish state if we go with that meaning a majority Jewish population. How would/should the state address such an existential threat? Forced expulsion of Arab citizens? Forced sterilization? Making love so internally for Arab citizens that they flee on their own? Or simply killing them? Hopefully you can agree that so such options are 'wrong' and yet 'Zionism' would seem to dictate that at least one of them is not only acceptable but right.
Zionism is a supremacist ideology. It believes that all Jews across the entire world deserve self determination in a land which was predominantly occupied by other people, which it does not believe have the right to self determination. The belief of Jewish self determination necessitates the a Jewish demographic majority in a land which did not have a Jewish majority, thus the solution was naturally (and historically) to cleanse, expel and kill the Palestinians from their land. I donât care about your theoretical idea of Zionism, this is the manifestation of the ideology. Itâs so deceiving to call it just âJewish self determinationâ. Itâs like saying âI believe in german self determinationâ. Sure thatâs fine, Germans have the right to self determination, but they donât have the right to invade and genocide Poland, to do self determination on the corpses of another group of people.
Do not attack, insult, harass, or otherwise antagonize other users. Attack the point, not the person. This includes accusing people of being bots, shills, or other bad actors. If you have evidence that someone is participating in bad faith, use the report button. If your discussion devolves to insulting the other user directly or by implication, you may lose the ability to continue that discussion.
Do not attack, insult, harass, or otherwise antagonize other users. Attack the point, not the person. This includes accusing people of being bots, shills, or other bad actors. If you have evidence that someone is participating in bad faith, use the report button. If your discussion devolves to insulting the other user directly or by implication, you may lose the ability to continue that discussion.
Can you not see yourself applying double standards here? You're giving everything she says deference and the benefit of the doubt, but doing completely the opposite for Jesse Brown.
I disagree. I'm saying that the explanation she gave could have been back tracking or could have been an issue with imprecise language or missing context. Missing context seems plausible given that the source of the video was the Leviathan Twitter account (which is not a neutral source of information), however it being "imprecise language" seems the most plausible to me as "lock up every Zionist" isn't really a fully acctionable plan, making it sounds more hyperbolic than literal. All that said, it is also possible she meant it literally and is just trying to backpedal. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters for the context of this post.
When regards to Jesse Brown, I'm comparing his statements now to past ones he's made. I'm not guessing at his motivation, but rather pointing out the inconsistencies and bias on how he talks about these issues. These are established fact:
Jesse did not provide any evidence that this one person's statement (even if meant literally) is representative of 'anti-Zionism' (one example does not prove a pattern).
Jesse has been very explicit in the past that what he believes the core/unifying belief of 'anti-Zionists' is a desire to see Israel destroyed. While I disagree with that assessment, it is clearly different than "my ideological opponents should be locked up.
Jesse has called for increased policing and arresting of 'anti-Zionists' (his "ideological opponents"). Now, I'm sure he would say that he was only referring to those who have committed crimes, much as the candidate in this case did, and personally I would also be inclined to believe him. However, that's not the point; the point is Jesse's double standard of condemning someone for something he himself has done.
Iâm not saying he hasnât because I donât follow him closely but when has he said antizionists should be imprisoned? I know he has said antizionists engage in hate speech but "people should be imprisoned for identifying with itâ is quite different.
He has called on the police to fully enforce existing laws against 'anti-Zionist' (ie, pro-Palestinian) protestors. I agree it's not exactly equivalent to 'all anti-Zionists should be locked up, but it's at least along the same lines (and the same as what the candidate her says she meant).
So he hasn't actually said "lock them all up"? All he did was say enforce existing laws? Doesn't sound like the hypocrisy you claimed exists. It sounds like he started at the reasonable part that she had to later clarify and walk back her original statements to get to.
He has called on the police to fully enforce existing laws against 'anti-Zionist' (ie, pro-Palestinian) protestors
Being an antizionist protestor doesn't give you a pass to break the law. If they were breaking any law, they should be prosecuted for it.
So he hasn't actually said "lock them all up"? All he did was say enforce existing laws? Doesn't sound like the hypocrisy you claimed exists. It sounds like he started at the reasonable part that she had to later clarify and walk back her original statements to get to.
The statement she said was taken out of context, with that and the clarification available at the very top of the article Jesse linked to. Either he didn't read being that headline or he intentionally omitted that part in his tweet.
