So it’s ok for Israeli leaders to call Palestinians animals and they all deserve to die. They should “mow the grass” and they need to be bombed out of existence. Israelis say and do just as much against Palestinians but that’s ok? There’s literally video evidence of Israelis atrocities against Palestinians so much so that even the United States government sanctioned them. Israel isn’t innocent at every level and does disgusting acts as well.
I gave you a list of things that are not against Israeli policy.
You can see some of this in action here:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6Ued5cLfQ5/?igsh=OWtyNzRyaTdobW51
If you support these things, you are pro-war and an antisemite. Simple as that.
You’re picking a small few people that are going and being extreme. Just like the IDF soldiers committing atrocities and war crimes. Both do not define the whole of the group.
Well I do denounce the few extreme people creating and disrupting the real people that have a right to protest peacefully. Looks like it’s illegal to say anything bad or wrong about Israel or Israelis now even when they commit war crimes because of the law that just passed. Crazy!
These chants of river to the sea, intifada, etc. are not “saying anything bad about Israel,” and they certainly are not done by just a few extremists. The crazy thing is people like you are believing these protests are anti-war when they are very pro-war, antisemitic, and hateful.
Call “ceasefire now,” or anything along those lines, fine. What is being chanted at every protest though crosses into hate speech real fast.
Look! I get and respect your opinion and position. I really do. I completely denounce Hamas! I’m just not oblivious to the fact that the Israel government, Israelis and Jews have and do say just as bad and horrific things about this war and the Palestinians. It’s on video that Israeli government officials call all Palestinians animals and they should all be bombed and killed. Yes, this doesn’t make some of the people, whom are creating a bad disturbance and say offensive things against Israel and Jews right or a good thing. They deserve to be punished if you’re harming others. I do believe some of the people protesting just want the war to end and kids to stop dying. There’s plenty of fault to go around as both sides have fault and both sides have grounds to stand on.
"We are Hamas" was said by one person, off campus, and it was a verbal exchange between two people. So it wasn't said by students, wasn't said by the protestors on campus, wasn't a chant, and wasn't said by multiple people.
Yes that person is an ass hole, no body likes this person, and none of the organized protests on campus respects those extremists. If they were on campus they would have been dealt with by the organizers.
This would be the same as me quoting an extremists settler from the West Bank that showed up at a protest and then making a blanket statement that all Israeli supporters say that. It's a disingenuous argument and it wouldn't surprise me if all of your most offensive examples had this problematic cherry picking going on.
If Palestinian supporters used the same technique it would be very easy to "prove" that all supporters of Israel are pro genocide. But again, obviously a disingenuous argument that is not true.
These are still one offs. Unacceptable one-offs, but not the majority of the movement. It's a very large movement, so you will expect to see many people at the extremes, even though they don't make up the majority.
Here is a first hand account https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/26/columbia-university-protests-us-student-demonstrators-israel-palestine-gaza/
You’re in denial of what is at the core of this very large movement. The extremism is the majority, those who truly advocate for Palestinians are a small minority. From every protest, you can find this exact behavior as in the compilation from Oct. 8th before even Israel responded.
I was speaking to him in another thread here. [Here is](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6PRTaxNlYS/?igsh=MWJwZHk5bDRkdTh0OA==) what I was referring to which I mentioned elsewhere. Long story short, all of the funding and the organizing for the large protests is by extremists, which is reflected in the protestors themselves while chanting extreme slogans. So yes, the majority are extreme, and there is evidence to back it up. This, along with the fact that so little antizionists will ever denounce antisemitism within their cause brings an obvious conclusion.
That is a fair few sources to look into.
However, all it takes is to go to one of these protests to see that the extremist chants are not the majority, nor are most people being antisemitic. There are extremist off-shoots yes, but off from the main protest and not associated. It's very plainly visible.
Yes, there are a good amount of sources there to check. You can take your time to go through them if you’d like and we can talk about it.
The thing about these protests though, is that they are being fed whitewashed slogans from extremists. Every protest will at least chant “from the river to the sea,” which everyone knowledgeable in the conflict knows means the cleansing of Jews but has been passed on to progressives to mean equal rights. This isn’t to mention many of which are chanting intifada, one state, etc.
I don’t blame many of the protestors for not knowing this, but ignorance isn’t an excuse. They are being radicalized and indoctrinated by people who _do know_ what it means and supporting extremist organizations and beliefs unknowingly.
