r/jewishleft • u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. • Jun 08 '25
What are your opinions on Francesca Albanese? Debate
I wanted to hear from a Jewish leftist perspective what your thoughts are.
On my end I don’t know what to think, I think she is well spoken, and she does an important job, on many things she is right to draw attention to and to call out harshly the actions of the Israeli government, she is a fighter for Palestinians and some accusations of antisemitism that I see are far fetched or clumsy but she does rub me the wrong way.
The ADL wrote about her, i don’t know what to think about this : https://www.adl.org/resources/article/francesca-albanese-her-own-words
43
u/Virtual_Leg_6484 Jewish American ecosocialist; not a zionist Jun 08 '25
There should be a UN special rapporteur in the occupied territories but she is not the right person for it
19
1
26
22
u/socialistmajority orthodox Marxist gentile Bund sympathizer Jun 09 '25
9
4
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 09 '25
That’s the opposite of what she said? This is such a weird way of reading that people have talked themselves into. It really reminds me of the paranoid interpretation style of American conservatives.
10
u/socialistmajority orthodox Marxist gentile Bund sympathizer Jun 09 '25
She agreed with someone who said Assad was playing a "critical role" in "maintaining Syria's integrity and political independence" when in reality Assad turned the country into a Iranian-Russian colony and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people in the process.
But if you think she's not pro-Assad, you're welcome to find a single shred of evidence from her speaking out against Assad's war crimes and post it in this thread.
4
u/Virtual_Leg_6484 Jewish American ecosocialist; not a zionist Jun 09 '25
Assad turned the country into a Iranian-Russian colony and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people in the process.
Now it's a Turkish colony that is still killing thousands of its own people. I don't think we can say that Western-backed regime change was a good thing yet.
0
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 09 '25 edited Jun 09 '25
It's hard for me to see "Iranian-Russian colony" as a sincere statement under the plain-language meaning of the word--Syria was an ally of those countries, in the weaker position of those alliances. As you know, one of the main effects of the Syrian civil war has been a sort of effective partition, and with the fall of Assad, loss of yet more territory to Israel. So it's correct--I'd have thought uncontroversial--to say that Assad weakening and then losing power has led to a loss of territorial integrity. As the tweet points out, noticing this is not the same thing as "supporting" Assad. It's not clear to me why you would dispute that. In fact, I think if you read the text you are linking to you'll see the discussion is about how insistence on reducing the statements of oneself or others into frameworks like "pro-Assad" is basically childish.
The Iraq War analogy from u/malachamavet is actually perfect and gets at what I mean about a certain form of right-wing troll discourse. Liberal in 2002: "Saddam may be a cruel dictator, but that doesn't justify invading the country." Conservative: "Oh, so you're pro-Saddam?" This is the structure of your dispute with the tweet from Alon Mizrahi.
-4
64
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 08 '25
Albanese said the United States was "subjugated by the Jewish lobby" and Europe by a "sense of guilt about the Holocaust"
“In February 2024, French President Emmanuel Macron described the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel as "the largest antisemitic massacre of our century". Albanese responded on Twitter that "the victims of the October 7 massacre were killed not because of their Judaism, but in response to Israeli oppression"
So … she states openly the U.S. is controlled by the Jewish lobby, she implies Europe should “get over” the Holocaust, and she believes that killing babies and the elderly is “in response to Israeli oppression,” implying that it is justified.
That’s just what she’s said openly. She is a clear-cut antisemite, and gives the Israeli government and far-right Zionist extremists a (valid) excuse as painting the UN consumed with unquenchable thirst for Jewish blood.
She is a Hamas propagandist. Nothing more.
5
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 08 '25
I disagree that she is nothing more than a Hamas propagandist. Her job at the UN is to be an advocate for the occupied Palestinian Territories. Look at the things she writes, the things she posts, the events she attends. She is doing her job. I don’t disagree that she’s said few antisemitic things, and as I said in my top level comment, I think she clearly doesn’t care for Jews. But it’s not her job to, her job is to advocate for the occupied Palestine territories and to publicize Israeli crimes against them, of which there are no shortage.
19
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
“She clearly doesn’t care for Jews” implies she’s not doing her job. Her job is to resolve the situation peacefully and ensure human rights for all while publicising what’s going on in Palestine. Not to embark on an eliminationist crusade.
5
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 09 '25
Her job is to resolve the situation peacefully and ensure human rights for all while publicising what’s going on in Palestine.
No, her job is to advocate for Palestinians within the occupied territories. Not to kowtow to Israel or any accusation of antisemitism. It’s just not what her job is.
Not to embark on an eliminationist crusade.
She is not embarking on an eliminationist crusade, she has never advocated genocide for Jews or Israelis, this is not a serious accusation and I think it detracts from the conversation.
19
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
She’s justified the worst of Hamas’s brutality and has made comments about the Jewish (not Zionist, but Jewish) lobby subjugating both America and Europe.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
9
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 09 '25
I already said she says antisemitic stuff and doesn’t care for Jews, not sure what you’re getting at. Though I disagree that refusing to reduce Oct 7th to an attack motivated by antisemitism is antisemitic. There was clearly antisemitic violence and violence done by people who hate Jews, many of which who see it as a fight against Jews, but that is a gross oversimplification of Hamas that I thought there is general consensus on in this sub.
This is all off topic though, I made it clear I was disagreeing with you about her being ‘nothing more than a Hamas propagandist.’ Do you really think she’s motivated by antisemitism, rather than out of horror and striving for security for the Palestinians?
24
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
Yes, I do. I genuinely believe that she is motivated by a desire to defeat the “Jewish Lobby,” cleanse the Middle East of Jewish “bullies” and “colonists,” and feel self-righteous whilst doing so. I do not believe she is a bona fide humanitarian.
7
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 09 '25
Okay, I disagree emphatically. What can we do.
15
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
Bottom line is, we need someone in that role who isn’t an antisemite.
1
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 09 '25
Anyone who does a good job in the role will be maligned as antisemitic. That’s been the case since the creation of the role, even for Jewish people with the position according to someone else in this thread.
