I’m not defending ethnic cleansing. That’s what I mean with arguing in bad faith, I’m not policing your tone.
I’ll say your point abt ethnic cleansing of Israelis actually being thinly veiled antisemitism makes sense I was wrong about that.
Do you see how “No, it’s not actual antisemitism” comes off as playing apologist for ethnic cleansing advocacy?
It’s not arguing in bad faith to point out the necessary implications of an argument.
All I’m saying is, the modern use of the symbol is not a reference to the symbol used in Nazi concentration camps. Something that is confirmed both by my real life discussions and online research. I’m honestly open to change my mind if you provide a decent source or something. The Wikipedia article I linked only has one source refuting it and maybe my bubble is misinformed.
If you follow the source in the Wikipedia article, this is what it has to say:
The red triangle appears in the Palestinian flag, where it represents the role the Hashemite dynasty played in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, Desai said.
“The colour red symbolizes the blood of those who sacrificed in battle for the Arab cause and the Palestinian cause. Red is also one of the Pan-Arab colours, along with black, white and green, which together represent Arab unity and independence.”
(note, again, this is in the context of being part of the flag, of being a symbol of Arabs rather than enemy targets, and not an inverted triangle)
But for some, the red triangle is reminiscent of the classification used in the Holocaust to identify political prisoners in Nazi camps, Musu said.
As the Auschwitz-Birkenau memorial and museum explains, the camps identified prisoners using coloured triangles, including red for political prisoners and pink for gay prisoners.
Several posts online have noted the similarity, including an Instagram Reel by Jewish actor Amanda Markowitz, who wrote, “Either they truly don’t know or they do know and are using Holocaust inversion … and both of these options are dangerous.”
Do you see how “No, it’s not actual antisemitism” comes off as playing apologist for ethnic cleansing advocacy?
It’s not arguing in bad faith to point out the necessary implications of an argument.
If you follow the source in the Wikipedia article, this is what it has to say:
(note, again, this is in the context of being part of the flag, of being a symbol of Arabs rather than enemy targets, and not an inverted triangle)
… not much of a refutation.