- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- europe@lemmy.ml
Left Party MP Cansin Köktürk was thrown out of a German parliament plenary chamber on Wednesday for wearing a t-shirt with the word “Palestine” printed on it, a move deemed a political statement by the parliamentary leadership.
Bundestag President Julia Klöckner intervened during the session, reminding MPs that political messages on clothing are not permitted in the chamber.
While the Bundestag does not have a detailed dress code, its rules require MPs and visitors to dress “in keeping with the prestige” of the institution. Enforcement of this standard is left to the discretion of the session chair.
Yeah, I guess verbatim quotations from Palestinian leadership isn’t enough to establish what they think. Too bad I don’t have your standards of just applying feelings without regard for the facts; you’re wise not to let logic or human decency stand in the way of your antisemitism, you might accidentally develop some self awareness
You are showing how Hamas are antisemitic. You are then elevating Hamas to all of Palestine. That’s neither net logic or human decency, that’s bait-and-switch.
But you know, we can play this game. Are you are ready to accept statements of Israeli top officials (from the freaking President, to the Prime Minister and his Ministers, to MKs and further down) as Israeli policy to exterminate Palestinians? Or is nuance only allowed for Israel and never allowed for Palestinians? Or is it that if we allow equal amounts of nuance to both sides, then that is antisemitism?
So what, you’re saying that those statements are accurate, but you’re willing to ignore them because Israel feels the same way about the Muslim occupation of Palestine as Muslims feel about Jewish occupation of Palestine? If you defend the one while condemning the other, it’s hard to see how the distinction could be anything other than antisemitism.
I condemn both. Which is why I stand by the ICC decision to issue arrest warrants for both Hamas and Israeli government leaders.
I also refuse to accord to Hamas the title of “Palestine”. The political entity recognized as Palestine by 147 countries has as its president Mahmoud Abbas.. So when you talk about “the fact that Palestine has repeatedly called for the extermination of all Jews” you are delegitimizing the legitimate government of Palestinians in favour of a terror group, to justify repression of Palestinians in whole, as a nation. Which is of course, unacceptable.
Well, at least you’re willing to acknowledge that the Muslim colonial occupation of Palestine is illegitimate. Both the Jews and the Muslims have acted atrociously in Palestine, but people so often claim that the Muslims have a “right” to the land simply because their colonialist conquest happened a long time ago, so it’s nice for you to acknowledge that their occupation there is just as illegitimate as the state of Israel.
I am referring to crimes and exterminationist rhetoric.
In this discussion we have not at all touched on the topic of colonialism and indigeneity as a basis of legitimacy. I reject outright the notion that Palestinians “occupy” Palestine. It is factual matter that Israel is an occupying power in the lands it conquered after the 1967 Six Day war (West Bank, Gaza, Golan).
Historically, Arab Muslims, Arab Jews, Arab Christians and others have for very long lived in the area outlined by Israel and Palestine, but all that in reality matters very little. Given the current multi-generational mess of the last 80 years, all people have equal claim to the land. Through the building of the settlements, Israel has created facts on the ground that make the Two State Solution impossible, so the only realistic scenarios out of the present are either some kind of ethnic cleansing, which is of course completely unacceptable, or a bi-/pluri- national post-apartheid democratic successor state with equal rights for all confessions and ethnic groups, that is decidedly an Israeli homeland and at the same time a Palestinian homeland. The same principle of joint sovereignty as applies to places like Belgium, Bosnia, Cyprus, Quebec, etc.
Well, you almost sounded reasonable. If Muslims conquering Palestine and establishing a colony is not “occupation” in your eyes, but Jews conquering Palestine and establishing a colony is “occupation”, then it seems like you’re just back at antisemitism again. There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to land ownership; all such claims are backed by past acts of violence or the threat of future violence. The Muslims are no more legitimate occupiers of the land than the Jews are, but they are the ones to establish the precedent of conquering lands and taking them for themselves. If you’re willing to condemn conquest and territorial occupation when it’s done by Jews, but you’re not willing to condemn conquest and territorial occupation when it’s done by Muslims, then it’s clear that your issue is not with conquest and occupation at all, but with Jews.
Lol, you really would love to put me in that pigeonhole, wouldn’t you?