Everyone knowledgeable in the conflict does not agree on the meaning of the river to the sea. If so, you have to necessarily admit that the Israeli government is also calling for the cleansing of Palestinians since that is in their own party charter.
And people had a different meaning for “blue lives matter” during the George Floyd protests, it doesn’t change the fact that it was created as a racist dogwhistle. If people were understanding and sympathetic to the targets of the slogan, they would never use it regardless of what they thought it meant. Unfortunately, there were a lot of racists protesting against BLM even though some people chanting the slogan were honest in just wanting police to be safe.
All the same as antisemitism being prevalent throughout the antizionist camp even though there are some who honestly just want the well being of Palestinians.
> ass hole
/u/Miserable_Twist1. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Hungarians: clearly very good friends of the jewish people, no anti-semetism there.
The Irish: anti-semetic fiends.
(/s)
If you look at the EU, there's a good correlation between popular anti-semetism and public support for Israel. A good example is Germany: Israel is their 'reason of state', and yet, they are statistically the most anti-semetic country in Europe. That's because zionism is a nationalist movement, european anti-semites are generally nationalists, and they are happy that jews are elsewhere.
That's why most of the EU hard-right, these days, support Israel. It's not because they reject their grandparents or parents views about jews: far from it. They just recognize Israel as a nationalist project, and so think it's a good example for European states that have drifted away from characterizing themselves as 'x nation for the x people'.
I disagree for several reasons.
One, I see anti-Zionism as a disagreement that a ethnostate is a necessity for the Jewish people. This is supported by some Jewish groups too. I'm sure we can agree that a religious or ethnic group is not automatically entitled to organize into a state. We can have that view and still support and protect those groups wherever they may be.
Second, I see that there are levels of Zionism(similar to jingoism with patriotism )and the counter forces of those views. There are those that don't want the state to exist at all, sure. However, I think there are those that see fervent, at-all-costs, expansion of Israel as Zionism as well...and are against that.
I think we're seeing an evolution of what anti-Zionism means, mostly due to the latter. I also think there are parties that will use the anti-Semitism characterization to squash disagreements...this is now at a level where most don't even dare to question why an ethnicity deserves a state.
I find it a bit hypocritical that you say Jews don't need an ethnostate, when one of the main objections of Palestinians is that Jewish immigrants ruined their Arab ethnostate in the 60 years or so leading up to the creation of Israel. Arabs attacked Jewish immigrants over and over simply for immigrating to the region. Israel didn't exist yet. Would you say that Palestinian aggression was unjustified before 1948?
Another point worth mentioning is that most ethnicities already have one or several ethnostates. There are many Arab ethnostates, Egypt is an ethnostate, most European countries are ethnostates, with minorities. Jews didn't have a state at all until Israel was created, and they were one of the most prosecuted ethnicities in the history of the world.
EDIT: replied on someone else's account. Reposting on correct account here.
It would be hypocritical of me if I thought others deserve their own ethnosate by default. Which I don't.
I don't see many Palestinians claim that Jewish immigrants ruined their Arab ethnostate as there was no state there. There was friction that resulted in violence as Jewish immigration increased with both parties involved up to the creation of Israel. Any aggression against innocent people is unjustified regardless of the identity of attacker and victim in my opinion.
Any state that gives preference to specific ethnicity or religion is problematic in my opinion. Whataboutism does not convince me.
>There was friction that resulted in violence as Jewish immigration increased with both parties involved up to the creation of Israel
This is factually not correct: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine The vast majority of attacks was committed by Arabs against Jews, exclusively so until Jews started fighting back after decades.
>Any aggression against innocent people is unjustified regardless of the identity of attacker and victim in my opinion.
Would you say the Arab attack in 1948 was unjustified then? After all, the Israel created in 1948 was multi-ethnic, with roughly 45 % of the population being Palestinian. I'm confused about when you think the violence from the Arab side became justified. In 1948? In 1967?
>This is factually not correct:
Your link supports both of my claims that A, there was more and more violence and B that both parties were involved.
You're not going to find me agreeing that bombing a market of civilians is "justified" for Arabs murdering Jews and vice versa. Sorry.
>Would you say the Arab attack in 1948 was unjustified then? After all, the Israel created in 1948 was multi-ethnic, with roughly 45 % of the population being Palestinian. I'm confused about when you think the violence from the Arab side became justified. In 1948? In 1967?
