15 ms·
I have no skin in this game. What I have seen is a confusion (perhaps intentional) between anti-semitism, and protesting Israel’s behavior since the Hamas atta
by Scubabear68 3y ago
I have no skin in this game.
What I have seen is a confusion (perhaps intentional) between anti-semitism, and protesting Israel’s behavior since the Hamas attack in October.
Criticizing Israel’s response is not anti-Semitism- it is literally just criticizing the response.
- ristlane 3y ago[flagged]
- craigmccaskill 3y agoSo I have to have been involved in protesting a non-Israel conflict to have an opinion on this one?
- Scubabear68 3y agoI’m not holding them to a higher standard. Imagine if you will someone going to start large scale bombing NYC. Or London. Or Rome. The Hamas attack was unprecedented and horrific. I don’t know that it justifies declaring all out war on and entire city. I can say that without being anti-Semitic.
- ristlane 3y agoHamas is hiding among civilians. I don’t want innocent people to be hurt, but their use of human shields is simply the standard playbook in this type of warfare. Hamas rationally wants Gazan civilians to be nearby and indistinguishable from combatants.
- ajb 3y agoThis is true but not the whole story. If Hamas were dug in under an Israeli school or hospital, would it similarly by okay to treat civilian deaths as 'just Hamas fault'? Obviously not. The problem here has that the situation is between a war and a policing situation. Gaza is not a state, but it is not a suburb of Israel either. So who is responsible for the safety of Palestinian civilians?
- ristlane 3y agoIf Hamas were entrenched under an Israeli school or hospital, the civilians would vacate the area so the IDF could take care of it. In Gaza, Hamas may be preventing civilians from leaving (but I’m not there to verify). It would help to have civilian corridors into the south and into Egypt, but again that’s not in the best interests of Hamas. I’d like the IDF to do their best. They are indeed responsible for trying not to kill civilians. There’s only so much they can do, short of a so-called “ceasefire”.
- Thiez 3y ago> It would help to have civilian corridors into the south and into Egypt, but again that’s not in the best interests of Hamas. Such a corridor is in nobodies interest but Israels, as they would happily expel the entire Gaza population and then forbid them from returning. It's not like high ranking Israeli officials haven't alluded or outright said this, and Israel has quite a history of illegal annexation in the West Bank. Providing such a corridor would just be asssisting in ethnic cleansing.
- edanm 3y agoHamas rules Gaza, Israel doesn't (or at least didn't) have a military presence inside of Gaza. Israel withdrew all Israelis and all military forces from Gaza, as was often demanded of it ("End the Occupation"). I'm not sure what makes the situation unclear (for the specific things you talked about).
- ajb 3y agoThe way you have phrased your question invites discussion of legal definitions. Moral questions are not answered in this way. What is the moral difference between soldiers and police as regards civilians? Both have the same moral obligation not to harm civilians. The difference is that police have a monopoly on violence and soldiers do not, because there is another belligerent force. Hence, it is clear that under some circumstances, the moral obligations of soldiers would reduce to that of police (when the opposing beligerent force is nearly eliminated). The degree to which this is the case depends on the tactical state of play, which is unclear (and likely to remain so). I have to say that it's also unclear to me personally whether the current rate of civilian deaths could be justified under any circumstances. Since Israel has not stated what it wants the end-goal of the war to be, we don't know how it could justify it either.
- VBprogrammer 3y agoWould Israel allow Gaza to have a conventional standing army? With barracks, heavy weapons and maybe airbases? Isn't it a bit silly to complain about their lack of adherence to conventional military practices?
- oytis 3y agoNo state will tolerate a hostile army near its borders. But if representatives of Gaza/West Bank recognized Israel and made a peace agreement with delineated borders - they would have their army like any other government. Today it sounds highly hypothetical, but was definitely possible at many points in Israel's history.
