359

‘We stand here as Jewish men who refute the Holocaust being hijacked’: Jonathan Glazer calls for end to Gaza attacks at Oscars (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone to c/world@lemmy.world

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 49 points 8 months ago

I mean this is a clear case of antisemitism isn't it? I'm shocked I tell you

[-] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 39 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I don't remember where I read it but some Zionists do not consider non/anti Zionist Jews to be real Jews. So yes, they would consider this antisemitic. If I find the source I'll add it here.

[-] DreamerofDays@kbin.social 14 points 8 months ago

So long as we are anecdotal, that has not been my experience.

Judgments along observance lines, and people thinking those in some denominations are crazy or lesser, but I haven’t seen it drawn on those lines.

Generally the same kind of a thing you’ll find in any religion, or any fandom for that matter— those who are more observant or more dedicated may say the less observant/dedicated aren’t doing it right; the less observant/more casual may say the more observant/dedicated are crazy.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

By who?

[-] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 months ago

They just said by zionists.

[-] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's possible that @ABCDE@lemmy.world replied to an earlier version of my comment where it said 'for many Israeli's' or something like that. I edited my comment before I saw their reply. Anyway, I edited my initial reply for clarity but I don't think it will help because my phrasing makes it sound like I'm the one who thinks the director's comments are antisemitic. I don't.

[-] key@lemmy.keychat.org 4 points 8 months ago

The confusing bit is that "Zionist, non-zionist or anti-zionist" reads like a list lacking an Oxford comma. You have to realize that reading makes no grammatical or logical sense then go back and realize the intended syntax.

A more clear way to put it might be: "but some Zionists do not consider non/anti Zionist Jews to be real Jews. So yes, they would consider this antisemitic"

[-] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Thank you. Hope you don't mind but I included your edit.

[-] arymandias@feddit.de 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

~~It’s very annoying that I can’t find the source anymore but~~ I read that despite making up 1% of the population, in Germany up to a third of all people accused of antisemitism in the past months were Jewish.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/11/denouncing-critics-of-israel-as-un-jews-or-antisemites-is-a-perversion-of-history

[-] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 13 points 8 months ago

Honestly, I am so disappointed and embarrassed by the way the German government is handling the crisis. It is awful.

[-] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 months ago

It's not surprising at all.

this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2024

359 points (94.1% liked)

World News

39023 readers

2232 users here now

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.