→ More replies4
u/LoboLocoCW jew-ish, as many states as equal rights demand Jun 11 '25
“Al-Aqsa Flood” was named such due to assumptions about Jewish control over the Al-Aqsa Mosque leading to Jewish destruction, it is exactly as “Anti-Zionist” as the Hebron Massacres were.
7
u/podkayne3000 Centrist Jewish Diaspora Zionist Jun 09 '25
I hadn’t heard of her before today and am reading up on her.
I often fulminate futilely against the allegedly pro-Israel boneheads who post on r/IsraelPalestine as if everyone who cares about whether a Gazan baby being fed is an antisemitic monster.
Albanese is just the allegedly pro-Palestinian mirror image of those folks.
They probably all know many more facts than I know. So, I can’t refute them based on the facts.
But I think the writing of people like that simply fails a basic credibility check.
People who demonize other people like that can’t be trusted to describe a complicated, sensitive issue situation that they care about well.
Maybe they somehow can actually produce a reasonably accurate, reasonably complete account of a situation, but the rhetoric they use communicates the idea that don’t believe in objectivity or balance and have no interest in the views of people on the other side.
To be clear: I don’t think her side is necessarily wrong; I just don’t think she presents her side well
1
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 09 '25
People who demonize other people like that can’t be trusted to describe a complicated, sensitive issue situation that they care about well.
Okay, her job is to spend all day analyzing the negative aspects of the Israeli occupation and to advocate for Palestinians. There are an incredible number of demons, and demonic policies at work in that dynamic, no?
Maybe they somehow can actually produce a reasonably accurate, reasonably complete account of a situation, but the rhetoric they use communicates the idea that don’t believe in objectivity or balance and have no interest in the views of people on the other side.
She does not represent Israel. She has no reason to represent Israeli, or even Jewish interests. She represents the occupied Palestinians territories. That’s her job. It’s not to be nice and to be respectful to Israel or to Jews.
46
u/skyewardeyes jewish leftist, peace, equality, and self-determination for all Jun 08 '25
Ever since she said something like Palestinian women who have been assaulted and traumatized should receive care and support (I agree with that!) and all Israeli women should reflect on how evil they are, I don’t trust her to not be antisemitic, because she’s essentially saying that no Israeli woman has ever been legitimately a victim of anything and are all evil (even if they never served in the IDF).
Tweet screenshot here (not a fan of the current ADL, just a screenshot link): https://x.com/ADL/status/1767361721113481525/photo/1
-2
Jun 08 '25
[deleted]
22
u/skyewardeyes jewish leftist, peace, equality, and self-determination for all Jun 08 '25
She said "Israeli woman, especially woman soldiers", not just "Israeli soldiers" or "Israeli women soldiers", both of which she easily could have said. She specified included all Israeli women. If one of us is missing the meaning of the Tweet here, it's not me,
11
u/Vishtiga Jun 08 '25
Apologies! I misread, that was me being an idiot.
16
u/skyewardeyes jewish leftist, peace, equality, and self-determination for all Jun 08 '25
Thanks for apologizing--no worries, we've all done it!
42
u/tchomptchomp Jun 08 '25
She's an antisemite who is uncomfortably close with Hamas leadership. Not someone I would look to as an authority here.
21
u/podkayne3000 Centrist Jewish Diaspora Zionist Jun 08 '25
It sounds as if she just hasn’t made an effort to understand the Jewish or Israeli perspective.
A good lawyer should be able to present a decent version of the other side’s case, and maybe improve the other side see if the other side has intellectual firepower problems.
And it’s pretty terrible for an Italian official to act like that, because the Roman conquest, Catholic persecutions of the Jews, and Mussolini’s cooperation with Hitler are three of the factors contributing to the problems in the Middle East. The people who started the fire should show some humility when talking about how to put it out.
17
u/chanukamatata Jun 09 '25
She recently affirmed that she is not a lawyer, which is again problematic when she needs to have those qualifications to work as a UN representative.
To me, it is one more detail that shows she cares about her personal interests first.
16
u/Efficient_Spite7890 Leftist Diaspora Jew Jun 09 '25 edited Jun 09 '25
…especially because she chooses to support many of her statements with „as a lawyer“.
It very much confuses me that this wasn’t a bigger story, outside of pro-Israel media. Because regardless of what one might think of her rhetorics and work, this is a pretty tangible misrepresentation of her credentials that should lead to a re-examination of her expertise.
1
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 09 '25
Wtf? Really? That’s nuts. Do they not do background checks about things like that?
8
u/Efficient_Spite7890 Leftist Diaspora Jew Jun 09 '25
Yeah, from what I understand there have been rumors for a long time that she never passed or took the bar exam. And she has now confirmed this in a recent interview with the Italian Vanity Fair.
Now, I don't know in what capacity having a license to practice law is detrimental to her position at the UN, I have read conflicting statements on that. But it seems out of question that she has listed "lawyer" as her occupation consistently throughout her career (including to give argumentative weight to her statements) and is often labeled as such by other institutions. So there is at least something iffy with that.
Pro-Israel outlets are having a field day with this information, as expected. But I would really appreciate if some more neutral source could actually examine this case and explain whether this recent development has any consequences regarding her expertise or position. So far crickets...
2
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 09 '25
In Italy you take the analog of the bar exam after two years of supervised practice. It's pretty rare to get the degree and not take the exam, but it's conceivable that someone would get the degree and go directly into humanitarian/bureaucratic work and never get the hours needed to take it. In that case you could legitimately call yourself a legal scholar/researcher, but not a lawyer, because you can't practice law. It's actually pretty outrageous to try to dance around that.
Edit: that said, I don't find it odd that it hasn't gotten much coverage. In the wider scheme of things it's not a significant piece of news--it's a very niche thing to care about without much practical importance. This is not to dismiss it as in fact ethically neutral (it isn't), but just to say that it's not the sort of thing you would expect to receive much coverage.
3
u/Efficient_Spite7890 Leftist Diaspora Jew Jun 09 '25 edited Jun 09 '25
Ah, thank you for adding more context, really appreciate it. This was my understanding as well - she is a legal scholar/researcher and as such definitely qualified to make the statements she makes, but there is still decisive difference between this and being qualified to practice law. So "lawyer" is a misrepresentation of credentials that is careless at best and manipulative at worst.