- VBprogrammer 3y agoI find it hard to imagine a future in which Israel allows a Palestinian state to have its own army of any reasonable capability. Almost as much as I find it improbable that such an army wouldn't be mobilised against Israel as soon as it was sufficiently established - regardless of any pretext of peace. However, my point was based on the situation today. The import of building materials into Gaza is strictly controlled because those materials could be used to build and fortify military positions. It is contradictory to prevent the creation of military positions and also complain about civilian structures being used for military purposes.
- aprilthird2021 3y agoThe IDF HQ is in a heavily populated part of Tel Aviv. If a country dropped an enormous bomb on it which flattened nearby civilian homes and populations, would it be okay because the IDF is "hiding" among civilians? The IDF also literally used human shields until 2005 when it was banned (and a bit more afterwards trying not to get caught), so is it okay to kill ~20000 Israeli civilians as a result of that?
- dubcanada 3y agoIf you take what happened in Israel and change the location to London, do you think UK would just shrug it off? I am in no way saying what is currently happening is okay, but the response was the response, replace Israel with most other military dominant countries and you would get a similar response, especially if you were the stronger party. Depending on who we talk about, it may actually have been way worse. I believe what OP is saying is that most other countries would have done the same. And for you to impart hatred on Israel for doing what most other countries would have done is anti-semitism.
- Scubabear68 3y agoIt is interesting to me how your narrative went from somewhat reasonable to talking about “imparting hatred” and concluding it is anti-Semitic. Which is kind of what the article is talking about.
- dubcanada 3y agoPlease correct me if my interpretation of your statement is incorrect, I meant nothing by it purely trying to explain what I thought you meant.
- Scubabear68 3y agoThanks. No, I don’t hate Jews or Israel. I am very critical of the Israeli government at the moment, which is hardly a unique view.
- ls612 3y agoImagine if a terrorist group murdered 2750 people in New York and in response the US said they would topple the government which supported them and occupy their country indefinitely.
- dubcanada 3y agoUS has toppled governments and occupied countries over far less... probably not the best example.
- ajb 3y agoThey did that. In fact, the US waited quite a long time to see if the Taliban would give up bin Laden, before invading.
- aprilthird2021 3y agoAnd it was one of the biggest US political mistakes of all time
- lotsofpulp 3y ago>Imagine if you will someone going to start large scale bombing NYC. Or London. Or Rome. The response to Sep 11, 2001?
- sealeck 3y agoWhich has widely been condemned by people who criticise Israel? And tends not to be talked about too much by the (right wing) pro-Israeli government (settlement program, bombing of Palestinians) crowd.
- robertoandred 3y agoYou don't think the Hamas attack was a declaration of war?
- underlipton 3y agoIt's difficult to declare war in the middle of a siege.
- robertoandred 3y agoDid you think Gaza was under siege?
- FireBeyond 3y agoIn that its borders are entirely under Israel and Egypt's control? Yes. In that Israel bombed and destroyed Gaza's airport in 2001? Yes. In that the Israeli Navy has blockaded the Port of Gaza since 2007? Yes.
- mda 3y agoThey were freely trading, sailing their ships, moving around the country, leaving entering freely right?
- aprilthird2021 3y agoIsn't blockading people and food and goods and putting the entire population of Gaza on a "starvation plus" diet and constantly and blatantly violating int'l law to throw West Bank Palestinians off their land further and further while laughing about it publicly a declaration of war? When Palestinians protested nonviolently at the gates of Gaza and were shot to death, was that an act of war? When Israeli West Bank settlers burned a home in Duma with a family still inside and laughed about the small child who burned alive their and taunted onlookers, was that an act of war?
- robertoandred 3y agoWas Palestine suicide bombing buses and launching rockets declarations of war? Do you think Israel controls Egypt's borders with Gaza, or do you think Israel should allow terrorists to rape, torture, and murder their citizens?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- selfmodruntime 3y agoIf repeated terrorist attacks from the government of another neighboring country are not a valid reason to declare war, what is?
- willis936 3y agoThen what is holding Israel to a lower standard to other nations a sign of?
- JackRumford 3y agoNot all other nations - just Palestine. Because Israel is in position of power.
