(JEWISH GROUP) Majority of Antisemitism Online Posted by Palestinians or Progressives

[Mosby]

Sixty-eight percent of antisemitic discourse on social media originates from Palestinian or pro-Palestinian progressive circles, a report presented by Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs Amichai Chikli shows.

The report was presented at the weekly Cabinet meeting on Sunday, in conjunction with International Holocaust Remembrance Day. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the state of antisemitism in the Diaspora, including data on the number and geographic distribution of incidents.

Chikli focused on new anti-Israel forms of Jew-hatred, saying, “Antisemitism is changing its face and is increasingly focusing on hatred towards the Jewish state and the denial of its right to exist.”

Globally, the number of antisemitic incidents decreased in 2022 from the record set the previous year. The exception to this trend was the United States, where there was a significant increase in the number of antisemitic interactions.

Despite the decrease in overall incidents, there was a 13% increase in violent antisemitic attacks in 2022. The countries with the highest rates of antisemitic attacks were the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France.

https://unitedwithisrael.org/majority-of-antisemitism-online-posted-by-palestinians-or-progressives/

[elleng]

1. From whence???

' antisemitic discourse on social media '

[emulatorloo]

2. In my humble opinion, genuine progressives aren't anti-Semitic. On the other hand these pseudo

‘progressives’ who dominate twitter and podcasts are vile people. I am horrified by what I read.

Thank you for the link.

[Mosby]

4. I agree with this

The headline and language in the piece is imprecise. There is, however, a hard left contingent online that is obsessed with Israel and Zionism and have adopted antisemitic beliefs. People like Nina Turner, Max Blumenthal, Peter Beinart, Glenn Greenwald and others.

[mahina]

3. BS

What a pile. Impressive.
First of all there is, obviously extremely tragically, an immense amount of antisemitic material on the Internet. It is not honest to pretend that they have a scope on all of it. They can’t. they could try to figure out how to pull out a sample, but how is that sample selected without selecting for the desired outcome, intentionally or otherwise? 2-progressives are not anti-Israeli, or anti-Jewish in my long experience.

It’s much more likely that Iran, even China, possibly, and Russia, trying to divide us against ourselves, or the source and amplification of a very large amount of this bullshit hateful, nasty antisemitism, that is so dangerous, and potentially extremely destructive.

That’s what I think. Maybe I’ll go write an article, selecting my sources to prove it to people who perhaps don’t have the critical thinking skills to discern nonsense from evidence. If they believed this they are very easily persuadable.

What do I have wrong there?

[Beastly Boy]

5. I too question the exclusion of Iran from the list of major souces of world's antisemitic rhetoric.

But we don't know the methodology that went into this report. It was presented at a cabinet-level meeting of the Israeli government. It included, according to the article, "the data on the number and geographic distribution of incidents." This makes it difficult to dismiss the report as a fabrication or a pile of bullshit.

Since we have no data at all to confirm or deny the contents of the report, we have no standing to categorically reject or accept it. We can only offer guesses, and not well informed ones at that, about the relative accuracy of the report, which makes our argumentative stance pretty weak. We know that certain data which is sufficiently impressive, at least in its appearance, for a cabinet-level meeting, is present in the report, and we know that no such data is present in our guesses.

In the contest between my opinions and the contents of the report, I would have to concede defeat.

[mahina]

6. You do you. That car has one wheel. Not all intel said to be for internal use really is.

That one single exclusion renders the whole report invalid.

Then there's the far right wing in the US being fed toxic anti-American antisemitism by Russia. That merits not a blip here. Come on.

Maybe I'll give it more than a minute's listen. I am very willing to entertain other perspectives but not when they are obviously either lying or wrong. Possibly both.

Cheers.

[Beastly Boy]

7. Repeating your arguments in an angrier tone don't make them any more persuasive.

You invited my response. And now you are basically telling me, in very polite terms, to fuck off. I don't take it as an offense, and I don't mind fucking off when asked as politely as you did.

But your arguments do not stand up to the standards I proposed. Nor do they stand up to the standards you are proposing. Your proposition is, and I quote: "Not all intel said to be for internal use really is". While you claim your statement to constitute the single exclusion that renders the whole report invalid, it does nothing of the sort. On the contrary, your statement presumes a multitude of interpretations. Those interpretations include a whole range of options, including most of intel being what it is said to be, some of intel being what it is said to be, and none of intel being what it is said to be. The latter, by your own admission, is by no means single or exclusive. Your statement neither precludes the report from being valid, nor does it preclude the report from being invalid. A rather strange justification for summarily rejecting the report.

Having said the above, there is never a mention that the report was meant exclusively for internal use. On the contrary, the report was presented in the context of a public forum. Nevertheless, it was presented to members of Israeli government and was accompanied by collected data, all made available for verification by the general public.

The mentions other probable sources of antisemitic incidents, while missing from the article, are not necessarily missing from the report. They may have simply not be merited a mention in comparison to other, more significant sources.Something tells me the number of thosesources would fill a book, not just a newspaper article.

I hope the above will entertain you for a minute or so. That's plenty for a reasonable person to see the flaws in your logic. Oh, and I do resent the insinuation that my perspective contains lies.

[mahina]

8. Rats given

0

[Beastly Boy]

9. Such deprecating attitude towards your own reasoning skills!

Last edited Wed Feb 1, 2023, 10:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Not even an outward appearance of trying? You need to start working on your self-esteem, pal!