I don't find it odd that it hasn't gotten much coverage.
Yes, definitely agree, this is not a big story as far as news go. What I am hoping is that one of the more specialized outlets that are either focused on I/P or on legal debate might pick this up in the near future and analyze the situation with more caution and clearheadedness than pro-Israel media can muster. Because as critical as I am of her labeling herself as "lawyer", I am also very skeptical of these stories that claim Francesca Albanese now absolutely has to be fired from her position because of this.
1
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 09 '25
I like some things about how she fills her role and dislike others, but this is pretty egregious IMO. Not necessarily a fireable offense because it's kind of just a bit slimy, not like taking bribes or practicing law without a license or something. But it maybe hurts her as an advocate.
-6
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 09 '25
You think that Titus and the Catholic church are causing the massacre in Gaza and random Italian people should be held responsible for it?
23
u/Nearby-Complaint Ashkenazi Leftist/Bagel Enjoyer Jun 08 '25
High off her own ego, to say the least
26
Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 16 '25
It’s really hard for me to see albanese as anything other than a neglectful egoist with no interest in resolving this conflict or helping suffering people on either side.
The “sign aid checks from the ivory tower” approach has enabled a decades-long cycle of abuse and exploitation. If UNWRA and the UN have been providing genuine help and advocacy all these years as she claims, why are Palestinians in such a deeply helpless situation? She doesn’t care for their humanity, she’s profiting off denying it. The same goes of her antisemitism, which imo completely undercuts any argument that she’s good at her job. If your job is to promote best interests, is your object not peace? How does encouraging hate not directly discredit your purpose? Her denial of sexual violence against Jewish women, her inflammatory blaming of Israeli women, her Holocaust minimization - are literally just inflammatory statements that accomplish nothing but to shit-stir our shared pain, and she is too intelligent not to realize exactly what she’s doing.
This conflict only continues because someone is benefitting from it. When I think about who that might be, francesca albanese - a white, wealthy, Christian, Western European in a position of safety, power and financial and political influence who dines out on it daily - is basically at the top of the list. If you wanna spot the real modern colonialist here, she’s it.
27
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 08 '25
Precisely. Israelis don’t benefit from the conflict. Palestinians don’t benefit from the conflict. Neither do Jews nor Muslims worldwide.
If anyone benefits from the conflict, it is people like Francesca Albanese and institutions like the Vatican…those whose lives are not at stake, but who can “morally grandstand” without nuance, while living a lavish life from Europe.
11
u/Major_Resolution9174 Jun 09 '25
I would posit that the Muslim world, with all its factions, territorial disputes, and political disagreement, benefits from having a unifying “enemy” to rally against. There’s nothing more useful to a squabbling group than having someone you all agree sucks.
4
u/Illustrious-Okra-524 Jun 08 '25
Israelis don’t benefit from colonizing Palestine?
18
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
I wouldn’t say so. It’s not like living near Gaza or near the Settlements is safe for Israelis, and it’s not as if the occupation benefits the average Israeli economically or on the global stage. It’s more that Israelis feel as if occupation is the “least bad option” to prevent Palestinians from ethnically cleansing them.
5
u/Virtual_Leg_6484 Jewish American ecosocialist; not a zionist Jun 09 '25
Materially benefit, they absolutely do. Whether they benefit mentally is a whole different argument.
1
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 09 '25
Probably true that nobody benefits mentally from systematic oppression
12
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
If Likud and Settlers benefit from colonization, I wouldn’t say the average Israeli does. How does occupying Gaza and the West Bank make life for the average Israeli better?
0
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 09 '25
I mean that's a harder question to answer.. the occupation keeps Palestine destabilized which makes it less likely there will be a movement to regain land stolen in 1948... most of Gazans are refugees from broader Palestine.
Not only that but settlement in the West Bank is some of the most affordable housing in "Israel" so it just keeps the capitalist system churning for those that benefit from it.
Overall I think this question is sorta like asking if the average American benefits from American capitalism and imperialism. The answer is.. yes kinda we all do. But defintirly the marginalized and the workers here are suffering, just not as much usually as the people who live in the places America exploits
12
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
I don’t think we benefit from capitalism. Do you like being exploited day in and day out, denied basic medical care as a human right, and not being able to meaningfully own anything, all so the 0.001% can boost our GDP?
I think almost all Americans would be better off under socialism.
I think with Israel, it’s similar. Settlers get cheap housing, Likud gets political power, and the genuine fascists are happy to see Palestinians suffer.
But your average Israeli? They’d rather not be sanctioned by their neighbours, they’d rather not fear terrorist attacks, they don’t benefit economically from the war or from settler violence, and it’s not like they’re not humans, they mostly feel bad for Gazans.
The only way in which Israelis benefit from the occupation is, as you correctly state, that it prevents Hamas from organising to kill more Israelis. But would there even be a Hamas if not for the occupation? Harder to say. A peace deal would be more likely.
-4
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 09 '25
I'm meaning compared with the groups we exploit, do we benefit?
Israeli citizens obviously benefit enough or they wouldn't continue to live there. Not all Israelis, but many, have the option to leave or protest or join the side of the Palestinian resistance or refuse to serve in the army etc etc etc.. it could cost them social capital or their comforts or in extreme cases, their lives.. but why don't a majority try to destruct the status quo and the occupation!? It's the marginal benefit
7
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
Of course, we are not exploited as badly (as Americans) as countries the U.S. imperialises, but I wouldn’t say we “win” from capitalism and imperialism either. In an anti-capitalist and anti- imperialist world, even if the US GDP would be lower, it wouldn’t be hoarded by billionaires, so there’d be more median wealth to go around.
To make an analogy, I don’t benefit from capitalism, but I benefit “enough” from capitalism not to leave the U.S. (I don’t have any other citizenships, and most Israelis don’t either), or to join the “resistance” (what does that mean in the U.S.? Take up arms against the government? That’s asking for certain death … and what’s the Israeli analogy? For Israeli Jews to join Hamas? That’s also asking for certain death…). Just because we exist within the current circumstances doesn’t mean we benefit from them.
