14 ms·

Anti-semitism in and of itself is unequivocally wrong. But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians ali

Anti-semitism in and of itself is unequivocally wrong. But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike.

jjgreen 3y ago
Funny how so many otherwise clever people get confused about this.
- devmor 3y ago
  No one is immune to all propaganda, even the most clever people.
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    I am though.
- aga98mtl 3y ago
  I would be surprised if clever people were actually confused about that. Only a rich person like PG can afford to say the emperor has no clothes.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
      I dunno. I’m pretty sure I’m innocent of the horrors of the Iraq war even though I have been a US citizen over 60 years. Blaming civilians for the actions of their government is kind of what terrorists do.
      - mytailorisrich 3y ago
        [flagged]
        KittenInABox 3y ago
        I mean, can't this also be explained by the fact that the environment is effectively a dictatorship? Do we also poll north koreans who will obviously say that Kim Jong Un is the greatest thing since kimchi and seriously take it at face value?
      - zlg_codes 3y ago
        Do you believe there is zero correlation between what citizens allow their country to do and that country's actions? We did not protest and revolt enough over money being sent to the Middle East. America has done every wrong move in handling this, and yet I can guarantee you there are people in this country that wanted America to fuel a war. There is some responsibility that citizens have for the outcomes of their elections.
        amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        Not sure what you want me to do. I didn’t vote for the bastards.
    - deadbunny 3y ago
      They were elected in 2006 (the last election in Palestine), with the average age of currently living Palestinians being somewhere around 2 years old. Not sure I'd hold them responsible for that election result.
    - notaustinpowers 3y ago
      47%+ of the population of Palestine and Gaza are under the age of 18, and 75.9% are under the age of 35, which is how old they'd have to be to have voted Hamas back in 2006 when they had their last election. When almost 76% of a country has never had the ability to vote in an election, can you really say that it's disingenuous to claim that much of the people of Gaza are innocent victims?
    - soVeryTired 3y ago
      By that logic I could put the Iraq war on your head, assuming you're American. Hamas supporters are complicit, but not all Gazans are.
- gedy 3y ago
  There's no confusion, had Israel or the US busted into civilian homes and raped and murdered women and children, live streaming it - Would you be fine with people marching down the streets the next day in middle eastern countries with Israeli or American flags saying the same thing?
  - freeone3000 3y ago
    That is the world we live in, not a hypothetical. That is why there are people marching down the streets.
- mupuff1234 3y ago
  Some people are confused sure, but honestly it is quite obvious that a lot of time when people say "Zionists" they actually just mean "Jews". Looking at comments online, i'd argue that around 90%+ when someone uses the word "Zionism" they are just bigots. If you genuinely want to criticize israel, just critique the country and its actions, the same you would do for any other country, no need to start talking about "Zionists" etc.
- throw_m239339 3y ago
  > Funny how so many otherwise clever people get confused about this. Nobody gets confused about what is what: https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/ https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/
pesfandiar 3y ago
Couldn't agree more. It's a common misunderstanding, perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- squarefoot 3y ago
  > perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism. That is the #1 tactic used to build smearing campaigns against people critic of Israel. The difference between being a racist and expressing disgust for what Israel has done in decades to the people of Gaza and the West Bank is so huge that either people using the word "antisemite" in that context are deeply ignorant, or they simply have an agenda. To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant.
  - pydry 3y ago
    The agenda is an overtly racist one, it is to support: * Bibi's racist amalek "genocide the palestinians" trope. * Ben gvir when he hangs a portrait of Israeli terrorist Baruch Goldstein up on his wall. * Isaac Herzog when he calls race mixing a tragedy. (To give an example of 3 people who obviously represent Israel, all of whom are proudly racist).
