theacharnian

You don't have to live like this.

Good on the mayor. We have a housing crisis.

I see, thanks. Do Kahanists have such free reign in Germany? That's troubling to read.

I don't see how that's relevant.

Shouting “I hate Jews” and “Jews are shit” is antisemitic by definition. The other behaviours you're describing are also deplorable.

Note however, what I am debating here is not their actions as such. I am attacking the rationale presented by the «Office for the protection of the constitution in Berlin» in its condemnation of the group.

Those guys and girls might be antisemitic idiots, but they are private individuals. On the other hand, the «Office» is a public institution and the rationale it employs is such that even if those guys and girls had conducted themselves extremely carefully, correctly and politely, the «Office» could have still used the same rationale to condemn them.

This state institution is outlining a rationale for proscribing any protest group that would share the political goals of those guys and girls, even if it might completely eschew their tactics.

This rationale makes impossible a future, non-extremist BDS group from pursuing a BDS campaign as such.

And, to quote Kennedy: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." In its rationale, the «Office» is revealing itself to hold a deep and rabid anti-Palestinian bias, that is profoundly unacceptable for a liberal European democracy.

Good point. The province should tax oil and gas companies to fund the construction of good public transit.

In the following, I use the Jerusalem definition of Antisemitism: "Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)."

The aim of the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) campaign is to “end the occupation” of “all Arab lands” by Israel “Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands”) 40, i.e. ultimately the abolition of the Israeli state.

A good faith and strictly textual reading of these aims could just be understood to mean the occupation of the 1967 territories, a perfectly legitimate political goal. The ultimate abolition of the Israeli state is a bad faith interpretation. But also, even if it were an actual political goal, it's not antisemitic. In a bi- or pluri-national democratic, free, and equal successor state to the current state of Israel that is not Jewish supremacist, Jews and Israelis can live perfectly safe, fulfilled and free lives, with full and equal rights with citizens of other religions, just like they do in many Western countries and like other ethnic groups (e.g. the Québécois, the Waloons, or the Catalonians) do in other countries. If the authors of this text cannot imagine this to be feasible, that is just a failure of their own moral ambition, and potentially also an internalized bias and racism against Arabs and Muslims, imagining them incapable of being co-equal citizens of democratic liberal republics.

The binding ideological leitmotif of the network behind the BDS campaign is thus the negation of Israel’s right to exist.

States don't have the right to exist. Greece, Germany, Canada, the Soviet Union, or the Byzantine Empire don't have the right to exist. The people living in states have the right to live and the right to self-determination, and so obviously do Israeli and Jewish people. But states are social constructs that don't have inalienable rights. See above how the goal of a bi- or pluri-national democratic liberal successor state can guarantee these rights to all people, including of course to Jews and Israelis.

The instrument of the comprehensive boycott aims to inflict considerable damage on the state and the population that is equated with it.

It's a non-violent and non-coercive campaign. It tries to convince people to apply economic pressure. It does not compel anyone to do anything. Boycotts are legitimate non-violent pressure tactics. In this particular case, the BDS campaign has been specifically a call from Palestinian Civil Society, as a way for people to peacefully apply pressure to Israel to end their oppression. It's not antisemitic, because it does not target Jews as such, it targets Israeli institutions and corporations to try to influence their behaviour, a perfectly legitimate political objective. It also does not single out Israel, since it is specifically a project initiated by a population that Israel oppresses. It would be absurd to claim that Tibetan calls to apply pressure to China «single out China». It's specifically the issue that affects them.

For one of the conceptual masterminds of the BDS campaign, the duo-listic contrast between the Israeli “oppressive regime” on the one hand and “almost the entire Palestinian population” on the other is at the heart of the Middle East conflict, whereby Israel is unilaterally assigned the role of being solely responsible for the conflict.41

The language of "conceptual masterminds" reveals extreme bias. Multiple reputable human rights organizations have documented the oppressive regime inflicted on the occupied Palestinian population. Pointing this out is not antisemitic. Furthermore, assigning the sole responsibility for the conflict to Israel is not in itself antisemitic. It is a political assessment about the actions of a polity that has nothing to do with the Jewish character of the polity.