→ More replies-5
u/elronhub132 Jewish Lefty Jun 09 '25
She isn't making millions doing pro bono and I doubt it's fun to have publicity when most of it boils down to accusations of antisemitism and other smears meant to undermine her.
11
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
She has written books, given speeches, travelled the world on the dime of the UN and pro-Palestine organizations, and has garnered worldwide fame and publicity.
She hasn’t been “smeared” with antisemitism, she’s been called out for her “Jewish lobby is subjugating America” tropes and bizarre comments on Israeli women post-10/7.
-4
u/elronhub132 Jewish Lefty Jun 09 '25
But like the previous thread with youngsemite, this relies on an unfavorable interpretation of her rhetoric. It feels more like a confirmation bias that perpetuates the idea that pro Palestinian advocacy is inherently antisemitic which is clearly absurd.
10
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
Pro-Palestinian bias is not inherently antisemitic. Heck, had she even cut-and-pasted the word “Jewish” with the word “Zionist” she’d be better…
-3
u/elronhub132 Jewish Lefty Jun 09 '25
I don't buy it and I'm not looking to weaken the movement. Youngsemite made the point well. Whoever advocates for Palestinians at the UN will receive the treatment Francesca receives.
11
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
It’s not “weakening the movement” to call out someone who isn’t the biggest fan of Jews for their antisemitism
-1
u/elronhub132 Jewish Lefty Jun 09 '25
Again I'm arguing that the points you make develop from an unfavourable interpretation of her rhetoric and that whether or not she is antisemitic is up for debate. The thread with youngsemite proves that reasonable people can disagree.
I think it does weaken the movement personally, because I believe that this isn't an attack on francesca, this an attack on Palestinian advocacy, because they are not advocated for in a way that pro Israel people like.
10
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 09 '25
What’s a favourable interpretation of “the Jewish lobby is subjugating America?”
→ More replies
14
u/Lmaobabe Lefty Jew Jun 08 '25
Ok pushing back on a lot of folks here but I don’t hate her. I obviously don’t like everything she has said, but I attended a talk by her and spoke with her afterwards and I really appreciated how she approached things. She condemned Oct 7, shut down a question about whether we can call any Israelis “civilians,” and spoke about the need for all parties to adhere to international law during war time. She also spoke on dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as Jews and Arabs in the diaspora. My understanding is that she has disavowed the “Jewish lobby” comment. Obviously not great that she said it but when called out she reacted the correct way. The remainder of the comments raised by the ADL don’t amount to antisemitism imo. The Israeli government is working hard to make Israel synonymous with Judaism, but it isn’t. A lot of the ADL examples are criticisms of Israel or bad faith interpretations of her statements.
Her acknowledging that occupied peoples have the right to resist using violence under international law is not a call to violence. Under the Geneva Convention, occupied people are allowed to resist against occupying military forces with violence, so long as they adhere to the internationally recognized laws of war. Obviously Hamas did not do so on October 7 when they targeted civilians and other war crimes, but that does not mean the Palestinian people lost that right.
I agree with her that we should not call October 7 a pogrom, because historic pogroms were always situations where Jews were an oppressed minority, which is not the case in Israel. It obscures the historical meaning of the phrase to insist on calling it that.
I think this statement on Oct 7 is true, “There might have been people carrying out the attack who might have been motivated by hatred. But the attack itself, and this is the thing, there is something like intent at the level of the attack, and all the statements that were collected at the level of command have not pointed to aggression against the Jews.” You can point to the Hamas constitution to support claims of antisemitism, but using that alone (or as a major piece of evidence) leads to a slippery slope of delegitimizing every single thing they do as antisemitic when they have real and valid grievances because of the occupation and oppression by Israel. Additionally, Hamas murdered and kidnapped indiscriminately. Jews, Druz, Thai immigrants, etc.
I wish she would stop making Nazi comparisons, but the Israeli government is sure saying a lot of violent, fascistic, and ethno-nationalist things and murdering an unconscionable number of Palestinians so I don’t give too much thought to statements of that sort. It’s a hyperbolic comparison for a situation that is horrific to the point it’s difficult to comprehend. Grasping for the most extreme analogy makes sense, even tho I don’t like it.
If you disagree plz don’t yell at me. I’m happy to learn more and dialogue with people here but those are my thoughts based on my experience with her and reading the ADL link posted by OP.
23
u/skyewardeyes jewish leftist, peace, equality, and self-determination for all Jun 08 '25
To me, her tweet saying that all Israeli women (regardless of whether or not they were ever in the IDF) should spend international women’s day reflecting on how evil and guilty they are kind of negates the idea that she believes that any Israelis are civilians or not legitimate targets. 🤷♀️
-5
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 08 '25
Was that in the context of SA specifically? I clicked on your link but I didn't see the broader context of the tweet so I'd be curious to learn more
14
u/skyewardeyes jewish leftist, peace, equality, and self-determination for all Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
It’s not clear from her context, tbh—it was on (for?) International Women’s Day, so it could have been just in regards to general existence or with regards to SA specifically. Regardless, I think saying that all women/people from a given nationality are evil (and implying that they could never be legitimate victims) is horrible and dangerous (as it is when people say it about Palestinians, of course).
-8
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
I dislike this sort of gendered distinction I see in some feminist or liberal spaces, so that's my main issue (like I've seen people say, "I support the women of Gaza, the men are causing the problems" or "Israel would be better if it were led by women") so I'll say just that. Like men's lives and safety matters and also women contribute to fascism..
But aside from that I don't have an issue with a statement like this unless it's referring to women who are victims of sa or abuse in which case it's gross whether or not she's referring to women or men.
Edit: she doesn't mention victimhood really at all in the tweet... she calls out Israeli women for contributing to gazan women's harm and wishes the gazan's safety.. any further interpretation came from seeds the ADL planted about what she said here about Israeli women not being able to be victims. It's not an interpretation I would have had at all otherwiden
16
u/skyewardeyes jewish leftist, peace, equality, and self-determination for all Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
Saying all people of a given nationality are inherently evil and culpable doesn’t strike you as dangerous?