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    >To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant. Then you have not been paying attention. Add this fact to your knowledge: US Republicans really ARE that ignorant. They certainly have an agenda, but they are most certainly ignorant to have such an idiotic agenda, too. House Declares Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism, Dividing Democrats https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/world/middleeast/house-anti-zionism-antisemitism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/world/middleeast/house-an... >More than half of House Democrats declined to back the Republican-written resolution, as some argued that equating criticism of the state of Israel with hatred of the Jewish people went too far. >House Democrats splintered on Tuesday over a resolution condemning the rise of antisemitism in the United States and around the world, with more than half of them declining to support a measure declaring that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” >The resolution denouncing antisemitism, drafted by Republicans, passed by a vote of 311 to 14, drawing the support of all but one Republican. Ninety-two Democrats voted “present” — not taking a position for or against the measure — while 95 supported it. >That reflected deep and growing divisions among Democrats between those who have offered unequivocal support for the Jewish state and its actions, and others — especially in the party’s progressive wing — who have been critical of Israel’s policies and its conduct in the war with Hamas. >“Under this resolution, those who love Israel deeply but criticize some of its policy approaches could be considered anti-Zionist,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, said in a floor speech before he voted “present.” “That could make every Democratic Jewish member of this body, because they all criticized the recent Israeli judicial reform package, de facto antisemites. Might that be the author’s intention?”
rushingcreek 3y ago
It’s obviously true that criticism of Israel isn’t inherently antisemitic. But that’s also a convenient excuse used by people who are actually antisemitic. Both of these things can be true at once.
- kingkawn 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    This. I have always been very very skeptical of the motives and intentions of various BDS groups over the years. Lots of issues with hypocrisy, propaganda, and double standards. But that doesn't excuse the murder of thousands of civilians in collective retribution for the murder of a few dozen. It's possible for both things to be true: Hamas is bad and committed a heinous act of terrorism, and Israel is committing a horrifying atrocity against Palestinian civilians in retaliation.
    - zczc 3y ago
      As far as i understand, the main goal of the Israel operation is to remove Hamas capability to launch another Oct.7-style attack in the future: prevention, not retaliation (though one can argue if there is a way to achieve this goal with less cost on civilians).
      - mandmandam 3y ago
        > one can argue if there is a way to achieve this goal with less cost on civilians) Not really, no. There's no argument. The entire world is calling for a ceasefire because so many civilians are being murdered.
      - sudosysgen 3y ago
_3u10 3y ago
[flagged]
_3u10 3y ago
[flagged]
- niemandhier 3y ago
  This is a very interesting point of view, I was not aware of this. Is there any reliable data on how Muslim Israeli citizens view their own situation e.g. freedom of speech and political participation?
  - _3u10 3y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Israel Muslim citizens within Israel have equal rights and many become parliamentarians, judges, diplomats, public health officials, and IDF generals.[23]
  - _3u10 3y ago
    It counters the apartheid state narrative pretty hard so of course it’s swept under the rug.
mytailorisrich 3y ago
[flagged]
- jeromegv 3y ago
  That is your interpretation. Doesn’t mean it is true. Jewish organizations have joined the large pro-Palestinian marches in Toronto for example. It was a protest against the war and occupation, not about the religion. It’s like saying that Israel marches are islamophobic. Saying it doesn’t make it true. And yes, sometimes it does happen that there are antisemitic people that join those groups. But if they aren’t the organizers and are quickly excluded, we shouldn’t dismiss the whole movement. Some of us do not agree with the scale of the operations against civilians in Gaza, that is a valid view point.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    You are not providing any counter-argument to my point. Also, be careful what is meant by "occupation". You'll find that for some people it means that Israel is occupying and should be destroyed, as I mentioned previously. @dang: I apologise, I tried to constructively contribute and, if you do read my comments carefully, not to take side too much or to be inflammatory. I note that you allowed the thread to remain, which I have interpreted as we being allowed to comment...
  - matrix87 3y ago
    > And yes, sometimes it does happen that there are antisemitic people that join those groups. But if they aren’t the organizers and are quickly excluded I don't think you can easily say "this person is not an antisemite" When you have entire groups organizing and deploying hostile rhetoric, referring to Jewish people themselves as "colonizers", that's drifting towards antisemitism When you have universities selectively employing double standards where they will fire faculty over e.g. praising Brett Kavanaugh (I can find several other examples if you like) but suddenly "care" about free speech when the topic is related to Jewish people, it's hard to rule out the question of antisemitism there. Especially considering some of these universities had antisemitic policies historically
- 3y ago
beltsazar 3y ago
It depends on "Israeli what". Anti Israeli government: It's not antisemitic. Anti Israeli people: It's antisemitic.
- rushingcreek 3y ago
  It’s more complicated than that. Criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank is not antisemitic. But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing. Both are arguably criticisms of the Israeli government.