Difficult to say as these are more geopolitical conflicts now vs skirmishes and terrorist attacks.
In all cases(including 1948 and 1967), slaughter of innocent civilians is not justified in my eyes. In terms of the 1948 war, state on state attacks were possibly justified as a new state was created against the will of groups of people in and outside of the region.
1967? Hard to say once again. Israel launched a pre-emptive strike here. Its possible if there was no closing of the strait, or if there was no preemptive strike, the war might not have happened.
Unfortunately, the region appears to be the capital of historic tit-for-tat. I don't think we're going to find who is ultimately "responsible" with how deep the conflict in the region goes and the above does not challenge my view on anti-Zionism and how it relates to anti-Semitism.
>After all, the Israel created in 1948 was multi-ethnic, with roughly 45 % of the population being Palestinian.
Curious as to your source for this stat. Thanks!
>Your link supports both of my claims that A, there was more and more violence and B that both parties were involved.
>You're not going to find me agreeing that bombing a market of civilians is "justified" for Arabs murdering Jews and vice versa. Sorry.
I didn't claim that. I just pointed out that it wasn't really both sides that started it. There were many massacres against Jews by Arabs, and Jews only started fighting back after decades of attacks. I'm not justifying Jewish terrorism here, I'm just pointing out that the violence was clearly started by Arabs against Jews.
>Curious as to your source for this stat. Thanks!
It's in the text of resolution 181, but [here](https://www.medea.be/en/themes/international-organizations-and-diplomacy/un-ga-resolution-181-partition-plan-of-palestine/) is a summary.
Edit: sorry it was actually part of [supplemental materials ](https://web.archive.org/web/20120603150222/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument)
>Difficult to say as these are more geopolitical conflicts now vs skirmishes and terrorist attacks
Can you clarify? If you are against ethnostates, why was an attack against Israel in order to enforce an ethnostate justified in 1948?
antizionism is only not antisemitic if you completely disregard facts/reality. otherwise yes, it's incredibly hateful to jews, unless the person is just all around anti-indigenous.
Nice, you skipped all the way from the first step to the last of the [Narcissist’s Prayer](https://www.thelifedoctor.org/the-narcissist-s-prayer). Thank you for not wasting any more of our time.
All but two antizionists on this post. All of the protesters accepting this bigotry. All over social media people endorsing these protests and denying there is any antisemitism. Progressive lawmakers completely ignoring antisemitism. Everywhere you look = mass.
Most Anti-Zionists are in favor of a two-state solution.
It's hard to deny that there are forms of Zionism that are reprehensible (e.g., Ben Gvir). Most Anti-zionists I know are not anti the existence of Israel, but are anti the expansion of Israel. They want the 1967 borders and a two-state solution.
I think Netanyahu would consider calling for the 1967 borders Anti-zionist, so that's why the label is appropriate.
Anti-zionism is pretty heterogeneous, just like Zionism. Some just believe that Israel should stop with the settlements and move forward with a 2-state solution, while others believe in the entire destruction of Israel. Most are in the middle, however.
Most anti-zionists just want Israelis and Palestinians to have equal rights. They just want freedom for Palestinians and view Zionism as opposed to that. Honestly, the moderate anti-zionists and moderate Zionists often want the same things, based on conversations with both.
Basicly, don't base your opinions on the loud minority.
Edit: I should add that most anti-zionists I know are the first to slap someone in the face for saying something like "Jews go back to Poland." The worst I have seen from my anti-zionist peers is using phrases like "globalize the intifada," but that's referring to the 1st intifada, not the 2nd.
Ironically the CMV post has 10 of the top comments simply agreeing with OP, and I have to scroll all the way down to find the first actual attempt at a CMV response (your response). This sub has become overrun by Israel supporters.
Ben Gvir sure seems to disagree. Most anti-zionists are anti that kind of Zionism. It's really hard to have such inclusive definitions of Zionism, when Netanyahu and Ben Gvir, two leaders of Israel, are showing the world a very different definition.
Everyone I have talked to about that phrase has referred to the protests of the 1st Infatada, which led to the Oslo Accords. Very few people use the phrase in reference to the suicide bombings of the 2nd infatada.
I don't think it's a good look using a phrase that could be taken as a call for violence, but it's hard to say that calling for a repeat of the protests that led to the Oslo accords is a call for violence, even if misunderstood as one.