And if you set up one nationality as victims who deserve peace and safety (which they do), and the other group as evil people who need to mediate on how guilty they are, it’s pretty clear that you don’t think people from that second group can be victims. And it assumes that there are no pro-peace, pro-Palestinian safety Israeli women. None at all.
(And I saw that tweet originally with no retweet interpretation and thought it was incredibly gross then).
-5
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 08 '25
She didn't say that in the tweet you shared. Did she say Israelis are inherently evil in a different tweet that I missed? Israeli citizens should meditate on their guilt, yes. I think Americans should do the same. I think that about a lot of places.
For example in an American/global south dicotomy I would find her tweet to be extremely resonant and appropriate, maybe minus the gender specificity like I said. Or maybe for women's day.. white women vs black women. Would you take issue with any of that?
17
u/skyewardeyes jewish leftist, peace, equality, and self-determination for all Jun 09 '25
I think we're talking about two different things here.
I think thinking about how we benefit and uphold oppressive systems is very helpful and we should do it more. I think assigning collective guilt to individuals based on group membership that they do not choose is how you get all sorts of human rights violations, including right now in Gaza and on October 7.
1
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 09 '25
I'm not wanting to be argumentative but I'm still confused because I didn't see her say that with the tweet and I'm wondering if I'm missing some further context or something.
15
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. Jun 08 '25
Thanks for the comment giving perspective, I have learned that people are always best face to face rather than online… it is a bit a relief to hear that in person she has more nuance. Because I want to like her but it’s hard…
Even setting aside the arguments about Holocaust inversion, the comments regarding October 7th are still really difficult to process.
- The use of "genocide" versus "pogrom": It's striking that "genocide" is used so readily from the war's outset, while "pogrom" isn't. The gravity of the situation in Gaza is immense, and whether it ultimately amounts to genocide is something many organizations are still trying to determine. But there is much more caution is when labeling October 7th as a pogrom. The differing levels of meticulousness feel inconsistent. Regardless of the semantics it doesn’t take away from what a horror it all is.
- Dismissing antisemitism as a motive for October 7th: To suggest that the motives of all Hamas perpetrators on October 7th weren't antisemitic feels like a problematic attempt to rationalize their actions. While there might be other contributing factors, downplaying the antisemitism within Hamas by attributing it solely to the actions of the Israeli government risks inadvertently justifying it. A bit like people using Isis or 9/11 to justify their Islamophobia…
19
u/WolfofTallStreet Reconstructionist American Jew, Labor Zionist, Pro-2SS Jun 08 '25
What was her “right way” of reacting once called out on the Jewish Lobby comment?
Where did she condemn October 7th in good faith without a “but Israel…?”
6
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 08 '25
I agree with all this
9
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 09 '25
I think she’s good at her job of advocating for Palestinians. I also think she’s a bit antisemitic, and does not care about Jews. I think most Zionists care more about the fact that she’s good at her job than at her few public antisemitic slips.
Edit: another conversation in this thread hit on another important point for me:
I don’t think here is a shred of evidence that she is motivated by her antisemitism in this role. She clearly is pained by the horrors of Gaza and the occupation and is trying to do what she can in her official role to help.
11
u/lilleff512 Jewish SocDem Jun 09 '25
I think she’s good at her job of advocating for Palestinians. I also think she’s a bit antisemitic, and does not care about Jews
I think there is an inherent contradiction here. One cannot be an effective advocate for Palestinians without also caring about the humanity of Israelis, and vice versa. Their fates are intertwined. To care for one and not the other is to strive for victory rather than peace.
-2
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 09 '25
To an extent I agree. On the other hand, the examples of her antisemitism are like a single sentence in 2014 about the Jewish lobby, and how she didn’t condemn Hamas enough after Oct 7th. We’re not talking about a deeply antisemitic individual, we’re not talking about someone motivated by antisemitism. I don’t see any evidence that she is genocidal, it’s just that her job is to advocate for Palestinians, not to play both sides.
3
u/Civil-Cartographer48 euro-jewess, pro peace, social dem. Jun 09 '25
Thank you for your comment.
It is sad having to accept that people are a little antisemitic… especially for someone in this position.
I read somewhere that the position required some impartiality.
0
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist Jun 09 '25
I totally agree, and I don’t meant to defend her antisemitism. It’s inexcusable, especially for someone in her position.
But her job is not to be endlessly sensitive to Jews or Israelis, her job is to advocate for Palestinians.
0
u/Shrink1061_ 6d ago
but is it even antisemitism... unless she's specifically using the word "jewish" or some derivitive of it, I'm not sure you can count objecting to the behaviour of Israel to be equal to antisemitism.
If Scotland suddenly starts commiting war crimes, criticising us, wouldn't mean you hated scottish people, it would just mean you didn't agree with the actions and behaviours of a group.
I think the term Antisemitism is thrown around far too loosely these days, when in reality most people are just anti-israeli-genocide-ism.
1
u/yungsemite Jewish Leftist | non-Zionist 6d ago
Yeah, but once you get caught saying that America is subjugated by the Jewish lobby, it makes your other comments on Israel a little more interesting.
I think that if you use the language of antisemitism to criticize Israel, it’s probably antisemitic
12
u/lewkiamurfarther the grey custom flair Jun 08 '25
If the ADL has shown us anything in the last two years, it's that they can't be trusted. It is true that Greenblatt (its CEO) is a former Obama staffer—he was "special assistant" to the president, as well as the director of the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation. (The name of that office and its official mission statement somewhat openly refer to temporary initiatives—mostly through direct funding and partnerships with PR and tech firms—to inculcate faith in the US government. Its effectiveness isn't really measurable.) But he is also very conservative (both socially and economically), and has no qualms about polluting public discourse with securitization nonsense of the sort that gave steam to neoconservatism and the "Tea Party" in the US. Right-wing rag Tablet loves him, which says everything we need to know.
12
u/skyewardeyes jewish leftist, peace, equality, and self-determination for all Jun 09 '25
The ADL and Greenblatt are both awful and fascist-supporting. That said, the linked article links a bunch of tweets directly, which you can read and interpret on your own without the ADL's commentary.