  - chimeracoder 3y ago
    > But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing. You've got it backwards. The only way for Israel to exist as an ethnostate is through an ethnic cleansing. That's not specific to Israel; that's inherent to the concept of an ethnostate. The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism.
    - fnimick 3y ago
      > The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism. I had a discussion at length on this with some very historically learned people (far more than me) shortly after the attack, with the context of Biden's response. The underlying cultural memory is that of the Holocaust, and of thousands of years of oppression and pogroms before, where nobody would ever help the Jewish people if they were in danger. Thus the belief that the second the Jewish people became a political minority in Israel, they would be immediately and inevitably subject to ethnic cleansing and persecution by the government. Jewish supremacy is viewed as the only way for Jews to be safe in a world full of people who either hate them or don't care enough to help. This explains Biden's "bear hug" diplomatic approach as well, which as much as it was directed to Netanyahu, was actually directed at the Israeli population (and he is now much more popular than Netanyahu is, from approval polling). The only way to defuse the situation long-term is to convince the Jewish people that if they accept peaceful co-existence without enforced ethnic supremacy and apartheid; and the only way to do that is to convince them that if they are threatened, that they will not be left to die alone as they feel they have been so many times before.
mrguyorama 3y ago
[flagged]
- khazhoux 3y ago
  This is the problem with a nation that is so closely tied with a religion. I don't believe the people out there who are angry at Israelis and non-Israeli Jews have a problem with the Torah, or keeping Shabbat, or menorahs, etc. They are angry at the actions of the Israeli state and military, and making the assumption that all Jews support them.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    > They are angry at the actions of the Israeli state and military, and making the assumption that all Jews support them. How is that not antisemitism? Why do they claim displaying a star of David for Hanukah is anti-Palestine? The star of David is a jewish symbol, and they are protesting that jewish symbol by saying it is pro-Palestine to display a jewish symbol during a jewish holiday. The star of david is not the property of a Jewish state any more than displaying a Cross during christmas is Pro-Roman. What about that is anti-Israel instead of Anti-Jewish? I believed the "we are just anti-israel, anti-colonization, not anti-jewish" right up until this shit literally hit my backyard. How come a concert of people that was explicitly about Palestinian freedom from Israel was targeted? Why did Palestinian supporters get slaughtered and gang-raped if this was about freeing Palestine? How does my jewish girlfriend feel safe about this situation if Pro-Palestine jewish people are being slaughtered anyway, and any symbol of jewishness is targeted as "Pro-Israel"? Temples are being tagged with swastikas, businesses with jewish employees are being attacked, jewish college students are being harassed and their college leadership struggled to find a way to denounce calls to genocide jews. "Pro-Palestine" rallys are singing "From the river to the sea", which is explicitly a rallying cry about Israel being an illegitimate state. Where's the evidence that this ISN'T about people being jewish? At the very least, completely unaffiliated people, including people who have never set foot in Israel, are being targeted simply because they are jewish.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
EvgeniyZh 3y ago
Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual during the ongoing political crisis). Many of the critics I see lack nuance (basically, "rooting for the underdog"), but that's a different problem. The problem is complicated, and there is no simple solution (some kind of two-state may work after many years). But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) and calls for an intifada (de facto violence against Jews) are anti-semitic. Supporting Hamas, whose goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, or saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks is anti-semitic (Hamas is also bad for Gazans, but that's another story). I can go on and on. People holding these views may hold them not because they hate Jews (for example, I don't think that people removing posters of kidnapped Israelis necessarily hate them), but the result is all the same. There is also obvious anti-semitism unrelated to Israel, like attacking synagogues, drawing stars of David on Jewish houses, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about. And the most vocal anti-Israelis are naturally the most extreme ones and usually include some of the stuff I mentioned. As a result, people call out anti-semitism, usually not referring to anti-Israeli critics you are talking about.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good. > saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks Who has said that?
  - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