At its core, the BDS campaign aims to demonize and delegitimize Israel. Hostility towards Israel is a key element of the Berlin BDS network.

That again is an extremely bad faith interpretation of the campaign's intents and is by no means an objective assessment. Hostility towards Israel is not antisemitic, in this context because it is not driven by its Jewish character but by its actions and its impact on the lives of the oppressed people that this campaign is seeking to give voice to. A good faith interpretation of the group's aim would be that if Israel were to cease its oppressive policies and adopt a policy of Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations towards the Palestinians, the hostility would gradually disappear.

Its supporters and supporters reject Israel’s right to exist.

See my previous point.

On the internet, for example, some of them called for an “intifada” or the “annihilation of the Zionists” .42

An intifada is a violent resistance movement. According to international law, that Germany ostensibly accepts, Palestinians as an occupied people have the right to armed resistance against occupation, within the confines of international law. And of course, antisemitism has nothing to do with violent resistance against occupation. The "annihilation of the Zionists" line is of course problematic. But it is given out of context, and as seen above, this institution seems to be taking the worst bad faith interpretations of the positions of the group. I therefore reserve final judgement, as some contexts might make this line more specific (such as for example if by "Zionists" they mean active duty soldiers, engaged in battle). That said, I would also caution that mean things that some people with questionable links to the organization say online is not serious grounds for condemning an entire organization.

For years, they have been involved in individual boycott campaigns, such as against , a sporting goods manufacturer accused of collaborating with of the Israeli soccer league.

This follows from their mandate. This is a non-violent pressure tactic aimed at changing behaviour, not at violence. See also previous comments.

Finally, Berlin BDS supporters justified and/or glorified the terrorist attack by HAMAS on October 7, 2023.44 In official statements, the attack was described as a “liberation struggle against settler colonialism” or welcomed as an escape from the “open-air prison” Gaza.45

Let us unpack this. Calling Israeli domination settler colonialism is not antisemitism. Calling Gaza an open air prison is not antisemitism. Calling something a "liberation struggle" in and of itself is not necessarily justification or glorification, if read in good faith it can be just an accurate description of an event. The October 7 2023 attacks by Hamas involved hideous atrocities and crimes against innocent people. Two things can be true: those are hideous crimes against humanity that should be persecuted to the fullest extent under international law AND they are a (very very dark, criminal, and disgusting) page in a long struggle for liberation. Such contradictions are not unknown to history. Nat Turner's Rebellion was part of the wider anti-slavery liberation struggle, even if it involved hideous atrocities and crimes. The fall of Tripolitsa involved hideous crimes by the Greeks against the Ottoman civilian population, and was at the same time part of the Greek liberation struggle. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hideous crimes against humanity, and at the same time part of the global antifascist struggle. Identifying this deplorable acts as parts of a larger liberation struggle does not take away anything from their absolute horror.

But, regardless, it is intellectually dishonest to characterize the (hideous) October 7th attack specifically as "antisemitic". The criminal perpetrators were not motivated by hatred of jews as being jews, but by hatred of Israelis as being occupiers. I.e., not hatred for what they are but what they do. Obviously it was blind hatred directed at innocent people who didn't "do" anything of course, and as I've mentioned multiple times a hideous crimes against humanity. But it is good to be careful about what we call antisemitic.

They were also an integral part of the anti-Israel scene, which was responsible for a large number of anti-Israel events.

Being anti-Israel is not being antisemitic in itself, especially since this is a group motivated by opposition to Israeli policy, employing a non-violent, non-coercive tactic to change Israeli policy.

They initiated and organized these events in alliances with left-wing extremist and Islamist groups, such as the VPNK.

I don't know what the VPNK is, and search does not bring anything up. Still, left-wing and islamist is not the same as antisemitic.

Signs with stereotypical anti-Jewish imagery were repeatedly displayed at these events.

That is of course deplorable. Given however the bad faith misinterpratations I have seen in the rest of the text, I would like to see specifically what they are talking about. Greta Thunberg was accused of promoting antisemitic imagery for example, and it was ridiculous.