- sealeck 3y agoCriticising current Israeli government policy doesn't hold Israel to a higher standard than that of other countries. Also Israel critics also tend to be _much more likely_ to condemn the actions of other states (e.g. Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Indonensia in Papaua, etc). The issue is that the press is less interested in this and the general American public is much more interested in Israel than they are in Saudi Arabia.
- mantas 3y agoAre they? There’s interesting statistics about UN human rights committee resolutions by country. Israel alone gets most resolutions.
- omginternets 3y agoMy friend, not conflating groups is literally one of the standards for public discourse in 2023.
- krapp 3y agoIt's the same standard the entire world held the US to after 9/11. A response to the attacks by Al-Qaeda was justified, the 20 year "Crusade" across the Middle East was not. A response by Israel against Hamas terrorism is justified - a campaign of extermination and genocide is not. It isn't even a high standard, "don't commit genocide" has been the bare minimum requirement for any modern country, much less democracy, for nearly a century. It would be antisemitic to believe that Israel is uniquely incapable of meeting that minimum standard.
- ristlane 3y agoI don’t believe that the IDF wants to kill Gazan civilians.
- givemeethekeys 3y agoCan you provide examples of a Genocide where the population of the people being exterminated multiplies during the genocide process?
- wolverine876 3y agoI've heard this claim, but what is your personal reasoning? It's an oddly narrow condition. Isn't 'prejudice against Israel' more general and effective? Enumerating prejudice in every possible form seems impossible and impractical. FWIW, it's included in a definition from the last ~20 years that is favored by pro-Israel groups. Possibly, it's just rhetorical and diversionary, putting critics on the defensive to carefully defend and establish all speech as non-anti-Jewish, which diverts time and attention. I think those tactics work for Israel when the issues aren't so stark and prominent, and so few people see the critique of the critics (i.e., few see the accusation that the speech is antisemitic). With everyone watching closely, the apparent rhetorical tactics become noticeable.
- mardifoufs 3y agoWhich other nation is allowed to literally colonize land than even itself doesn't consider to be part of their country? What other nation can get away with military enforcement of said colonies? If anything, Israel is given more slack in the west than any other nation. More civilians died in Gaza than in Ukraine yet clearly, only one nation has been condemned officially by western states and that's not Israel
- oytis 3y agoI don't know a single country - including Israel's closest allies - that says that occupation of West Bank is acceptable.
- mardifoufs 3y agoWhen is Israel, as a state, outright condemned due to its colonial projects? Like, what concrete consequences does it suffer from, due to its colonies? Absolutely nothing, and if anything boycotting Israel is literally ground for getting fired in the USA. Now that I think about it, no other country in the world has that privilege of being shielded from consequences like that either. Again, Russia trying to annex Ukraine isn't just "not seen as acceptable". We saw very very clear and concrete actions from almost the entire west against that. What does Israel get when it colonizes its neighbors? Unwavering support that completely overlooks said colonies.
- incrudible 3y agoThe question is, what is so special about the Israeli/Palestine conflict that leads to these outsized protests? I do not recollect a similar response to the treatment of ISIS or the war in Yemen, even though both had the unconditional support of the US war machine. Even if the left could be absolved of antisemitism, the resistance groups it is aligning itself with clearly can not.
- dml2135 3y agoI certainly remember similar sized, if not larger, protests against the Iraq war.
- shmatt 3y agoIraq never attacked anyone. A better comparison is the war in Afghanistan. If we compare # of people in each country. 10/07 for Israel was like 15 9/11s (this is a quote from a President Biden speech). So not only is it worth asking - how many Americans didnt want to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But how many would be against some sort of war like that, if tomorrow morning they woke up to a 9/11 sized attack in 15 of the biggest US cities, happening at the same time Not only did the US go far from home to destroy Afghanistan, but the whole world joined them to do it together
- toyg 3y agoYeah, and the war in Afghanistan resulted in nothing but temporary bloody vengeance. 20 years later, and we're all back to where we were before - minus millions of civilians dead or displaced.