    For example, 2017 Hamas charter [1], page 6: The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah ... There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. ... Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967. Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people. As for your second question, calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives [2]. [1] https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-israel-self-defense-hamas-3f530205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...
valianteffort 3y ago
The term "anti-semetic" is in and of itself "anti-semetic". It obfuscates the fact that palestinians are true semites by conflating itself with any anti-jewish sentiment or criticism. The modern israeli's are not semites. Those that settled after WW2 were eastern european converts, khazars, with no genetic ties to the middle east. Those that are not ashkenazi are migrants from the surrounding countries, who largely did not move to the area until after the occupation of palestine. The term "anti-semite" was invented to reinforce the lie that the ruling class of israel have some ancestral claim to the land. Using it is playing into that propaganda.
- rendall 3y ago
  Nah. The term Semitic was coined to refer to a class of languages, not people. The term anti-Semite was used by anti-Semites such as Heinrich von Treitschke and the Antisemetic League to describe their anti-Jew stance. This is the word as it means today. The modern attempt to make it refer to Arabs and other Semitic-language speakers is itself an anti-Semitic attempt to rob the term of meaning. Nice try, though.
  - valianteffort 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
wolverine876 3y ago
It's dangerous, tricky terrain. Regardless of your beliefs, anti-Semites benefit. * The anti-Semites are not idiots, mostly; they don't spew anti-Semitism publicly but say what is acceptable, which is to criticize Israel, and obviously anything anti-Israeli helps their cause. * There's an implication whether people like it or not: Israel defines itself as The Jewish State. Also, many people are unware that Judaism is non-hierarchical overall; there's no pope-equivalent in Israel to which Jewish people have some allegiance (remember the old Papist accusation against Roman Catholics for dual loyalty); though Israel has some special things and history, it has no other role in non-Israeli Jewish people's religion, but people make that association regardless. Also, many are unaware that most Jewish people in the US oppose Netanyahu and the Israeli right, and afaik are sympathetic to the Palestinians. Anti-Semites will benefit from that implication, even though you don't want them to. * Not everyone will respect that essential division between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic speech, and there's a significant risk that large-scale anti-Semitism could spill over. It was already at the highest levels in recent history (like other prejudices). It's easy to dismiss as as unlikely when you aren't at risk; a small risk of catastrophe is a big issue when it's your life. People absolutely need to be able to criticize Israel, but I hope they are careful (not silent) and aware that there is no easy answer. You are anti-Israel (in this case, at least) and not anti-Semitic, but you will help the latter to some degree - hopefully a minimized one. I think the major problem is that we've abandoned and actively attack the former social prohibition against prejudice, stereotypes, intolerance, race/sex/gender/religious discrimination, etc. It used to be verboten, but then we are all familiar with the contemporary reactionary attack on it (however you perceive it, whatever words you use), which seems to have been very successful. A very major loss is that without that high wall between us and the bad guys and bad behavior, without that bright line, there is much more spillover in what we do, and much more risk of them walking right in.
- Thiez 3y ago
  These "dangers" exist because Israel intentionally blurs the difference between the Jewish people and Israel so that it can cry antisemitism when there is opposition. Maybe they could just stop playing the antisemitism card, or alternatively stop comitting a horrific genocide, occupation, apartheid, and other crimes. If Israel commits acts that deserve criticism then maybe instead of the rest of the world worrying about whether criticism encourages antisemitism Israel can just improve their behavior.
zlg_codes 3y ago
[flagged]
dotancohen 3y ago
> But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike. Anti-Israeli views are anti-Semitic views when criticizing Israel and Israel only, for actions that are done by dozens of states over the course of decades. If the people spouting anti-Israel sentiment spouted the same sentiment for the same actions done a dozen times over by other nations, then they would not be anti-Semitic. In fact, I would agree with the vast majority of them. But when they ignore the 300,000 killed in Syria, or the 600,000 killed in Ethiopia, or the situations in Yemen, Mail, Turkey, or even Gaza when Hamas murders hundreds of Palestinians, or in Syria where the regime kills thousands of Palestinians, then it is clear that they are not stewards of "human rights" or "civilians" or even "values". Rather, they are abusing these ideas to promote an anti-Semitic agenda. These people actually need dead Palestinians to further their agenda.
bitcharmer 3y ago
Yup, that's exactly the reason why I don't treat the term seriously any more. Same with "racist" or "nazi". If it means anything these days it's that those using the words disagree with someone.