Speakers from the BDS campaign denied the brutal dimension of the terror of 7 October 2023.

That is of course deplorable. But callousness itself is not antisemitic.

At a demonstration on 2 March under the slogan “Solidarity with Palestine” , a BDS speaker also openly explained that the slogan “From the river to the sea […]” undoubtedly meant the ‘abolition’ of the “colonial project” of Israel.___

As explained above, this is not an antisemitic political goal, to the degree that what is envisioned is a bi- or pluri-national democratic, free, and equal successor state to the current state of Israel that is not Jewish supremacist, and where Jews and Israelis can live perfectly safe, fulfilled and free lives.

According to the Jerusalem Post:

The intelligence document cited examples of BDS that were widely condemned as antisemitic by German politicians and experts in the field of antisemitism. One of the outbreaks of BDS-animated antisemitism outlined was the storming of an Israel event at Humboldt University. At least three highly aggressive pro-BDS activists lashed out at Israeli survivor of the Holocaust Deborah Weinstein and MK Aliza Lavie (Yesh Atid) who participated at the event titled: Life in Israel – Terror, Bias and the Chances for Peace.

Context:

Among the audience were at least three BDS activists: Stavit Sinai (an Israeli Jewish university lecturer), Ronnie Barkan (an Israeli Jewish math teacher) and Majed Abusalama (a Gaza Palestinian born in the Jabalia refugee camp, shot in a leg by an Israeli soldier during a nonviolent protest[8]). According to Michael Spaney from DIG, "several minutes" or "about 10 minutes" into Aliza Lavie's lecture, one of the activists started shouting at her before being removed from the hall, and then two others started speaking and/or shouting against Lavie and against Israel before being removed too. The activists were accusing Israel of apartheid and accusing Israel, and Aliza Lavie specifically, of war crimes in Gaza. Lavie said the activists told her "the blood of the Gaza Strip is on your hands" and called the politician a "child murderer" (a reference to the 2014 bombardment and airstrikes in Gaza). Lavie and her group reportedly left the hall through a back exit to avoid a group of about 20 protesters at the main entrance.[4][5][9] Describing the way the activists were removed from the hall by DIG members, Michael Spaney from DIG said they were "nicely maneuvered out" of the hall (though they were "lashing out"), while the BDS activists said Stavit Sinai was punched in the face.[1][2] Ronnie Barkan said that a video shown to the judge during the trial showed the moment Sinai was punched.[3]

So basically, actions by 2 ISRAELI JEWS (and an actual victimized Palestinian) are used as evidence of antisemitism.

Yet another case of German bureaucrats lecturing Jewish people about what is and what isn't antisemitism. Picking good and bad Jews, which is of course ...antisemitism.

Reminds me of this quote:

There is, as the Israeli-born architect and academic Eyal Weizman has acidly put it, a certain irony in “being lectured [on how to be properly Jewish] by the children and grandchildren of the perpetrators who murdered our families and who now dare to tell us that we are antisemitic”.

Shame on German institutions for their betrayal of both anti-zionist Jews and of course of Palestinians, victims of countless crimes against humanity that Germany turns a blind eye to. Shame, shame, shame.

It's why we need anti-car advocacy at all levels of government. Otherwise only the grumps get a say.

I think it has to do more with multimodality, i.e., using multiple modes of transportation. I use the car for some things, the bike for others, transit for others. That makes me appreciate the dangers and frustrations of each whenever I use each. For example, when I cycle, I know what a driver can't see; when I drive I know that a cyclist can be startled or that a bus should go ahead of me at a light. A city has a higher chance to give people the opportunity to experience multimodality, that's all. Depends where of course, but on average, city means more options than not city.

I bet you the banging of the fist on the bonnet is what sent him on a rage. Advertising has made cars into a personal status symbol, but it is an expensive and fragile thing to move around a city with an expectation that it remains immaculate. This guy's brain probably short circuited right when his expensive status symbol was threatened.

Yes but the GBP is not the reserve currency of the world (any more).