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]).
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.
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.