Anti-semitism in and of itself is unequivocally wrong. But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike.

jjgreen 3y ago

Funny how so many otherwise clever people get confused about this.

devmor 3y ago
No one is immune to all propaganda, even the most clever people.
- oh_sigh 3y ago
  I am though.
aga98mtl 3y ago
I would be surprised if clever people were actually confused about that. Only a rich person like PG can afford to say the emperor has no clothes.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    I dunno. I’m pretty sure I’m innocent of the horrors of the Iraq war even though I have been a US citizen over 60 years. Blaming civilians for the actions of their government is kind of what terrorists do.
    - mytailorisrich 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - KittenInABox 3y ago
        I mean, can't this also be explained by the fact that the environment is effectively a dictatorship? Do we also poll north koreans who will obviously say that Kim Jong Un is the greatest thing since kimchi and seriously take it at face value?
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      Do you believe there is zero correlation between what citizens allow their country to do and that country's actions? We did not protest and revolt enough over money being sent to the Middle East. America has done every wrong move in handling this, and yet I can guarantee you there are people in this country that wanted America to fuel a war. There is some responsibility that citizens have for the outcomes of their elections.
      - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        Not sure what you want me to do. I didn’t vote for the bastards.
  - deadbunny 3y ago
    They were elected in 2006 (the last election in Palestine), with the average age of currently living Palestinians being somewhere around 2 years old. Not sure I'd hold them responsible for that election result.
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    47%+ of the population of Palestine and Gaza are under the age of 18, and 75.9% are under the age of 35, which is how old they'd have to be to have voted Hamas back in 2006 when they had their last election. When almost 76% of a country has never had the ability to vote in an election, can you really say that it's disingenuous to claim that much of the people of Gaza are innocent victims?
  - soVeryTired 3y ago
    By that logic I could put the Iraq war on your head, assuming you're American. Hamas supporters are complicit, but not all Gazans are.
gedy 3y ago
There's no confusion, had Israel or the US busted into civilian homes and raped and murdered women and children, live streaming it - Would you be fine with people marching down the streets the next day in middle eastern countries with Israeli or American flags saying the same thing?
- freeone3000 3y ago
  That is the world we live in, not a hypothetical. That is why there are people marching down the streets.
mupuff1234 3y ago
Some people are confused sure, but honestly it is quite obvious that a lot of time when people say "Zionists" they actually just mean "Jews". Looking at comments online, i'd argue that around 90%+ when someone uses the word "Zionism" they are just bigots. If you genuinely want to criticize israel, just critique the country and its actions, the same you would do for any other country, no need to start talking about "Zionists" etc.
throw_m239339 3y ago
> Funny how so many otherwise clever people get confused about this. Nobody gets confused about what is what: https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/ https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/

pesfandiar 3y ago

Couldn't agree more. It's a common misunderstanding, perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
squarefoot 3y ago
> perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism. That is the #1 tactic used to build smearing campaigns against people critic of Israel. The difference between being a racist and expressing disgust for what Israel has done in decades to the people of Gaza and the West Bank is so huge that either people using the word "antisemite" in that context are deeply ignorant, or they simply have an agenda. To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant.
- pydry 3y ago
  The agenda is an overtly racist one, it is to support: * Bibi's racist amalek "genocide the palestinians" trope. * Ben gvir when he hangs a portrait of Israeli terrorist Baruch Goldstein up on his wall. * Isaac Herzog when he calls race mixing a tragedy. (To give an example of 3 people who obviously represent Israel, all of whom are proudly racist).
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  >To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant. Then you have not been paying attention. Add this fact to your knowledge: US Republicans really ARE that ignorant. They certainly have an agenda, but they are most certainly ignorant to have such an idiotic agenda, too. House Declares Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism, Dividing Democrats https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/world/middleeast/house-anti-zionism-antisemitism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/world/middleeast/house-an... >More than half of House Democrats declined to back the Republican-written resolution, as some argued that equating criticism of the state of Israel with hatred of the Jewish people went too far. >House Democrats splintered on Tuesday over a resolution condemning the rise of antisemitism in the United States and around the world, with more than half of them declining to support a measure declaring that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” >The resolution denouncing antisemitism, drafted by Republicans, passed by a vote of 311 to 14, drawing the support of all but one Republican. Ninety-two Democrats voted “present” — not taking a position for or against the measure — while 95 supported it. >That reflected deep and growing divisions among Democrats between those who have offered unequivocal support for the Jewish state and its actions, and others — especially in the party’s progressive wing — who have been critical of Israel’s policies and its conduct in the war with Hamas. >“Under this resolution, those who love Israel deeply but criticize some of its policy approaches could be considered anti-Zionist,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the longest-serving Jewish member of the House, said in a floor speech before he voted “present.” “That could make every Democratic Jewish member of this body, because they all criticized the recent Israeli judicial reform package, de facto antisemites. Might that be the author’s intention?”