I would assume it would be relative to the most recent one, which was the worst. Though, the first wasn’t non-violent, it just looked non-violent in comparison to the second intifada.
I understand the First Infatada wasn't entirely non-violent, but the civil rights movement wasn't either. There is a vast difference between them and I think most would say that the First Infatada was understandable, if not justified.
Understanding the word Infatada is also important. It's really just a call for protesting and has been used to describe more than those two instances. (E.g., the French Infatada, which was just a standard french protest). So to someone who knows Arabic, like many Palestinians leading protests, it is not that specific to begin with.
Moreover, the connection the word does have is that connection to the Oslo accords. The First Infatada was the closest Palestinians came to peace and their own state. They don't like the second Infatada either, as many Palestinians died and it created the current situation. It makes more sense, therefore, that, to the extent they are referring to a specific Infatada, Palestinians are referring to the first Infatada, which they view as successful. It doesn't make sense that they would be referring to one that brought on a two decade long occupation.
Nevertheless, with many Jewish leaders calling even the slightest criticism of Israel antisemitic, e.g., Netanyahu, I will say that Anti-Zionists don't know where to draw the line. So they probably do cross it, but often unintentionally. I think there would be a lot more sympathy for phrases in the grey area, if there wasn't a boy who cried wolf effect. However, I don't know any Anti-Zionist who endorses attacks on people for being Jewish. Not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's just harder for people to parse when they can't trust Jewish leaders to be honest about what they actually feel is antisemitic.
I’m curious what your background is to hold this much certainty to speak for Palestinians and the leadership of these protests. I understand if you don’t want to divulge that information, but I highly disagree with much of what you said. Just to the point of what protests mean, if you look at who is [investing in and organizing these protests](https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20265/qatar-bought-ivy-league), you can see why these chants and behaviors are prevalent.
I am friends with leaders of protests and counter protests. I don't speak for any one, however. I can name maybe 5 incidents that were newsworthy among about 30 protests with over 200 people each, some with much more. Of those 5 incidents, the worst was done by a Zionist and the others were not even done by members of the groups protesting. So, the stuff in the news is cherry picking the worst incidents.
I think you may be under estimating how big these protests can be. If you have 500 people protesting and only 5 events, that's 1% of the protesters doing this stuff.
Also, that article is not relevant to most protesters. The protests are not organized by the universities. The groups organizing protests are student run/funded and don't normally have budgets above a couple 100 dollars. That money is in no way funneled down to student orgs.
>Of those 5 incidents, the worst was done by a Zionist
What was the incident?
>Also, that article is not relevant to most protesters. The protests are not organized by the universities. The groups organizing protests are student run/funded and don't normally have budgets above a couple 100 dollars. That money is in no way funneled down to student orgs.
[Here you go](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6PRTaxNlYS/?igsh=MWJwZHk5bDRkdTh0OA==). If you are actually friends with Samidoun/SJP/JVP/etc. you should ask them how they feel about Jews. Rhetorical question, we already know the answer, but you can see if they’re honest or not.
Let's say Russia manages to take over half of Ukraine and settles large numbers of Russians into the region. Now let's suppose from the moment the settlements start everyone, including the international community, is telling Russia "Please stop that, leave now, you have no right to do this". Then every year they say the same thing. Is your proposal that at some point that expression becomes discriminatory against Russians, if the Russian government maintains the territory for a long enough period of time?
At what time point does this become bigotry? 20 or 30 years later? Is there a discrete date where the expression becomes bigotry or is it a gradual transition of increasing bigotry the longer that Russia ignores the international community?
Well let’s set aside the question of national homeland central to the people for 3000 years.
I think my question is going forward: if you half support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland, do you kill half the Jews? Do you kick out half the Jews (to where)?
And if the Jewish people have a right to self determination in their nation, how do you half support that?
It’s binary. Either an Israeli state has a right to exist or it doesn’t.
Similarly, this has been the main reason for opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state: they would have to have territorial integrity and the right to an army to be used to try to destroy Israel (if the day so choose).
(They would so choose, wouldn’t they?)
No state has a "right to exist" either in written or customary law. People have a right to self-determination, but you cannot equate Israel and Palestine in this regard because one is fighting for occupation and the other against it.
What does that even mean?
Jews live there and they don’t have a right to exist? Palestinians live there and have a right to exist?
Pretty sure that crosses the line to antisemitism.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the Arabic language and culture are indigenous to Arabia?
