Is anything telling you it’s “real news” credible? They don’t have their domain registered to any sort of entity at all.
What’s the proof this isn’t an entirely spoofed site?
The URL may be dubious, but it’s a fairly standard point it’s making. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism.
If I were to make a news site with misinformation, I would sprinkle in genuine criticism with fake criticism, or things that are out of context.
Just wait until you see my new news site, The Real Real News. Double the truth!
Our commitment to Baltimore
While TRNN relies on the internet to distribute our content globally, we are also a place-based institution with a responsibility to serve Baltimore, the city we call home.
We know that the struggles that the people in this majority-minority city face (unequitable access to resources like education, clean air, and transportation, for example) are the same struggles people face all over the globe.
Our local coverage helps keep our friends and neighbors abreast of what’s going on in our city, but we also hope these stories will resonate with people united in the struggle everywhere.
In Baltimore, they read The Banner. That’s Fenton’s new home after the sun went under. This site is def questionable.
https://therealnews.com/about/our-team
These people are known on social media and other publications.
Maximillian Alvarez - Editor-in-Chief
Chris Hedges
So if they are a real organization, why does the Whois not show a contact in Baltimore? It doesn’t add up
I distrust a website calling itself “the real news” but I do feel the headline has a point. There are a lot of Israeli lobbying groups and media companies trying to spin any criticism of the Israeli government into antisemitism.
This is backfiring spectacularly, of course, as they now effectively associate what normal people would consider reasonable points (“maybe don’t expand the Israeli occupation” and “apologise for shooting American journalists”) with the Holocaust. Their stupid spin doctors may have been able to pressure politicians in the past, but now they’re only helping antisemites.
The fact Jews have a claim to their holy land in their religion makes reasonable arguments very difficult. Judaism and zionism go hand in hand, but Israel isn’t some kind of Jewish theocracy. I’m not sure what kind of stupid plan they’re following trying to pretend like it is, but it makes me cringe every time one of their “experts” is in the news. Putting an unreliable advocate forward every time there’s an accusation only makes the accuser look better.
Zionists
It’s okay, we know you mean Jews.
Is there a reason this article bashes (adjusts glasses, checks) the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in its opening para?
Yes, because that organization published a definition of antisemitism that effectively makes it almost off limits to criticize the actions of the Israeli state. And that definition is being codified into policy or even law in many cases. Even the author of this definition has objected to the way it’s being used.
Yeah, I thought that was it. The definition is clear that criticism of the Israeli government that’s comparable to criticisms aimed at other governments isn’t antisemitism. You should be able to criticise Israel in the same terms you criticise (e.g.) Russia and China, or for that matter America and the UK. But if you exclusively criticise Israel in virulent terms, or say that Israel is some sort of uniquely evil entity comparable to the Nazis, or imply that all Jews worldwide are agents of the Israeli state, or say Israel as a nation state should be wiped off the map—that’s antisemitic.
This should all be pretty uncontroversial.
It’s “clear” in the sense that it pays lip service to the concept. In practice, as this article discusses, it is used as a cudgel to over-apply the accusation of antisemitism and shield Israel from discussion of its apartheid policies. Some allegedly antisemitic organizations, under this definition, have included Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
The letter said the first example can be used to suppress claims that Israel is breaching international laws against apartheid and is violating conventions to end racial discrimination. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both been accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition over detailed reports saying that Israel practises a form of apartheid, an accusation also levelled by Israeli human rights groups.
“The example on ‘applying double standards’ opens the door to labeling as antisemitic anyone who focuses on Israeli abuses as long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere,” the letter said.
“By that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia.”
Anyone who actually cares about antisemitism rather than just cheerleading for the Israeli state should oppose this because it cheapens the accusation in its overapplication, and casts doubt on the legitimacy of real incidences of antisemitism.
So your position (besides implying that I’m a cheerleader for Netanyahu) is that a good working definition of antisemitism is bad because people misuse it? What’s your take on how to counter the very real antisemitism that exists in parts of the anti-Israel movement? Also, I’m sorry, but your quotation is obviously bullshit:
applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
China is a democratic nation now? Saudi Arabia is a democratic nation? Come on. It’s obvious what that means, and it should be obvious why holding Israel to a uniquely high standard among democratic nations, as the definition says, is antisemitic.
My position is that it is not a good definition, and that it has been selected because it provides cover for this "mis-"use. I make no claim to know anything about you nor did I mention Netanyahu.
Curious they choose “Zionists” over Israelis. Not a good start.
Zionism is one of those political terms that is assumed to have a universal definition agreed upon by all when in reality people are using the same word to argue completely different concepts in many cases. It’s a sensitive and inflammatory topic because of ongoing prejudice and atrocities committed in living memory so there are obstacles to overcome to have a good faith discussion.
Israel’s constituition establishes a secular state which does not privelege one ethnitcity or religion over another. Benjamin Netenyahu represents a far-right contingent of Israeli politics and has enacted policy which does real world harm to Palestinian people. Criticism of his administration can be motivated by anti-semitism, but if we’re seriously talking about geopolitics and apartheid on the left I think we’re more focused on making sure the human rights of Palestinians are respected. Netanyahu’s political opponents in Israel who do not wish to continue expanding settlements into demarked Palestinian territories are most likely not motivated by anti-semitism. Critics abroad making the same arguments against the actions of Israel’s secular government similarly are probably less motivated by anti-semitism and more motivated by some sense of universal human rights. Although there are some imperial-minded people that oppose Israel’s actions because they have some sense of not wanting their most hated group of people to grow more powerful, I honestly don’t think anyone in this comment section or from the linked article has that motivation. Anti-semitism is a very real problem which needs to be taken very seriously, but framing a left-wing political argument in favor of human rights as only possibly motivated by anti-semitism is completely bad faith which does no favors to anyone except the far-right.
Meanwhile, the actual IHRA definition explictly states: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.
Once again, for the people who imagine it says something different: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.
Now if we’re talking and it comes out that I’m a Jew and you immediately shift to BUT ISRAEL, that’s racism. You likely understand this for say, Chinese people, right?
If you use antisemitic tropes in your criticism of Israel, those tropes are still antisemitic - whether you realise it or not. Making out it’s “just criticism of Israel” doesn’t erase the tropes of their antisemitism.
If you believe things which are rooted in antisemitism (and yes, a hell of a lot of stuff circulating on the internet which claims to be “just criticism of Israel” does have its roots in antisemitism), those things are still rooted in antisemitism even if you’re ignorant of those origins and are determined to stay in that ignorance.
And once again, the actual IHRA definition explictly states: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.
Here’s a short summary for the linked article
Click to expand
The document discusses the concept of antisemitism and its relationship to Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It interviews author Rebecca Ruth Gould about her book “Erasing Palestine”, which analyzes how the definition of antisemitism has been expanded by some organizations to include all criticism of Israel in an attempt to shield it from scrutiny. Gould describes her own experience being accused of antisemitism over an article she wrote about the occupation, and how this led her to explore issues of free speech, Jewish identity, and the silencing of pro-Palestinian views.
The interview touches on Gould’s rediscovery of her Jewish roots and draws parallels between the oppression of Jews and Palestinians.
This comment was generated by a bot. Send comments and complaints via private message.
Removed by mod