rushingcreek 3y ago

It’s obviously true that criticism of Israel isn’t inherently antisemitic. But that’s also a convenient excuse used by people who are actually antisemitic. Both of these things can be true at once.

kingkawn 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nerdponx 3y ago
  This. I have always been very very skeptical of the motives and intentions of various BDS groups over the years. Lots of issues with hypocrisy, propaganda, and double standards. But that doesn't excuse the murder of thousands of civilians in collective retribution for the murder of a few dozen. It's possible for both things to be true: Hamas is bad and committed a heinous act of terrorism, and Israel is committing a horrifying atrocity against Palestinian civilians in retaliation.
  - zczc 3y ago
    As far as i understand, the main goal of the Israel operation is to remove Hamas capability to launch another Oct.7-style attack in the future: prevention, not retaliation (though one can argue if there is a way to achieve this goal with less cost on civilians).
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      > one can argue if there is a way to achieve this goal with less cost on civilians) Not really, no. There's no argument. The entire world is calling for a ceasefire because so many civilians are being murdered.
    - sudosysgen 3y ago

_3u10 3y ago

[flagged]

_3u10 3y ago

[flagged]

niemandhier 3y ago
This is a very interesting point of view, I was not aware of this. Is there any reliable data on how Muslim Israeli citizens view their own situation e.g. freedom of speech and political participation?
- _3u10 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Israel Muslim citizens within Israel have equal rights and many become parliamentarians, judges, diplomats, public health officials, and IDF generals.[23]
- _3u10 3y ago
  It counters the apartheid state narrative pretty hard so of course it’s swept under the rug.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

[flagged]

jeromegv 3y ago
That is your interpretation. Doesn’t mean it is true. Jewish organizations have joined the large pro-Palestinian marches in Toronto for example. It was a protest against the war and occupation, not about the religion. It’s like saying that Israel marches are islamophobic. Saying it doesn’t make it true. And yes, sometimes it does happen that there are antisemitic people that join those groups. But if they aren’t the organizers and are quickly excluded, we shouldn’t dismiss the whole movement. Some of us do not agree with the scale of the operations against civilians in Gaza, that is a valid view point.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  You are not providing any counter-argument to my point. Also, be careful what is meant by "occupation". You'll find that for some people it means that Israel is occupying and should be destroyed, as I mentioned previously. @dang: I apologise, I tried to constructively contribute and, if you do read my comments carefully, not to take side too much or to be inflammatory. I note that you allowed the thread to remain, which I have interpreted as we being allowed to comment...
- matrix87 3y ago
  > And yes, sometimes it does happen that there are antisemitic people that join those groups. But if they aren’t the organizers and are quickly excluded I don't think you can easily say "this person is not an antisemite" When you have entire groups organizing and deploying hostile rhetoric, referring to Jewish people themselves as "colonizers", that's drifting towards antisemitism When you have universities selectively employing double standards where they will fire faculty over e.g. praising Brett Kavanaugh (I can find several other examples if you like) but suddenly "care" about free speech when the topic is related to Jewish people, it's hard to rule out the question of antisemitism there. Especially considering some of these universities had antisemitic policies historically
3y ago

beltsazar 3y ago

It depends on "Israeli what". Anti Israeli government: It's not antisemitic. Anti Israeli people: It's antisemitic.