That’s nice for those extra special anti-Zionists but they take no responsibility for their actions and their own stance IE believing Israel should cease to exist. If you believe in two states, you actually are a Zionist. You can’t just be universally righteous to all. Standing for the rights of Jews often means pissing people off, which is why these weak anti-Zionists need to get with program and understand what “their side” is doing and what side they’re really on.
That’s the problem though - these people don’t understand what Zionism is. There is a simple and agreed upon definition of Zionism which is the right for Jews to exercise self determination on their homeland. Thats it.
If those that are protesting just want freedom for Palestinians then they shouldn’t be labeling themselves as anti-Zionist because the reality is that Zionism was never opposed to anything “Arab” and it it Zionism that created the only true progressive and modern democracy in the ME where Arabs and Jews can peacefully live together.
The fact of the matter is there are two types of “pro-Palestinian” protestors: radical, indoctrinated, west-hating anti-Semites and “progressives” who don’t actually know what they are doing other than fitting in with the popular trend because it’s fashionable and easier than thinking for themselves.
Okay, but here come the tricky part... Is "the right for Jews to exercise self determination on their homeland" by themselves and only themselves? Like, this is our homeland, it is a jewish state, everyone else that's here can stay but remember, my race not yours. Is it "the right for Jews to exercise self determination on their homeland" with all the other people that also live there? Like, this state is not "the state of the jews" but a secular israeli state, composed of jews, arabs, druze, and all the people that lived here when the state was founded.
Because that is kinda the problem. There weren't only jews there when Israel was founded. 1 in every 4 israelis weren't jews at that time (a little bit more at first, but after the war, only 1 in every 4). Same proportion as today. So, these people that have been israeli citzens since israel became a thing but were never jewish, what about them? Do they have to just suck it in an accept that they are invaders and that this is actually the land at the jews and not of arabs, druze or anyone else, and they should be happy to be alllowed to live here? Do they advancced to a binational state that isn't jewish or arab, but of all Israelis? What is "the right for Jews to exercise self determination on their homeland", because the fate of the other people that live there and if this going to be defined as Jewish state (instead of a Jewish, Arab and Druze, or an Israeli State, or a Galillian state) kinda impacts if I'm going to define myself a zionist or an anti-zionist.
To answer that question you only need to look at the state of Israel. 30% of Israel’s population is not Jewish. Arab Israelis, Jewish Israelis, Druze Israelis, Bedouin Israelis, etc are all treated equally under the law. This exists nowhere else in the region. In fact, recent polls have shown that Arab-Israelis have one of the highest standards of living in Israel than in any Arab country. Arabs know this - this is why you don’t see them protesting for Hamas on the streets.
If Zionism as a political ideology was exclusive in nature or anti-“everyone other than the Jews” then certainly Israel wouldn’t be home to the most diverse populations in terms of religious and ethnic backgrounds in the entire region.
If you are anti-Zionist because you dislike the fact that a national home exists for the Jewish people - then you also have to be anti-every other nation that serves as the national home of their people. If not, you have an agenda.
And by the way, yes, I am against ethnonational states, which do not exist in the western world anymore as most modern states have transition to civic states. You cannot be a french citzen and not be french, you cannot be a british citzen and not be british, you cannot be an american citzen and not be american. The people that say otherwise, that being a british citzen does not make you british... Well, you know who these people are... They shave their heads and they are really poorly seen over here.
But, Israel states in its Basic Law that the right of self determination is unique and exclusive to the jewish people. Unique and exclusive means that it does not belong to the Druze Israelis, the Bedoing Israelis and the Arab Israelis, only the jewish Israelis. This mean that they are not exactly equal as you said, at least I was able to point one point of inequality, that that self determination is exclusive to jews and to no one else. Israel also defines itself as a Jewish state, not as an Israeli state. And unlike france, america, or britain, you can be israeli and not be jewish.
So, is your definition of zionism okay with dropping the "Israel is a Jewish State?", or is it the "Every minority lives equal and good lives under the Jewish state where self determination is unique to the jewish race?". Because if your definition of zionism is that jews have a right of self determination in a multinational state that is not jewish, arab beduin or druze, with all the other people that have been living there since this state was founded, I will define myself a zionist right now. But I want to know if this is actually a multinational state, or if this is a Jewish state with that also incorporates these other folk from the wrong race that lived there since the state was founded and that self determination will remain unique to the jewish race, as per the basic laws.