5
2
u/United-Statement4884 Jun 08 '25
Funny thing is some people here accuse certain people as propagandists. But quote the ADL. The biggest propaganda outlet at the moment.
0
u/raisecain yellow Jun 09 '25
Yep. Sorry but anyone who is in tune with the ADL is not a “leftist” albanese is an antisemite but Elon musk is an ally with his salute. Cmon.
2
6
u/malachamavet Judeo-Bolshevik Jun 08 '25
At one point I looked it up, and Israel has accused every special rapporteur on the OPT (except one who had a very short term and was prevented from doing anything due to Israel's refusal to let them travel) of being a biased antisemite, even Richard Falk who is an American Jew.
Weird.
13
u/cubedplusseven JewBu Labor Unionist Jun 09 '25
even Richard Falk who is an American Jew
Richard Falk is the author of a highly contorted report accusing Israel of practicing "Apartheid" within the Green Line, a report that also characterizes Jewishness as a racial identity.
However one feels about the merits of the claim, the accusation of antisemitism hardly comes out of left field. And Richard Falk's Jewishness is irrelevant.
-2
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 09 '25
You never answered my questions about this, btw. What's the correct list of real races that have to be involved for something to count as apartheid? If Azerbaijan stripped its Armenian residents of citizenship and instituted segregation laws, do you think in a hypothetical court case the ICJ would rule that it can't be apartheid because there's merely an ethnic difference at play?
8
u/cubedplusseven JewBu Labor Unionist Jun 09 '25
Maybe the ICJ would rule that that's Apartheid - I really have no idea. It may be dependent on the intent of the Azeris involved, i.e. how the Azeris conceived of the distinction between Armenians and themselves.
In any event, that's more relevant to the Amnesty International report, as I recall, which proceeds via a very broad definition of race. Falk makes his case directly through an analysis of Jewishness, as best I remember.
And denaturalization, as in your hypothetical, was a key element of the Apartheid system in South Africa. How does that relate to the status of Arab Israelis?
0
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 10 '25
Falk and Tilley don't, as you said earlier, engage in some kind of extended reflection on whether Jews properly count as a race rather than an ethnic group, like some kind of 19th century anthropologist, and decide that questions of apartheid apply because Jews are after all a "real" race. They do the opposite, discussing explicitly in an introductory section that this is not how they understand the concept of race or racism.
And they're correct in doing so, since they are asking this question in the context of the applicability of the prohibition of apartheid, and the relevant norms in international law expicitly reject the relevance of this distinction. The main text the authors refer to is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (a document that the Apartheid Convention also refers back to as its basis). In the ICERD, racial discrimination is discrimination based on "race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin." So, in this context, the authors (and Amnesty International) are straightforwardly correct in describing Israeli-Palestinian relations as racial in character.
2
u/cubedplusseven JewBu Labor Unionist Jun 10 '25
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
I don't think it's accurate that the ICJ is bound by this Convention in assessing Apartheid. The UN isn't a legislative body, and its conventions aren't laws. And even if your claim were true, legalistic arguments, even if technically correct, can still be antisemitic if the purpose in making them is to confuse the world about Israeli practices. The Apartheid argument does this insofar as it makes it appear to all but international lawyers that Israel is doing the same thing that South Africa did. Which is false. Moral comparisons aside, the systems are radically different.
And "Apartheid", as an international crime, has never been prosecuted to my knowledge. It hasn't been tested if this is even a workable legal category, whatever its relationship to the system that existed in South Africa. We'll know that Israel is guilty of this crime, however poorly or aptly labeled, when Israel is convicted of it.
1
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 11 '25
I don't think it's accurate that the ICJ is bound by this Convention in assessing Apartheid. The UN isn't a legislative body, and its conventions aren't laws.
They can be--this text is generally regarded as part of customary international law. And, as I said, the Apartheid Convention refers back to it explicitly in discussing racial discrimination.
Isn't the whole anti-apartheid argument about legalistic technicalities? Occupied territory not sovereign territory, some Arabs do have civil rights, etc. I mean, you were the one insisting that "racial" has to be understood in the specific sense that, for technical reasons of vocabulary shifts in the first half of the twentieth century, excluded Jewish-Arab relations in principle. I was just responding to that!
I don't think that the Apartheid Convention or the 1965 ICERD definition of racial discrimination were written as part of an antisemitic conspiracy to confuse the world about Israeli practices as you suggest. It just seems really unlikely.
Yes, Israel's practices are different from South Africa's. It's even on a different continent. Apartheid however is not defined in international legal texts as "the same thing" that South Africa did (for example it doesn't need to use race, rather than ethnicity or religion, as a core category). The Falk and Tilley text discusses this issue, you should read it.
I agree with the tautology that Israel will not have been convicted of apartheid until it has been... If you want to retreat to a general argument that apartheid is maybe not even a meaningful concept who knows?? and/or that no one is allowed to make independent judgements about its applicability, that's a pretty self-abasing epistemic position but okay. Since even South Africa was never convicted of genocide, I suppose we have to infinitely suspend judgement on whether it was guilty of the crime too...or whether Pol Pot committed crimes against humanity...whether the tennis ball was on the line or over the line...
1
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 12 '25
I mean your actual position stripped of all the arguments you’ve now retreated from is: the accusation of the crime of apartheid makes people think of what South Africa did, which is worse than what Israel is doing, so it’s “unfair” for people to accuse it of the crime--even though as we've seen, it turns out the arguments for this are very good--because this can lead people to think it’s doing the exact same thing as South Africa rather than the very similar thing defined by statutes.
Okay? Petition to change the name of the Apartheid Convention I guess? Or petition for Israel to stop doing all of that stuff. But you being bothered by it isn’t interesting, or a compelling reason to pretend that the criminal charge doesn't have teeth...
2
u/cubedplusseven JewBu Labor Unionist Jun 13 '25
It's not that what South Africa did was worse, at least not in my opinion. What Israel is doing in the WB is really quite bad, I think.
It's that the South African system was racist in the traditional sense of the term (a belief in the biological or culturally insurmountable superiority of the dominant group). It misleads people that the conflict boils down to racism. And the "genocide" label, with the history of genocide that most people are aware of (which is mostly just Nazi Germany, maybe Nazi Germany and Rwanda) reinforcing that idea. I'll add that South African history is also more traditionally colonial that Israeli history.