rushingcreek 3y ago
It’s more complicated than that. Criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank is not antisemitic. But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing. Both are arguably criticisms of the Israeli government.
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing. You've got it backwards. The only way for Israel to exist as an ethnostate is through an ethnic cleansing. That's not specific to Israel; that's inherent to the concept of an ethnostate. The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism.
  - fnimick 3y ago
    > The assumption that Israel can only exist as an ethnostate is itself a political assertion - it's the hallmark of right-wing Zionism. I had a discussion at length on this with some very historically learned people (far more than me) shortly after the attack, with the context of Biden's response. The underlying cultural memory is that of the Holocaust, and of thousands of years of oppression and pogroms before, where nobody would ever help the Jewish people if they were in danger. Thus the belief that the second the Jewish people became a political minority in Israel, they would be immediately and inevitably subject to ethnic cleansing and persecution by the government. Jewish supremacy is viewed as the only way for Jews to be safe in a world full of people who either hate them or don't care enough to help. This explains Biden's "bear hug" diplomatic approach as well, which as much as it was directed to Netanyahu, was actually directed at the Israeli population (and he is now much more popular than Netanyahu is, from approval polling). The only way to defuse the situation long-term is to convince the Jewish people that if they accept peaceful co-existence without enforced ethnic supremacy and apartheid; and the only way to do that is to convince them that if they are threatened, that they will not be left to die alone as they feel they have been so many times before.

mrguyorama 3y ago

[flagged]

khazhoux 3y ago
This is the problem with a nation that is so closely tied with a religion. I don't believe the people out there who are angry at Israelis and non-Israeli Jews have a problem with the Torah, or keeping Shabbat, or menorahs, etc. They are angry at the actions of the Israeli state and military, and making the assumption that all Jews support them.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  > They are angry at the actions of the Israeli state and military, and making the assumption that all Jews support them. How is that not antisemitism? Why do they claim displaying a star of David for Hanukah is anti-Palestine? The star of David is a jewish symbol, and they are protesting that jewish symbol by saying it is pro-Palestine to display a jewish symbol during a jewish holiday. The star of david is not the property of a Jewish state any more than displaying a Cross during christmas is Pro-Roman. What about that is anti-Israel instead of Anti-Jewish? I believed the "we are just anti-israel, anti-colonization, not anti-jewish" right up until this shit literally hit my backyard. How come a concert of people that was explicitly about Palestinian freedom from Israel was targeted? Why did Palestinian supporters get slaughtered and gang-raped if this was about freeing Palestine? How does my jewish girlfriend feel safe about this situation if Pro-Palestine jewish people are being slaughtered anyway, and any symbol of jewishness is targeted as "Pro-Israel"? Temples are being tagged with swastikas, businesses with jewish employees are being attacked, jewish college students are being harassed and their college leadership struggled to find a way to denounce calls to genocide jews. "Pro-Palestine" rallys are singing "From the river to the sea", which is explicitly a rallying cry about Israel being an illegitimate state. Where's the evidence that this ISN'T about people being jewish? At the very least, completely unaffiliated people, including people who have never set foot in Israel, are being targeted simply because they are jewish.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

EvgeniyZh 3y ago

Criticizing the actions of Israel is not anti-semitic, and many Israelis and Jews are critical of the Israeli government and its actions (even more than usual during the ongoing political crisis). Many of the critics I see lack nuance (basically, "rooting for the underdog"), but that's a different problem. The problem is complicated, and there is no simple solution (some kind of two-state may work after many years). But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) and calls for an intifada (de facto violence against Jews) are anti-semitic. Supporting Hamas, whose goal is to kill as many Jews as possible, or saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks is anti-semitic (Hamas is also bad for Gazans, but that's another story). I can go on and on. People holding these views may hold them not because they hate Jews (for example, I don't think that people removing posters of kidnapped Israelis necessarily hate them), but the result is all the same. There is also obvious anti-semitism unrelated to Israel, like attacking synagogues, drawing stars of David on Jewish houses, etc., but that's not what I'm talking about. And the most vocal anti-Israelis are naturally the most extreme ones and usually include some of the stuff I mentioned. As a result, people call out anti-semitism, usually not referring to anti-Israeli critics you are talking about.

wolverine876 3y ago
> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country) What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good. > saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks Who has said that?
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  For example, 2017 Hamas charter [1], page 6: The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah ... There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. ... Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967. Again, people may use it trying to say something else, but slogans do not exist in a vacuum. Saying "from the river to the sea" means that all people should be free is akin to saying "arbeit macht frei" is a call for the financial independence of working people. As for your second question, calls for ceasefire appeared while Hamas terrorists weree still in Israel, by no less than U.S. representatives [2]. [1] https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-israel-self-defense-hamas-3f530205 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ceasefire-in-gaza-mirage-is...

