cross-posted from: https://lemmus.org/post/1165004
Edit2: added link to direct article, removed duplicate link
WaybBackMachine article:
Fighting in the Middle East in the past has led to tensions in France, which is estimated to have the world’s third-largest Jewish population after Israel and the U.S., and the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.
The French government has reported 24 arrests for more than 100 antisemitic acts in France since Hamas attacked Israel on Saturday, including verbal abuse, people caught with knives near Jewish schools and synagogues and a drone equipped with a camera spotted over a Jewish cultural center. More than 2,000 cases of antisemitic speech have been reported to an online watchdog force.
It said pro-Palestinian demonstrations should be banned and those who defy bans should be arrested, ‘’because they are susceptible to disrupt public order.’’
Pro-Palestinian associations decried the move. The National Collective for a Fair and Lasting Peace between Palestinians and Israelis said it ‘’denounces this threat to freedom of expression,’’ and pledged to continue holding actions to support the Palestinian people.
Denouncing Hamas as a terrorist group, Macron called for peace efforts that would ensure both Israel’s security and a Palestinian state.
The Hill, Rising video mentions article
Journalist Glenn Greenwald weighs in on a meeting to discuss peace in Middle East was barred from happening by Germany amid the Israel-Hamas war.
Glenn Greenwald on Rising: HYPOCRITES Exploiting Israel Conflict To Justify CENSORSHIP
That’s not an answer to the question.
Interesting that you use the idea that English is a living language to push back against people using a term in a way you’ve decided is incorrect. Seems like you don’t think English is that alive after all if you refuse to incorporate all Semitic people into the concept of antisemitism.
You can’t cite descriptivist arguments to defend your prescriptivist attitude towards the term antisemitism. It betrays your own bias and deflates your argument.
Language evolves, just like you said. Which is why people are realizing the double speak nature of this idea that antisemitism is only when you’re prejudiced against a specific Semitic people group and the others don’t get a term to describe prejudice against them. Your position is an Orwellian attempt to deny a group of people the ability to specifically identify their oppression and it’s sad.
You can argue about it all you like, but if you say the word “antisemitism” then people will assume you mean anti-Jewish sentiment. Because that’s the agreed-upon meaning. Pineapples aren’t really apples, but that doesn’t cause confusion because people know what the word “pineapple” means.
Like you said, language evolves. People are deciding that the definition you follow is very limited and constrains dialogue by being needlessly exclusionary. So they’re seeking to expand the definition to its logical conclusion.
You can throw a fit about other Semitic people being recognized or you can accept that language changes to fit our current understanding of the world.
Antisemitism still refers to prejudice against Jewish people. It’s also being extended to all Semitic people as to disallow them the ability to categorize prejudice against them is to obfuscate and to an extent even deny their own reality.