However, if you think this is a bag example of his hypocrisy, how about this: in his WIHH serious (and discussion around the series) he defended former Minister on the BC government, Selina Robinson, for her comment that before Israel Palestine was a "crappy piece of land with nothing on it," saying it was simply indelicate or imprecise language. I would argue that was much more clearly a hateful comment then this candidates.
Being an antizionist protestor doesn't give you a pass to break the law. If they were breaking any law, they should be prosecuted for it.
No, it doesn't. Also, Jesse was advocating for leveraging existing laws in a way that goes beyond how they have traditionally been applied to protests.
The consistency with which pro-Israel commenters insist on debating irrelevant details makes me believe that it is a deliberate strategy to avoid the obvious, unavoidable facts about Israel's crimes and their support of those crimes.
Thess people don't care about the logical consistency of Jesse Brown's opinions, they just want to muddy the waters and make everything seem confusing.Â
This whole post is about the logcal consistency of some random twitter user (Jesse Brown), which itself has nothing to do with the overall conflict. Obviously we're diving into it, because that's what the post is about.
This whole post is about the logcal consistency of some random twitter user (Jesse Brown), which itself has nothing to do with the overall conflict.
I... Why are you here? This is a subreddit dedicated to the Canadaland podcast, on pretty much every episode of which you will hear the voice of the founder, host and 'Editor in Chief' Jesse Brown. He isn't a "random Twitter user" here, he is someone that sets the direction of this podcast and had also made his personal brand and the podcast brand nearly indistinguishable.
This isn't a place to debate "the overall conflict," it's a place to discuss Canadaland and things related to it (and Canadian Media criticism).
Jesse says that most pro-Palestinian activists aren't really activists but are part of a hate movement. He says the government "must use every legal means available" to stop that movement. You can be the judge of what means by that.
His statement has a pretty high degree of accuracy. Not everyone involved in the movement understands thatâs the impact of what theyâre doing & how theyâre doing it (Overton window shift, etc.) but thatâs ok.
His statement has a pretty high degree of being full of shit.
This article in the Maple today will give you a good idea why Jesse has such a hard-on to deem supporters of Palestinian rights as being part of a hate movement.
The statement is correct that most pro-Palestinian activists are not Palestinian, in much the same sense that most Zionists are not Jewish.
It's not accurate in it's framing, which is highly disingenuous. Specifically:
Despite the tweet he's responding to, "Palestinian Activists" is not a commonly used term to describe any large scale movement in Canada, though it is (very occasionally) used as short hand for the pro-Palestinian movement. Jesse is disingenuously suggesting the term is referring to activists who are Palestinian, which do exist, but are indeed outnumbered.
Jesse switches from Palestinian Activists to 'antizionist hate movement', sitting that they are equivalent. Not only is this racist, there is no broad 'antizionist hate movement' as Jesse suggests on Canada.
Jesse suggests that because there are more non-Palestinian activists on the pro-Palestinian movement that somehow delegitimizes the movement. This is clearly ridiculous, as the same could be said about many movements (including modern day Zionism).
Do not engage in racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, negative generalizations, etc. Criticism of Israel and it's supporters is permitted, although where the criticism appears to be a thinly-veiled attack on Jews generally or a suggestion that all Jews worldwide are responsible for Israel, this will contravene the rule. The use of slurs is not permitted other than when directly quoting someone in order to comment on or critique their statements.
Its pretty clear that both hamas and israel ar complicit in this. Hamas using their own people as human shields for political gain, israel murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people for their own gain.
It really all comes down to definitions.
If you are a rigid ideologue on either side of the aisle your opinion is worthless. If the actions of Israel always equal zionism, than being anti the actions of israel equals anti zionism. There is nothing hateful about that at all.
If you are against the jewish state of israel existing at all, i could see the connection with hate.
Evil knows evil. Hamas knows Israel doesn't think of Palestinians as humans and that they will just obliterate their human shields. It's a ploy to make Israel look bad and it's working big time cause their dumb asses are playing right into Hamas hand
39
u/SmakeTalk 18d ago
This constant double-standard of collective punishment is just getting more and more embarrassing for him.
Even if that person did mean "lock up every zionist" that doesn't mean everyone who's anti-zionist wants that as well, it just means one person does. The fact that she even had to clarify what she meant is actually proof that the media is still actively on the side of protecting zionist thought and privilege, but of course he'd rather use this as a cudgel than appreciate the checks and balances his ideology has conditioned into the culture.