valianteffort 3y ago

The term "anti-semetic" is in and of itself "anti-semetic". It obfuscates the fact that palestinians are true semites by conflating itself with any anti-jewish sentiment or criticism. The modern israeli's are not semites. Those that settled after WW2 were eastern european converts, khazars, with no genetic ties to the middle east. Those that are not ashkenazi are migrants from the surrounding countries, who largely did not move to the area until after the occupation of palestine. The term "anti-semite" was invented to reinforce the lie that the ruling class of israel have some ancestral claim to the land. Using it is playing into that propaganda.

rendall 3y ago
Nah. The term Semitic was coined to refer to a class of languages, not people. The term anti-Semite was used by anti-Semites such as Heinrich von Treitschke and the Antisemetic League to describe their anti-Jew stance. This is the word as it means today. The modern attempt to make it refer to Arabs and other Semitic-language speakers is itself an anti-Semitic attempt to rob the term of meaning. Nice try, though.
- valianteffort 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

wolverine876 3y ago

It's dangerous, tricky terrain. Regardless of your beliefs, anti-Semites benefit. * The anti-Semites are not idiots, mostly; they don't spew anti-Semitism publicly but say what is acceptable, which is to criticize Israel, and obviously anything anti-Israeli helps their cause. * There's an implication whether people like it or not: Israel defines itself as The Jewish State. Also, many people are unware that Judaism is non-hierarchical overall; there's no pope-equivalent in Israel to which Jewish people have some allegiance (remember the old Papist accusation against Roman Catholics for dual loyalty); though Israel has some special things and history, it has no other role in non-Israeli Jewish people's religion, but people make that association regardless. Also, many are unaware that most Jewish people in the US oppose Netanyahu and the Israeli right, and afaik are sympathetic to the Palestinians. Anti-Semites will benefit from that implication, even though you don't want them to. * Not everyone will respect that essential division between anti-Israel and anti-Semitic speech, and there's a significant risk that large-scale anti-Semitism could spill over. It was already at the highest levels in recent history (like other prejudices). It's easy to dismiss as as unlikely when you aren't at risk; a small risk of catastrophe is a big issue when it's your life. People absolutely need to be able to criticize Israel, but I hope they are careful (not silent) and aware that there is no easy answer. You are anti-Israel (in this case, at least) and not anti-Semitic, but you will help the latter to some degree - hopefully a minimized one. I think the major problem is that we've abandoned and actively attack the former social prohibition against prejudice, stereotypes, intolerance, race/sex/gender/religious discrimination, etc. It used to be verboten, but then we are all familiar with the contemporary reactionary attack on it (however you perceive it, whatever words you use), which seems to have been very successful. A very major loss is that without that high wall between us and the bad guys and bad behavior, without that bright line, there is much more spillover in what we do, and much more risk of them walking right in.

Thiez 3y ago
These "dangers" exist because Israel intentionally blurs the difference between the Jewish people and Israel so that it can cry antisemitism when there is opposition. Maybe they could just stop playing the antisemitism card, or alternatively stop comitting a horrific genocide, occupation, apartheid, and other crimes. If Israel commits acts that deserve criticism then maybe instead of the rest of the world worrying about whether criticism encourages antisemitism Israel can just improve their behavior.

zlg_codes 3y ago

[flagged]

dotancohen 3y ago

> But conflating anti-Israeli views with anti-Semitic views does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike. Anti-Israeli views are anti-Semitic views when criticizing Israel and Israel only, for actions that are done by dozens of states over the course of decades. If the people spouting anti-Israel sentiment spouted the same sentiment for the same actions done a dozen times over by other nations, then they would not be anti-Semitic. In fact, I would agree with the vast majority of them. But when they ignore the 300,000 killed in Syria, or the 600,000 killed in Ethiopia, or the situations in Yemen, Mail, Turkey, or even Gaza when Hamas murders hundreds of Palestinians, or in Syria where the regime kills thousands of Palestinians, then it is clear that they are not stewards of "human rights" or "civilians" or even "values". Rather, they are abusing these ideas to promote an anti-Semitic agenda. These people actually need dead Palestinians to further their agenda.

bitcharmer 3y ago

Yup, that's exactly the reason why I don't treat the term seriously any more. Same with "racist" or "nazi". If it means anything these days it's that those using the words disagree with someone.