Bree A. Ullman the lawyer ([1], [2]) deleted the 2nd xeet.😂🤣
Zohar Ianovici is an Isnotrael-based “Jewish Israeli antizionist” who "want[s] Is[not]rael to be a full democracy, across all the territory it currently controls " ([3], [4]).
I consume his media like a good slop-eating piggy, but I do think he is kinda lib.
He mentions some leftist words a bit in his videos but that’s the jist of it.
I do think his content has a place, especially when he discusses issues black people face in amerikkka, and how movements like “For Us By Us” and “we need more black billionaires” are psyops that don’t want to identify the root of the problems.
But his videos are very western-centric, and he seems to regularly fail at understanding the contexts in which things are said.
Him thinking people using the word “zionist” is an antisemitic dogwhistle made me raise a brow, and people said it was taken out of context but the whole clip still didn’t make me agree with him.
I think it’s also Jewish exceptionalist / supremacist to even try to call it racist at this point. My parents used Jew and Zionist interchangeably, and although they are getting better about differentiating the two as they are now a part of the diaspora, to many Palestinians, or really any Arabs in the region, the only Jews they interact with are zionists.
That’s like shaming Chief Powhatan for calling them white people and not colonizers
Just gonna be honest but I think the extensive tone-policing / HR-left is a psyop.
MLK Jr. talked about liberals like IDF Signifier:
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
IDF Signifier, who has never spoken about Palestine in his videos, decides to spend his time ridiculing and tone-policing those who are more vocal about it. He is the white moderate in this instance.
Him thinking people using the word “zionist” is an antisemitic dogwhistle made me raise a brow, and people said it was taken out of context but the whole clip still didn’t make me agree with him.
i think the clip was “zionism, jewish supremacy, insert nazi dog whistle here”, he’s explicitly saying that those terms or the usage of them is like nazi dogwhistle
He’s Western-centric because he’s from the West speaking about issues he is directly familiar with. There’s nothing wrong with that and he isn’t obligated to speak about Palestine - especially if he isn’t well-versed on the subject. While you’re right that he shouldn’t be tone policing white leftists about Palestine that appears to be the crux of his issue: Palestine isn’t something that white leftists have a direct experience with, ergo he thinks we should stay out of it and leave it to people more directly affected; e.g. Palestinians and other Arabs.
This is a bad take but it doesn’t make him pro-Israel, anti-Palestine, or even a liberal. If anything it comes from a progressive place of wanting white people to stay out of issues that don’t affect them so they don’t speak over or for Palestinians.
His concerns about the term Zionist are also valid. Zionist has been used as a dogwhistle and has allowed antisemites to infiltrate leftist circles or even push less principled leftists toward antisemitism. I’ve seen both happen myself. We shouldn’t stop using it because it is accurate, and that’s where I think he’s wrong, but it’s uncharitable to paint this guy as a Zionist for being reasonably skeptical of the way white people engage with politics - particularly those concerning non-white populations.
It’s weird how everything you are explicitly defending happens to provide cover for, and prevent criticism of, Israel. Very strange. Probably a complete coincidence.
If anything it comes from a progressive place of wanting white people to stay out of issues that don’t affect them so they don’t speak over or for Palestinians.
This is not “progressive” (a meaningless word, shows your level of understanding), it’s reactionary.
I consume his media like a good slop-eating piggy, but I do think he is kinda lib.
He mentions some leftist words a bit in his videos but that’s the jist of it.
I do think his content has a place, especially when he discusses issues black people face in amerikkka, and how movements like “For Us By Us” and “we need more black billionaires” are psyops that don’t want to identify the root of the problems.
But his videos are very western-centric, and he seems to regularly fail at understanding the contexts in which things are said.
Him thinking people using the word “zionist” is an antisemitic dogwhistle made me raise a brow, and people said it was taken out of context but the whole clip still didn’t make me agree with him.
I think it’s also Jewish exceptionalist / supremacist to even try to call it racist at this point. My parents used Jew and Zionist interchangeably, and although they are getting better about differentiating the two as they are now a part of the diaspora, to many Palestinians, or really any Arabs in the region, the only Jews they interact with are zionists.
That’s like shaming Chief Powhatan for calling them white people and not colonizers
Just gonna be honest but I think the extensive tone-policing / HR-left is a psyop.
MLK Jr. talked about liberals like IDF Signifier:
IDF Signifier, who has never spoken about Palestine in his videos, decides to spend his time ridiculing and tone-policing those who are more vocal about it. He is the white moderate in this instance.
i think the clip was “zionism, jewish supremacy, insert nazi dog whistle here”, he’s explicitly saying that those terms or the usage of them is like nazi dogwhistle
He’s Western-centric because he’s from the West speaking about issues he is directly familiar with. There’s nothing wrong with that and he isn’t obligated to speak about Palestine - especially if he isn’t well-versed on the subject. While you’re right that he shouldn’t be tone policing white leftists about Palestine that appears to be the crux of his issue: Palestine isn’t something that white leftists have a direct experience with, ergo he thinks we should stay out of it and leave it to people more directly affected; e.g. Palestinians and other Arabs.
This is a bad take but it doesn’t make him pro-Israel, anti-Palestine, or even a liberal. If anything it comes from a progressive place of wanting white people to stay out of issues that don’t affect them so they don’t speak over or for Palestinians.
His concerns about the term Zionist are also valid. Zionist has been used as a dogwhistle and has allowed antisemites to infiltrate leftist circles or even push less principled leftists toward antisemitism. I’ve seen both happen myself. We shouldn’t stop using it because it is accurate, and that’s where I think he’s wrong, but it’s uncharitable to paint this guy as a Zionist for being reasonably skeptical of the way white people engage with politics - particularly those concerning non-white populations.
It’s weird how everything you are explicitly defending happens to provide cover for, and prevent criticism of, Israel. Very strange. Probably a complete coincidence.
This is not “progressive” (a meaningless word, shows your level of understanding), it’s reactionary.