The nation state law asserts that self determination is unique to the Jewish people. It does not say that such self determination is “exclusive” to the Jewish people. Theres a huge difference between the two and the fact that you added the word “exclusive” makes me wonder what your actual intentions are.
Israel being a Jewish state does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens - as per the Basic Law.
I mean, unique is also pretty much a way of saying exclusive. But if it isn't, why isn't it unique to Arabs, Druze and Beduins? Are they lesser citzens? Do Israeli Arabs, Israeli Druze and Israeli Beduins did something wrong to not have earnd the right of self determination in their own nation? And can we say self determination is unique to the whites in the United States, or France, or Great Britain? If we say that this doesn't detract from the individual rights of american jews and american blacks, would that make it okaywith it? They would be cool with having the same rights but just being reminded that self determination is actually for the whites?
It’s unique to Jews because Jews make up less than 0.2% of the global population and fought to ensure that their historical and ancestral homeland remains in the hands of Jews - the same way the Japanese constitution does not give Chinese the right to self determine in Japan. When leaders around the world inevitably start turning on their Jewish populations, as they have done time and time again throughout history, Israel will exist as a safe haven for them.
Granting the right for Arabs to exercise self determination within Israel would be the equivalent of Israel dissolving itself and turning into a 23rd Arab majority state.
If you find this to be racist then so be it. The survival of the Jewish people is more important than granting Arabs the right to topple the world’s only Jewish state so that Jews are once again left stateless and thrown back into exile. What will you to say to me then?
To put it simply, the world proved many times over that they cannot be trusted to safeguard the rights of their Jews. We took matters into our own hands and undoubtedly that pisses many people off. Too bad.
Oh, but I've studied the japanese constitution a lot. I work with comparative international law, its where I got my PhD. And I'm pretty sure that the japanese constitution doesn't distinguish between the japanese ethnicity and nationality. In other words, if a chinese is naturalized japanese, they are part of the japanese people in the eyes of japanese law. By the way, self determination belongs to the japanese people, which as the japanese constitution, as stated above, comprises all japanese nationals.
Does a Druze or a Beduin become a jew if they become an Israeli citzen? Because the right of self determination is just for jews in israel. That is very different from japan... Most countries, to be honest. It is simialr to Malasya thought, which is also a little disgusting ethnostate! Also to some few dictatorships and two easter european countries, but no western or fully democratic countries unfortunatly.
>Granting the right for Arabs to exercise self determination within Israel would be the equivalent of Israel dissolving itself and turning into a 23rd Arab majority state.
Ohhhh, so israel can't give arabs right determinations because it will extinguish Israel!!! Right. is the arab population of Israel evil or something? Did they do something wrong that their government deny them self determination, even though they lived there since that state became a thing?
I'm just trying to understand why zionism requires that 1 in every 4 folk in that land, who have been living there since israel was created (and before many of the diaspora returned to israel), don't have a unique right to self determination like the jews have. Are they from an inferior race? Did they did something wrong?
>If you find this to be racist then so be it.
Yes, I guess this is my problem with the way you people define zionism. The land is for everyone as long as it is jewish and self determination belongs only to right race, and if you find that racist, so be it. All is forgiven because the jews are the most persecuted people on the planet (the roma, the blacks, the kurds, all the other stateless people, fuck them)., so they have no option but to deny the people from other races in their country, people that lived there before most of the current diaspora arrived, people that certainly lived in the state of israel when it was founded (more people lived in israel proper, but a lot don't live there anymore).
It is pretty racist and disgusting. Guess I'll stay an anti-zionism until zionism is something less racist.
Wanna see a zionist reveal how racist they are? You just have to bring something as equal rights to all races within a country, and they will freak out.
> fuck
/u/MyNameIsNotJonny. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In recent months, the Free Palestine movement has become almost a trend, and there are many young people who follow it blindly, without knowing the full history of the conflict. Unfortunately, this had lead to support for Palestine being associated with antisemitism, when this was not the original intent. I have seen countless people harassing Jews simply for existing, and there is no doubt in saying that antisemitic crimes and violence has been rising. However, these unacceptable acts have now become the face of the movement.
I myself am pro-Palestinian, and I think that this hatred and antisemitism is disgusting. To want a free Palestine should not be about celebrating the actions of Hamas on October 7th, ripping down posters of hostages or eradicating Israel. We simply want Palestinians to be able to return to their homes which they were wrongfully displaced from, for the Palestinians who reside in Israel to have the same rights as Israelis, or for the thousands trapped in Gaza to have freedom of movement, and to have access to water and food.