- oezi 3y agoThe US didn't go to war to 'destroy Afghanistan'. They went to war to fight the Taliban. > Iraq never attacked anyone I am not sure Kuwait would agree.
- givemeethekeys 3y ago
- ARandumGuy 3y agoIsrael and pro-Israel commentators have spent a lot of time and effort trying to ingrain the idea that Israel == Jews. Of course, not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis are Jews. And there are many Jewish Israelis who are critical of the actions of the Israeli government. Of course, a lot of criticism of Israel is rooted in antisemitism. But saying all criticism of Israel is antisemitic deflects legitimate criticism, and makes it harder to identify legitimate antisemitism.
- matrix87 3y ago> But saying all criticism of Israel is antisemitic deflects legitimate criticism Who is saying this? All I've heard are people on one side insisting that people are saying this, sounds like a straw man
- the_gastropod 3y agoThis isn't exactly the same, but it's pretty close. Here's Nikki Haley tweeting: "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. No federal funds for schools that don't combat antisemitism." [1] [1] https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1720501916088590704 https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1720501916088590704
- oytis 3y agoAnti-Zionism is asserting that the Jewish state should not exist in the land of Israel. It _is_ antisemitism. You can criticize current Israeli government and it's certain actions, while acknowledging Israel's right to exist and defend its existence. There are plenty of people in Israel who are opposed to Netanyahu and were protesting against him before the war started, but don't doubt that destroying Hamas is justified.
- the_gastropod 3y agoEven if your definition here of Anti-Zionism was correct (it's not [1]), that is categorically different than what antisemitism is: a hatred of Jews, a belief in a global Jewish conspiracy, belief that Jews control capitalism / created communism, etc., belief that Jews are racially inferior, etc. Sure, people that are antisemitic can also be Anti-Zionist (e.g., the Ku Klux Clan). But so too can people be proudly Jewish and Anti-Zionist (e.g., most Orthodox Jews). People can also be antisemitic and Zionist (e.g., many evangelical Christians, Donald Trump, John Hagee, etc.). Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are orthogonal ideas. Conflation of them is pure propaganda. [1] "Although anti-Zionism is a heterogeneous phenomenon, all its proponents agree that the creation of the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
- NickC25 3y agoIt's intentional. The Israel lobby has worked tirelessly to conflate antisemitism with any critique of Israel whatsoever, no matter how legitimate. It's sad, and in the long run completely self-defeating, but nobody seems to realize that. The more Israel and their lobby overreacts to honest, legitimate and peaceful critique of their actions, the more extreme that the responses will inevitably be....especially in times like these where Palestinians have legitimate reasons to be angry with Israel, and when Israel's citizenry has the right to be angry with their government. Nobody is right, and everyone is wrong. Everyone has blood on their hands. Pretending otherwise is dumb. Likud and Hamas are responsible, not the innocent Israelis nor the innocent Palestinians. Fuck Hamas, fuck Likud.
- proc0 3y agoProvoking an overreaction was the intention... and yet that is not factored into the criticism.
- dylkil 3y agothey let it happen
- ReptileMan 3y ago>Criticizing Israel’s response is not anti-Semitism- it is literally just criticizing the response. Okay - then what should be Israel's response? For me what they are doing is the bare minimum with the minimum casualties from the options they have. Hamas is Gaza's government. Hamas has intertwined the civilian and the military infrastructure. Hamas has made sure that the civilian Palestinians will suffer if you target Hamas. And it was Hamas that made sure with organized rape, torture and atrocities on Oct 7 that it can't be overlooked or forgiven. Here is a good rule of thumb - if you are going to stir shit - stick to just killing. Don't livestream torture and rape, so diplomacy will have something to work with.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y agoTheir response should be to leave the occupied territories, which aren't theirs to begin with, and to recognize a Palestinian state. Israel has held millions of Palestinians under military occupation for more than half a century, and it's way past time that that ended.