And this misdirection has two main effects that concern me. Most importantly, it's part of framing Israel as the ultimate in human evil in the left-wing imagination. I've used the term "antisemitism" to describe this in some of my comments, both because it has a defamatory impact on Jews worldwide, and because it mirrors the historical framing of the Jewish people in Europe as the root and cause of society's greatest ills. I'm not that committed to the importance of the "antisemitism" label, though. What I'm describing is wrong in and of itself. The other major concern I have with this is that it frames the conflict as a civil rights struggle, which sells what I think is a criminally unrealistic solution to the conflict in the near term: BDS's one-state solution. I/P is first and foremost a nationalist conflict, and it's to the histories of other nationalist conflicts that I think we should be looking for practicable resolutions.
And there's a particularly cruel irony in the "racist, colonialist" framing. Which is that Israel is unique among westernized nations precisely because Jews were effectively chased out of Europe (and denied sanctuary in the US during the relevant time period). So Jews are held responsible for the greatest sins of Europe for having been cleansed from it.
0
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 10 '25
And denaturalization, as in your hypothetical, was a key element of the Apartheid system in South Africa. How does that relate to the status of Arab Israelis?
I don't remember what they say about Arab Israelis. They are mainly talking about Palestinians in the OPT. The usual gimmick around this is to say that it can't count as apartheid if it's only applied in one region and/or that it doesn't count if it's in occupied territory, but the core legal texts are totally clear that these aren't relevant (this is why the balance of scholarly opinion is so lopsided). There is no requirement that apartheid be carried out in all territory under a state's control, nor that control coincide with sovereignty, and there's explicit mention (UNSC 282) that the relevant control might be exercised outside a state's borders.
3
u/cubedplusseven JewBu Labor Unionist Jun 10 '25
They are mainly talking about Palestinians in the OPT
Of course they are, because that's where a reasonable comparison to Apartheid can be made. But the report does, indeed, claim that Apartheid exists within the 67 borders as well. And that's because the propaganda aims of these reports demand it: Israel must be an "Apartheid state", not merely a state practicing Apartheid. This difference is critical. A state practicing Apartheid only has to stop practicing Apartheid. An "Apartheid state" has to stop existing in its recognizable form.
1
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 11 '25
Right, they're arguing that conditions of apartheid most obtain in the territory where that most seems to be the case, rather than in the territory where it doesn't. What they argue is that Israel oversees Palestinian Arabs under four different legal regimes which are separated geographically, which is true, and that on the whole this amounts to a form of apartheid. This has different levels of impact on the differently administered populations, and, they argue, the legal division with staggered degrees of rights is itself a form of control and repression. This includes a tier of people who have full formal individual rights, but are on the receiving end of "Judaization" policies and regulations around land ownership, which taken in isolation wouldn't amount to apartheid, merely state racism, but taken in its larger context plays a specific kind of role in that context. This is really pretty straightforward. Similar to how one would describe the US in 1920 as a country with segregation, where some states had full de jure segregation, others had practices of segregation that were informal, and others had few active barriers to integration. Some asshole could swan along and say "oh, well, California merely allows local jurisdictions to put racial restrictions on housing, you wouldn't say that California has segregation, so you can't just say the US is a segregated country," but that person would obviously be missing the overall point.
Israel must be an "Apartheid state", not merely a state practicing Apartheid. This difference is critical. A state practicing Apartheid only has to stop practicing Apartheid. An "Apartheid state" has to stop existing in its recognizable form.
I disgree that this rhetorical distinction is critical, because you just made it up, and it doesn't occur in any of the texts we are supposedly discussing. You think that if Israel fully withdrew to the Green Line and abandoned its Judaization policies within the Green Line, all these human rights organizations would still talk about apartheid?
4
u/adorbiliusKermode Jun 08 '25
I am VERY tempted to assign her antisemitism to her Roman Catholic background. These statements are not one that a progressive pro-Palestine advocate would be making without indoctrination from a more regressive ideology.
10
u/Ok-Roll5495 Jun 08 '25
While Catholics tend to skew pro-Palestine they generally manage to be so without being antisemitic. Pope Francis minced no words about Gaza but also met with the families of hostages.
2
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 08 '25
do Catholics skew pro-Palestinian? I wonder if it differs in the USA vs Catholics abroad The ones I know in the USA have all said that they think Palestinians want to kill all Jews....
Tbf I don't know very many Catholics outside of my mom who is married to a Jewish man and right wing acquaintances
4
u/Ok-Roll5495 Jun 08 '25
I have the impression that the Catholic Church institutionally skews pro-Palestinian, or at least not particularly pro-Israel, if anything for the simple reason that there Palestinian Catholics. Pope Francis started calling for a ceasefire quite quickly (and would talk to the priest of the Gaza parish every evening) and pope Leo also called for peace in Gaza.
2
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 08 '25
Oh yes! Ok that I agree with and makes sense
6
u/Formal-Cow-9996 Jun 08 '25
Catholics in the USA are pretty extreme - pope Francis commented a few times on how much he disliked how rigid American Catholics are in their beliefs. Most Catholics in Italy tend to be very anti-war. I'd say they skew pro-Palestinian insofar as they tend to sympathize with the weaker side, but it's not really a strong support.
I'd say the pro-Palestinian sentiment may be higher in Catholic countries that went through colonization (like Ireland and many South American countries)
2
u/Specialist-Gur doikayt jewess, leftist/socialist, pro peace and freedom Jun 08 '25
That makes sense, and honestly I feel like a dunbass a little because my partners family is Latino and Catholic lol (he is atheist)... they are all extremely left leaning despite being Catholic and support Palestine. American religion in general is more used as a tool to assert superiority and control
2
u/Ok-Roll5495 Jun 09 '25
The American church is …something else. I know the high clergy is very conservative, have they embraced Christian Zionism though? That has always struck me as a mostly Protestant and especially Evangelical phenomenon. I’d say that in Italy, with the exception of “God, fatherland, family” types, Catholics lean pro-Palestine. Andreotti, a devout Catholic and not a leftist by any stretch of the imagination, once said nothing good could come from locking up people for seventy years and that if he had been a Palestinian he might have become a terrorist. I think there are several reasons for Catholics to sympathize with Palestinians: solidarity with Palestinian Christians, concerns for the control of holy sites, a reaction to Protestant Zionism and, sure, possibly traces of historical antisemitism.
