3 ms·

> If you learn that anywhere, I think you're talking to antisemites I'm sure I've spoken to anti-semites in my life, but your accusation is merely begging the

> If you learn that anywhere, I think you're talking to antisemites I'm sure I've spoken to anti-semites in my life, but your accusation is merely begging the question. I learned the history largely from a book titled "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Pale... You need not support the actions political party of the Zionists to support Israel or the Jewish people the same that you need not support the actions of any other political party, say the far-right of the United States, in order to support the country or its people. And you needn't publicly enumerate your disgust for all atrocities by all peoples in order to denounce the single action of a single people. Anyway, I think you're right about feeling suspicion over "see, they did it, too." I won't defend anti-semites for being anti-semitic, and I won't condemn all anti-zionists as anti-semites. I think this is where our differences on the matter arises.

luckylion 6y ago
I haven't read that book, but I assume that it does not actually compare the holocaust with the Arab-Israeli conflict, because that would be ludicrous. The Arabs attacked Israel with the intent of destruction (and genocide, most plausibly) and lost the war. One consequence was the mass exodus of Arabs who, correctly or not, assumed the victorious Israelis wouldn't treat them kindly. I'm sure plenty of terrible things happened during those wars, but to say they are the same or similar to the holocaust can only be done when you don't know the history. A hint for starters: the Jews did not invade Germany with the intent to destroy it. > And you needn't publicly enumerate your disgust for all atrocities by all peoples in order to denounce the single action of a single people. Your credibility would be much better if you did though. If the police completely ignored crimes committed by white people and vigorously enforced the law against black people, wouldn't you question their motives?
- aesh2Xa1 6y ago
  For clarification, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a more narrow view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Exiled Palestinians were unwelcome to neighboring Arab states. I think you should read the book because your assumption is incorrect about its content. This is cheeky of me, but... A hint for starters: the Zionists did invade Palestine with the intent to destroy it. The Zionist movement in Israel did not respect the partitioning of Palestine set up by UN Resolution 181. Zionists committed mass murder against the Palestinians even outside of typical warfare — there were significant civilian casualties. There is no need to equivocate the criticism that "what Zionists are doing to Palestinians is similar to what Nazis did to Jews" to a very different claim that "the Holocaust and the Nakba are wholly the same." We are horrified that Israel would commit ethnic cleansing against another group of people. It is especially horrific given they did so immediately after having been dealt the same atrocity at the hand of Nazis. You can narrowly criticize Israel for these historical and present-day actions, and you gain credibility by standing firmly on that point. Because my response seems to have gained some traction, I will offer you a couple more sources. I don't require or expect you to purchase and read the aforementioned book, but I hope you will look over the following: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/5/23/the-nakba-did-not-start-or-end-in-1948 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/5/23/the-nakba-did-n...
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > There is no need to equivocate the criticism that "what Zionists are doing to Palestinians is similar to what Nazis did to Jews" to a very different claim that "the Holocaust and the Nakba are wholly the same." I think they are in the same area of related-to-reality-ness. Are civil wars usually bloody and terrible? Yes. Is it reasonable to compare that to the holocaust? No. > We are horrified that Israel would commit ethnic cleansing against another group of people. It is especially horrific given they did so immediately after having been dealt the same atrocity at the hand of Nazis. Is it? It's not to me. Quite the contrary: having just barely survived the murderous intentions of somebody who was aftery our life will probably have you very vigilant and possibly overly defensive against the murderous intentions of another group that's after your life. > You can narrowly criticize Israel for these historical and present-day actions, and you gain credibility by standing firmly on that point. You can totally criticize Israel for the treatment of the Arabs. Yet when you fail to criticize others for similar treatment of other Arabs (or the same Arabs, even, in the case of Fatah and Hamas), it suggests that your issue with Israels treatment isn't a question of ethics, but of ethnics. That is: had mass-immigration to Palestine from Turkey happened, and had these Turks declared a new state and everything else had happened exactly the same way, you wouldn't criticize them, because they aren't Jews. And if you would: why would you limit your criticism to Israel, and not apply it to all offenders? "Oh, but you must start with one", sure, sure, but why start with the smallest one that offends much less than others and focus on decades ago instead of today? And why join ranks with terrible governments in doing so, who mock the very idea of human rights? That just doesn't make sense to me in a way of "I'm really equally against all bad things, I've just chosen to be vocal about this particular one for no specific reason whatsoever".
    - aesh2Xa1 6y ago
      I said above, "And you needn't publicly enumerate your disgust for all atrocities by all peoples in order to denounce the single action of a single people." I'm happy to criticize each other group's wrongdoings; I needn't do so in a single breath. I object to the conflation of anti-zionism with anti-semitism. On a second order, I care about Zionists' crime carrying out ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Palestine. It is an ugly perspective, to me, that we should concern ourselves with the Zionists' ethnic cleansing of Palestinians only after we have solved all other problems. Anyway, check out the three sources. I think you have an interest in the matter.