There are multiple historical and category errors in your paragraph, but I honestly don’t have time to unpack them. Here’s some AI slop:
This paragraph is riddled with historical inaccuracies and category errors. It’s rhetorically forceful, but its logic collapses under scrutiny. Let’s take it apart piece by piece:
1. Historical Error: Claiming Muslims “established a colony” in Palestine
Why it’s wrong: The use of the term “colony” to describe early Muslim rule in Palestine projects a modern, colonial framework onto a 7th-century geopolitical reality. Islam spread to Palestine in the 630s under the Rashidun Caliphate, not as a settler-colonial project like European colonization of the Americas or Africa, but through imperial conquest typical of the era (just like the Byzantines or Sassanids). The inhabitants—mostly Christian and Jewish—remained, and conversions were gradual and often voluntary over centuries.
Key distinction: Colonization (especially settler colonialism) is a modern concept involving displacement and replacement of populations, not just conquest or rule. There is no evidence that early Muslim rulers displaced the existing population or claimed to have “discovered” the land.
2. Category Error: Equating Ancient Conquest with Modern Settler Colonialism
Why it’s wrong: This is like comparing Alexander the Great’s campaigns to British imperialism in India. Conquest in the pre-modern world (Roman, Islamic, Ottoman) didn’t operate by the ideological or demographic logic of settler colonialism. The modern Zionist project, by contrast, involves organized immigration, settlement building, and a nation-state formation model derived from 19th–20th century European nationalism and colonialism.
Bottom line: Not all conquest is settler colonialism. Equating all land acquisition through violence across time ignores the historical development of concepts like state sovereignty, nationalism, and colonization.
3. Historical Error: “Muslims…are the ones to establish the precedent of conquering lands”
Why it’s wrong: Laughably ahistorical. The idea that Muslims invented conquest is absurd. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and countless others practiced conquest millennia before Islam existed. Empires rose and fell through conquest for thousands of years—it’s as old as human civilization.
This is like saying Apple invented the phone.
4. Category Error: Treating “Muslims” and “Jews” as Coherent, Timeless Political Actors
Why it’s wrong: This is an essentialist flattening of history. “Muslims” aren’t a monolith across time any more than “Jews” are. Conflating religious identity with political actors across centuries obscures the real historical agents: empires, states, and specific movements. The Rashidun Caliphate is not equivalent to Hamas or Palestinian nationalism. Likewise, biblical Israelites are not interchangeable with the Zionist movement.
Religious identity ≠ political continuity.
5. Philosophical/Political Error: “There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to land ownership”
Why it’s wrong: This is an extreme Hobbesian or anarchist position—but the author then inconsistently tries to morally evaluate conquest, saying it’s hypocritical to oppose it only in one case. If all claims are illegitimate because they’re rooted in violence, then none can be morally judged on differential grounds.
You can’t reject the legitimacy of all land claims and then accuse someone of selective outrage about land ownership. That’s self-defeating.
6. False Dilemma and Accusation of Antisemitism
Why it’s wrong: The final rhetorical move—accusing critics of Israel of antisemitism if they don’t also criticize 7th-century Islamic conquests—is both a category error and a false equivalence. It implies that modern political critique must be retroactively applied to ancient empires or it’s invalid. That’s not how political ethics work.
You can criticize modern settler colonialism without needing to condemn the Rashidun Caliphate. Just like you can oppose Putin’s invasion of Ukraine without dragging in the Mongol Empire.
The Bigger Picture:
This paragraph doesn’t just stumble over history. It weaponizes bad history and flawed logic to shut down critique. It uses false equivalences and essentialism to conflate ancient empires with modern states and religious groups with political projects. This isn’t just poor reasoning—it’s ideologically loaded misdirection.
In short:
And ultimately, it tries to smear legitimate political critique under the guise of fighting antisemitism—ironically cheapening real struggles against actual antisemitism in the process.
Lmao, thanks ChatGPT, I’m glad you have a well-reasoned perspective you’ve investigated thoroughly and you’re not just repeating what some machine has told you to think. You’d really love to draw the kinds of distinctions your AI has made for you, but they’re similarly predicated on making arbitrary distinctions between identical concepts in order to denigrate the Jews. That’s the kind of logical flaw a human might be able to recognize, if you take the time to think things though. At least have enough self respect to come up with your own thoughts next time; using AI to argue for you is intellectually dishonest, pathetically lazy, and only serves to reveal that you neither understand nor actually believe the nonsense you’re parroting.