- ReptileMan 3y ago[flagged]
- DiogenesKynikos 3y agoIsrael has now killed 20k Palestinians and destroyed half of the Gaza Strip. That is a crime of vastly greater proportion.
- ReptileMan 3y agoNope. Hamas killed them by designing gaza in such a way as to maximize collateral.
- callalex 3y agoIf you find yourself on the “she shouldn’t have dressed that way” side of the argument, it’s probably time to take a step back and reevaluate.
- kromem 3y agoWhile that is definitely true and an important distinction, I will say that unfortunately all too often as discussions on the topic deepen there's a troubling correlation between the most vocal voices engaged in criticizing Israel and legit antisemitism views creeping in. Which isn't a one sided phenomenon. The reverse is true as well, where often the most vocal voices rationalizing Israel's actions and behavior around civilian casualties often have anti-Muslim perspectives crop up as back and forth conversation goes on. One of the litmus tests I've noticed is the capacity to acknowledge and condemn the civilian suffering of both sides. The commenters who recognize and condemn both the Oct 7th terrorist attack and the targeting or indiscriminate killing of civilians in the response to it tend to be rational and level headed driven by humanitarian concerns. Those who only recognize the suffering of one side and dismiss, dehumanize, or rationalize the suffering of the other side - or worst of all propagandize the denial of it's occurrence or scope - tend to quickly fall into revealing rather abhorrent views with a mere scratching of the surface. Not everyone who criticizes Israel is antisemitic nor everyone who criticizes Hamas is anti-Muslim, but many who are antisemitic or anti-Muslim seem keen to defend their respective side of the conflict quite emphatically and unilaterally.
- Scubabear68 3y agoI get your point, but at the same time dragging anti-semetism into the argument weakens the voices of those who really are not anti-Semitic at all, but genuinely question the Israeli government response to the Hamas attacks. Which is, I suspect, the point - to weaken those viewpoints. And to address others in this thread around US actions around the world, I am critical of the U.S. war on Afghanistan and the second Iraq war as well as the Israeli attacks on Gaza. One can be critical of a government without despising it.
- kromem 3y agoYou suspect that my point is to weaken the voices of those who aren't anti-Semetic but question the actions of Israel? And not that perhaps my point is to highlight the opposite effect, by which the continued rhetoric of anti-Zionism as distinct from anti-Semetism weakens the voices of those experiencing a documented rise in genuine anti-Semitism by dismissing it as mislabeling? Polarization around the human tendency for tribalism and side picking has led to increases in both anti-Muslim and antisemitism - people have been stabbed, had homes invaded, attacked, etc because of both those identities as rhetoric has become increasingly inflamed. As I said - the times that I tend to see good faith discussion on this topic typically correlate with the voices that recognize the humanity of the civilians on both sides of the conflict, with the voices unilaterally humanizing one side while dismissing the suffering of the other side far more often tending to extend significantly greater underlying biases. Denying the rise of antisemitism and trying to label it all as simply Zionism upset it isn't in favor has its own impact of conversation weakening I'd encourage you to consider. To me, it seems pretty easy to both recognize that there's been a marked increase in antisemitism and anti-Muslim rhetoric tied to this topic without impacting my ability to both recognize and condemn actions of people in power in this conflict when targeting civilians or not taking internationally recognized measures to prevent civilian harm.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- asylteltine 3y ago[flagged]
- Scubabear68 3y ago“If you have no skin in the game, don’t comment”. I’m sorry, people who aren’t Jewish or Palestinians are not allowed to have opinions on this? I’m sorry, but Israel can’t just pull out their “anti-Semite” card at will and do what they want without the world reacting. The Israeli government - like any government - can make mistakes. And can be criticized. Criticizing the government is in no way anti-Semitic. To believe otherwise would be to believe the Israeli government is divinely chosen and can do no wrong, like the Pharohs of old. Sorry, but they are people and people can make mistakes. Which again does not excuse Hamas. But Israel cannot wage unlimited war on the people of Gaza at will forever.
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- burnerburnson 3y ago[flagged]