luckylion 6y ago

I haven't read that book, but I assume that it does not actually compare the holocaust with the Arab-Israeli conflict, because that would be ludicrous. The Arabs attacked Israel with the intent of destruction (and genocide, most plausibly) and lost the war. One consequence was the mass exodus of Arabs who, correctly or not, assumed the victorious Israelis wouldn't treat them kindly. I'm sure plenty of terrible things happened during those wars, but to say they are the same or similar to the holocaust can only be done when you don't know the history. A hint for starters: the Jews did not invade Germany with the intent to destroy it. > And you needn't publicly enumerate your disgust for all atrocities by all peoples in order to denounce the single action of a single people. Your credibility would be much better if you did though. If the police completely ignored crimes committed by white people and vigorously enforced the law against black people, wouldn't you question their motives?

aesh2Xa1 6y ago
For clarification, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a more narrow view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Exiled Palestinians were unwelcome to neighboring Arab states. I think you should read the book because your assumption is incorrect about its content. This is cheeky of me, but... A hint for starters: the Zionists did invade Palestine with the intent to destroy it. The Zionist movement in Israel did not respect the partitioning of Palestine set up by UN Resolution 181. Zionists committed mass murder against the Palestinians even outside of typical warfare — there were significant civilian casualties. There is no need to equivocate the criticism that "what Zionists are doing to Palestinians is similar to what Nazis did to Jews" to a very different claim that "the Holocaust and the Nakba are wholly the same." We are horrified that Israel would commit ethnic cleansing against another group of people. It is especially horrific given they did so immediately after having been dealt the same atrocity at the hand of Nazis. You can narrowly criticize Israel for these historical and present-day actions, and you gain credibility by standing firmly on that point. Because my response seems to have gained some traction, I will offer you a couple more sources. I don't require or expect you to purchase and read the aforementioned book, but I hope you will look over the following: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus [2] https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/5/23/the-nakba-did-not-start-or-end-in-1948 https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/5/23/the-nakba-did-n...
- luckylion 6y ago
  > There is no need to equivocate the criticism that "what Zionists are doing to Palestinians is similar to what Nazis did to Jews" to a very different claim that "the Holocaust and the Nakba are wholly the same." I think they are in the same area of related-to-reality-ness. Are civil wars usually bloody and terrible? Yes. Is it reasonable to compare that to the holocaust? No. > We are horrified that Israel would commit ethnic cleansing against another group of people. It is especially horrific given they did so immediately after having been dealt the same atrocity at the hand of Nazis. Is it? It's not to me. Quite the contrary: having just barely survived the murderous intentions of somebody who was aftery our life will probably have you very vigilant and possibly overly defensive against the murderous intentions of another group that's after your life. > You can narrowly criticize Israel for these historical and present-day actions, and you gain credibility by standing firmly on that point. You can totally criticize Israel for the treatment of the Arabs. Yet when you fail to criticize others for similar treatment of other Arabs (or the same Arabs, even, in the case of Fatah and Hamas), it suggests that your issue with Israels treatment isn't a question of ethics, but of ethnics. That is: had mass-immigration to Palestine from Turkey happened, and had these Turks declared a new state and everything else had happened exactly the same way, you wouldn't criticize them, because they aren't Jews. And if you would: why would you limit your criticism to Israel, and not apply it to all offenders? "Oh, but you must start with one", sure, sure, but why start with the smallest one that offends much less than others and focus on decades ago instead of today? And why join ranks with terrible governments in doing so, who mock the very idea of human rights? That just doesn't make sense to me in a way of "I'm really equally against all bad things, I've just chosen to be vocal about this particular one for no specific reason whatsoever".
  - aesh2Xa1 6y ago
    I said above, "And you needn't publicly enumerate your disgust for all atrocities by all peoples in order to denounce the single action of a single people." I'm happy to criticize each other group's wrongdoings; I needn't do so in a single breath. I object to the conflation of anti-zionism with anti-semitism. On a second order, I care about Zionists' crime carrying out ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Palestine. It is an ugly perspective, to me, that we should concern ourselves with the Zionists' ethnic cleansing of Palestinians only after we have solved all other problems. Anyway, check out the three sources. I think you have an interest in the matter.