Advertising Israeli Birthright

[TinyYellow]

I was upset to see Mumsnet advertising Isreal’s birthright tours.

Birthright is a Zionist practice that directly contributes to the illegal expansion of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian West Bank.

Why is MN ok with advertising something that could not only be seen as alienating to a minority ethnic group but that also supports international law being broken?

Honestly it increasingly feels like a hostile environment for Jewish people. I’m not Jewish, I’m not even white but increasingly feel like there is a lot of anti-semitism around.

Anti-zionism basically means you don’t want the state of Israel to exist. I was talking to a Palestinian the other day who’s family left during the nakba. She made the very reasonable point that there were always Jews there, her families neighbours were Jewish (good people according to her) and that people have been born in Israel as Israelis and where would anyone have them go, it’s their home too. Her family lost a lot yet she still has compassion, she should be an example to people on both sides frankly.

I would also gently point out there are sites of historical and religious significance to many of those who wish to visit. There should never be anything wrong with people accessing sites that have significance to their heritage.

The ad doesn't break their guidelines as Justine said.

You claimed you didn't start the thread to have a debate yet that is what you're doing in practice!

You've said your piece and MN Founder has explicitly said the ad doesn't break any of their guidelines.

I advise you to let it go. Indeed, it's due to your own Google searches ig comes up.

Exactly, which is why it's so upsetting that Muslims are denied entry/heavily restricted to Al Aqsa mosque, and christians from their sites due to blockades around occupied east Jerusalem. It's all well and good saying "everyone should be able to..." but that is not the case at all due to the occupation.
No one is saying that Jews are not native to the region, it's when they become the only legitimate members allowed to have entry and movement, then that's the problem. This is exactly what is happening. How can a person who has lived there for generations be forced out and have no right to return, but someone born in Europe/America who's ancestors have never stepped foot there be allowed to become a citizen, and have free movement in and out just because their grandparents are Jewish? Fair would be one rule for all, but that is not the case, and the whole reason many take issue with Israel.

I'm not sure this line of argument really holds up. Would you want MN to ban adverts for Hajj tours, on the grounds that Islam has been (and is still) used to justify atrocities? I would be very uncomfortable if MN did that.

Could I ask how much you actually know about the Commonwealth? It is in fact a completely voluntary organisation formed of 56 independent countries who very definitely want to be a part of it. The last four to join were Mozambique, Rwanda, Togo and Gabon who have absolutely no links to Britain whatsoever and whose official languages are Portuguese, French and Kinyarwanda respectively. It is a highly advantageous organisation for trade, industry, diplomatic negotiations and environmental issues and membership is much sought after. It is particularly important to micro nations and small states (such as Fiji, Botswana and Belize) who would not otherwise have a voice on the global stage. It gives them a platform against the big boys. Only 15 of the 56 members countries have the British monarch as their head of state (and falling!). The countries that wish to dispatch Charles have no desire to leave the Commonwealth - the two things are entirely seperate issues.

Not remotely comparable. If you read the link, that particular company are considered right wing, and receive government funding to encourage young Jews from the diaspora to make aliyah. The concerns some of the tour guides and tourists voiced was the complete erasure of the legitimacy of Palestinians (described as "hostile neighbours") and the refusal to acknowledge the harm that the settlements have created. If you watch the video, a tour guide becomes very aggressive with one of the tourists who raises this point.
The hajj pilgrimage does not cause oppression to anyone, nor is it any way connected to any atrocities. The state of Israel however is, as documented by international law.

Given the events of October 7 and the persistent firing of rockets into Israel by various Palestinian groups over decades I think the “hostile neighbours” description is somewhat of an understatement.

I'm guessing you've typed in "Israel" a lot. That advert has never come up for me.

Too late to edit - but for me this isn't a Jewish issue at all. I wouldn't in any way object to an advert for Uman trips or similar.

@Teddleshon again, if you watched the video or took the time to read you would see this was about seven years ago. So is it okay to say Jews (in Israel or those wishing to live there) are hostile? They voted the current government who are committing genocide. No it's not, so keep your not so thinly veiled xenophobia (which I suspect is Islamophobia really) to yourself.

I remember going on a thread about gold shoes and I got adverts for gold shoes for ages! It'll die down op, it's your algorithm.

@poshsnobtwit 7 years ago Israel was being subjected to a barrage of rocket and bomb attacks from its neighbours.

@poshsnobtwit

OP's objection in the post I replied to was that the trips supported a belief system (that is very mainstream among the religious/ethnic group the ads are aimed at) but the ads should be banned from MN because some more extreme holders of that ideology use to justify crimes. That's the parallel that I think holds up fairly well with the Hajj. There's a special religious claim to territory in both cars took

I still wouldn't want to ban Hajj adverts, and think it would be wrong to stigmatise Muslims who feel it important to make the trip.

I can't access or can't find the video you reference so I'm certainly not endorsing anything said on it. The two founders of Birthright seem both to be left wing or centre left though (one Third Way Democrat, and one whose US politics I can't see but who backed Barak and is on record urging Netanyahu to give back territory).

Israel has been terrorizing Palestinians for 75 years.

*in both cases too (typo)

When was there ever a state of Palestine? It was never there. It was a colonial entity.

@poshsnobtwit it’s called self defence.

Why?

People's land being taken from them will always be controversial but unfortunately it has happened for tens of thousands of years and will happen for tens of thousands of years more. Its happened to people in the ME of all origins, its happened to Western societies, its happened to North and South american societies, its happened all over Asia and Africa.

Trips for Jewish people to visit the only Jewish state, is not controversial.

@GeneralPeter the advert was for Taglit, which is described as a right wing organization, who aim to encourage young Jews to migrate to Israel. This organization is controversial for some Jewish people, for several reasons, I linked to the video in my first post.
I find the comparison to hajj offensive - it is a religious obligation and not in any way political. Nor is it encouraging or incentivizing anyone to uphold an occupation and (illegal) expansion. By making this inference it is suggesting that the objection to the ad is upon the premise that they are Jewish, which is certainly not the case for me, and it was not suggested in the OP either. The illegal expansion of the WB is highly contentious, not only does it violate international laws, it has been at the result of death and destruction of the Palestinians. A young child was murdered in cold blood only last week, as the IDF looked on. For me, any organization that promotes this illegal expansion should not be advertized on a site such as mumsnet, and this is why I objected.

Please educate yourself, you will only need to turn on the news. This line of "defence" no longer washes over people.

Am Israel Chai even though some on this thread seem to wish they didn’t

Muslims do have access to al-aqsa but not freely. Similarly Jews cannot pray at Temple Mount despite it being the holiest Jewish site. All groups are restricted there unfortunately. No-one has completely free access whenever they want and to do as they please.

The same could be said about Palestinians, which is the basis of this very thread.

@Chickenuggetsticks Jewish law even restricts prayer at the Temple Mount. I agree that all religions should have a time to have their worship, on the proviso they aren't trying to take the rights of another. I won't forget the scenes of bullets and tier gas being fired onto those praying in al Aqsa in Ramadan, completely unprovoked.
Out of interest, why did you feel the need to mention you "aren't even white"? Black and brown people are allowed to feel abhorrence at antisemitism too.

But every country controls its borders in some way and makes decisions as to who and who cannot immigrate.