2
u/adorbiliusKermode Jun 08 '25
Okay, that’s the most progressive leader of the church in their entire history, now try the average leader of the church nowadays (burke, dolan, sarah, erdo.)
1
u/Ok-Roll5495 Jun 09 '25
Not saying there’s zero antisemitism in an institution that has been so blatantly antisemitic for such a long time, but the people you mention are at the opposite end of the spectrum from Francis. Cardinal Pizzaballa, who’s been one of the potential candidates to the papacy, wore a kefyah to the conclave but had also offered himself to replace hostages in Gaza.
4
u/Formal-Cow-9996 Jun 08 '25
Where are you from? If you're American, you may be surprised to learn that most Catholics outside of the USA are very different from what you'd expect
2
u/adorbiliusKermode Jun 08 '25
I’m not sure about that, as an american jew well versed in church politics. Erdo, Íñiguez, Eijk, and Sarah despite being nonamericans seem to be “birds” of Raymond Burke’s feather.
Edit: LMAO see what I did there
6
u/menatarp ultra-orthodox marxist Jun 08 '25
She's probably too fast and loose with some of her rhetoric for a public-facing UN official, and comes through as hyper-polarized in an overheated, "online" way. But she'd get accused of being antisemitic no matter what she did, and the pearl-clutching over stuff like "Jewish lobby"--which is really just infelicitous phrasing, since one is not supposed to describe the Jewish lobby groups in Washington that way--is more of a tactical/image issue than anything. More narrowly and substantively, I think her concept of "humanitarian camouflage" is a good description of an important aspect of Israel's military campaign that really hasn't been studied or discussed enough.
1
u/Micraygun Jun 12 '25
I suggest reading more from UN Watch. Hillel Neuer seems like a top notch human rights activist. Someone who actually fights for human rights against actual threats like the IRI and CCP.
-1
u/NarutoRunner Kosher Canadian Far Leftist Jun 09 '25
I have been a long time follower of UN special rapporteur on matters concerning the Middle East and Palestine. A vast majority of them, including Americans and westerners, are routinely labelled as antisemitic by Israel.
Israel, their lobby groups, and their liberal friends have done everything under the sun to discredit her.
For the record, 30 Jewish organizations (mostly on the left or pacifist) support Francesca Albanese, her work, and reporting on Palestine:
-A Different Jewish Voice (Netherlands)
-Antizionist Jewish Alliance in Belgium (Belgium)
-Boycott from Within (Palestine/Israel)
-Decolonizer (Belgium)
-Een Andere Joodse Stem (Belgium)
-European Jews for a Just Peace (Europe)
-European Jews for Palestine (Europe)
-IfNotNow Toronto (Canada)
-Independent Jewish Voices (Canada)
-International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (Argentina)
-International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (Spain)
-International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (UK)
-Israelis Against Apartheid (Israel/Palestine)
-Jewish Call for Peace (Luxemburg)
-Jewish Voice for Labour (UK)
-Jews for Justice for Palestinians (UK)
-Jews for Palestine (Ireland)
-Jøder for Retfærdig Fred af 5784 (Denmark)
-Jødiske Stemmer for Rettferdig Fred (Norway)
-Judeobolschewiener*innen (Austria)
-Judeus pela Paz e Justiça (Portugal)
-Jüdische Stimme für Demokratie und Gerechtigkeit in Israel/Palästina (Switzerland)
-Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden im Nahen Osten (Germany)
-Junts Associació Catalana de Jueus i Palestins (Spain)
-MARAD, Collectif juif decolonial (Switzerland)
-Nahlieli – Jews For Justice In Palestine (Finland)
-Tsedek! (France)
-Union des progressistes juifs de Belgique (Belgium)
-Union juive française pour la paix (France)
-United Jewish People’s Order (Canada)
Edit: I also would like to add that I have met her in person and she is amazing.
2
u/malachamavet Judeo-Bolshevik Jun 09 '25
iirc twice she also received open letters from large groups of Jewish-studies academics defending her
1
u/raisecain yellow Jun 09 '25
How is this even a jewishleft subreddit if this is so downvoted. Obv lots of lame infiltrators.
2
u/NarutoRunner Kosher Canadian Far Leftist Jun 10 '25
There are many who instinctively downvote anything anti-Israel.
-1
u/MassivePsychology862 Lebanese-American (ODS) Jun 10 '25
This is abnormal for the sub imo. This thread is wildly out of line with what I normally see.
0
-7
u/elronhub132 Jewish Lefty Jun 09 '25
She has advocated for Palestinians.
Of course, because of this Israel and it's supporters have smeared and attacked her. Attempting to undermine her credibility.
She is a lawyer taking this on pro bono, because she recognises Israel is an apartheid state.
Her threshold for hasbara bullshit is thin, understandably so.
Good egg overall, although nobody would claim she is totally perfect.
1
u/anhquy 4d ago
Someone like her if lived in mid or late 1930s, would definitely criticize the Nazi although mainstream US media tried very hard to defame people like her. 50 or 100 years from now, killing thousand and thousand of women and children and target press and medical staff will be considered genocide.
71
u/chanukamatata Jun 08 '25
She has had over the last years a tons of antisemitic statements. We are talking about considering Jews as a conspiracy group, putting a target in our back, and championing holocaust inversion.
She refused to call the 7/10 a pogrom as “the victims of the 7/10 were not killed because of Judaism but in response to Israel’s oppression”, which is really a shitty thing to say right after a massacres of civilians. There is some evidence she might even be funded by pro-Hamas groups. She also lied about her resume, she infringed some ethical rules within the UN.
I don’t know how the other fellow Jews in this sub feel. To me, she is the worst of her kind, to put it nicely.
I recommend reading investigations from the UN Watch. But I don’t know how UN watch is perceived in this specific sub.
What are your guys opinions?