• atk007@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    1 month ago

    When did IDF become a protected minority group? Is saying “Death to Nazis” not allowed in the UK?

    • copd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I’ll get downvoted for this but what im about to say is an undeniable fact. Chanting death for anyone is inciting violence and murder, UK governments and police can’t be allowing that, especially as there is no death penalty.

      Yes I know, the IDF incite violence and murder, but does that make it OK to do in UK?

      • k0e3@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Did they say “IDF” or “IDF members/staff”? IDF isn’t a person, so maybe it’s more of a metaphorical death, as in dismantle the IDF.

        I dunno.

        • copd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I’ve thought about this, a metaphorical death/end to the IDF chant is completely acceptable. I guess it’s all down to intent

          the artist chose “death” because it rhymes with IDF. so I wonder if it’s just one of those things

      • Siresly@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It may not be legally ok, but it is definitely morally ok to incite (and perform) violence against a genocidal force.

        Crime is only legal if there’s a war. Or if you’re a cop. Or are rich and influential.

      • Limonene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        They should be more neutral in a non-opinion piece. They quote a lot more people saying pro-genocide things than they quote people saying anti-genocide things. They quoted pro-genocide politicians and pro-genocide BBC staff. They did not give the musicians any opportunity to respond to the article.

        Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has inflamed tensions around the world, triggering pro-Palestinian protests in many capitals and on college campuses. Israel and some supporters have described the protests as antisemitic, while critics say Israel uses such descriptions to silence opponents

        Let’s consider the two positions mentioned in this paragraph:

        1. Israel should stop committing genocide

        2. Israel should continue committing genocide, and position 1 is antisemitic

        The first position is described as “pro-Palestinian”, as if these protesters support the Palestinian military (Hamas) and want them to win. This is incorrect. These people mostly just want the genocide to end.

        The second position is a shitty opinion, but also contains an overt falsehood. It’s an objective fact that it’s false, and that fact should be reported in the story, but it isn’t.

        • alcibiades@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I agree that they didn’t use enough anti-genocide supporters, their sources were one sided.

          But your second critique would require a complete rewrite and would change the article completely.

          I agree that pro vs anti genocide is the better way to approach the conflict, however, for reporting purposes, it makes more sense to call it an Israel vs Palestine conflict. Calling it pro vs anti genocide means that you have taken the position of calling the conflict a genocide (which I agree with, it is genocide). But as the article states, Israel does not see this as a genocide and neither do a lot of governments.

          AP describes the conflict as a war of Israel against Hamas. Not a war of Israel against Palestine. This could be interpreted as 1) diminishing the genocide and 2) reporting on one specific facet of the conflict ie Israel against Hamas forces, which it could be argued, is a different conflict than Israel against the Palestinian people. This also means that by the articles definitions, Palestinian supporters are different than Hamas supporters.

          Their second position does not say one side is correct and one side is wrong. They say

          Israel and some supporters have described the protests as antisemitic

          Israel and their supporters, not the AP describe protests as antisemitic.

          critics say Israel uses such descriptions to silence opponents.

          Critics, not the AP, say Israel is incorrect in their antisemitic descriptions.

          If the article did what you wanted, it would be an opinion piece about how we need to call the conflict a genocide, and all future reporting should reflect this.

          I don’t think this article is very supportive of the Palestinian people’s struggles. I also don’t think it supports the Israelis. It is tip-toeing the very fragile line of (falsely accused) antisemitism that they write about. It isn’t perfect, but it’s unfair to call it pro Israel.

        • alcibiades@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Also I think what is really shitty is that outlets report on a genocide in this matter. But this article was about the response to Bob Vylan. I think both of us are angry about how anything related to the genocide has to be reported as the Israel Palestine conflict unless you want to receive an extremely negative response to your reporting.

          Hell if we want to be all intellectual we can brand this as another symptom of the global capitalist system. AP can’t afford to call this a genocide. No news/corporation is brave enough to stand up to the genocide because it’s gonna hurt their bottom line.

      • acargitz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        The IDF, being an occupying army, under international law is absolutely a legitimate target for violent armed Palestinian resistance. Legitimate target of violent armed resistance. It’s the law.

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Does this include the Russian military?

        What about indirect stuff such as “The Ukrainians should crush the Russian invaders” ?

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Indirect stuff I generally let slide, other mods may or may not. Plausible deniability and all that.

          But yes, the videos some other communities allow showing drone attacks on Russian soldiers, cheering when people get killed? We’d remove those.

          Of course a top level post would be removed because we don’t allow video posts, but as a comment, I’d remove those too.

  • Siresly@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    The inhuman madness of finding the problem regarding this situation to be protestors of Israel’s genocide, and not the genocide, is as absurd and abhorrent as it is overwhelming.

    Let’s get outraged about and strive to cancel and imprison someone who used violent language at a force that is mass-murdering children. Just surreal. What leads someone to become this fucking detached from their humanity? It’s just incomprehensible.