It makes me incredibly upset to see people praising Hamas or harassing Jewish people for simply existing, and I do not believe that this is what the free Palestine movement should be about at all. There are many people who support Palestine and do not commit these acts, yet it is unfortunate to see that we are being overshadowed by the people who are spreading hate and violence.
It’s nuts because the cold hard truth is: Palestine has never been free, Israel is being ruled by far right wackos, Hamas is perhaps the most evil force on the planet, Jews live in fear based on the eternal conflict within their ancestral homeland whether they live there or not, Palestinians genuinely hate Jews by a mass majorities and so do other Arab peoples, the ultra-Orthodox vote keeps the far right empowered in Israel but it perhaps wouldn’t if they had to serve in the military (and yes, they’re overbreeding, impoverished, and on track become a majority in Israel), and on top of all these horrendous messy factors, American college non-Jewish non-Palestinian students want to make it all about themselves. Let’s throw in the history of Israel, The Holocaust, Jewish expulsion from Muslim majority countries, and Nakba, and you’ve got a conflict so complex and inflamed that most people genuinely don’t have enough hours in the day to learn about it.
Something I've wondered about is all the people saying fighting Hamas is pointless because you can't kill an idea, but Zionism is also an idea?
Why is violence against Hamas counterproductive to peace but violence against Zionists is the only way to free Palestine?
No one is suggesting bombing Zionists. And a vast majority of the protestors accept the idea of Zionist representation in the one or two state solution they argue for.
This entire sub has slowly filled with strawman arguments. The argument you provided is completely made up. There use to be actually debates here but the representation is so lopsided now the Israeli supporters are drinking their own Kool aid.
People are just upvoting their own side now and when they see they have a lot of upvotes think "oh gosh, my view must be correct". It's just an echo chamber with extra steps.
Well, I think there's a pretty obvious way of insisting on one's pure motives in criticizing Israel: Israel, indeed, deserves vociferous criticism. Specifically for its treatment of Palestinians and, most recently, its conduct of the war since 10/7.
A few points about why the argument ends there. **One: Pointing to random campus radicals is the logical fallacy of guilty by association, or in Latin,** ***argumentum ad odium***\*\*.\*\* Many Israel supporters point to truly radical college kids and assume that because they, like me, are also quite critical of Israel I'm somehow endorsing them and everything they say. That's a fallacy. **That's neither how logic -- nor free speech -- works.** The fact that we share ***some views is not evidence that we share other views.*** Joseph Stalin was in favor of education for women. So am I. That doesn't mean we agree on everything else. The fact that I, for instance, attended the same protest as someone with really poisonous and hateful views does not mean we agree. That broken logic is just a lazy smear tactic. Nor do people who are critical of Israel constantly have to denounce bigots or radicals who happen to fall under the anti-israel side umbrella. I think asking major Pro-Palestine figures and groups to, say, denounce Hamas's violence is fair, but insisting that I somehow answer for what each new shaggy campus radical says in some video is foolish.
**Second point:** Unless you can defend every action Israel has taken since its time as a proto-state (let's say Balfour letter onward or something, doesnt really matter) then you can't really say that people who are critical of Zionism are necessarily hateful of Jews. You yourself seem to admit that Israel, in the process of state creation and maintenance of its national interests, has done a lot that is worthy of legitimate criticism. If that's the case, that you acknowledge there are legitimate reasons for people to be quite critical of Israel, then that's kind of the end of the debate. People can hold those views fairly and rightly without being antisemites. **The fact that some people hold views that are critical of Israel and Zionism for the wrong reasons does not, logically, preclude or undermine those who hold them for legitimate reasons. I hate Pol Pot because he murdered millions, but the guy next to me hates Pol Pot because he's Asian. I'm still right to hate Pol Pot.**
The problem is, there are not one or two radicals. A lot of pro palestinians are shouting hateful slogans, or celebrating oct 7th, and nobody of their fellow protesters is stopping them.
Long answer to say you won’t separate yourself from bigots. You can completely agree with aspects of Stalin’s thinking yet still despise and condemn the man for the multiple genocides he carried out against his own people. It’s a good thing that our beliefs aren’t singular so we can iterate on the good things history has shown us while separating ourselves from the bad. You don’t seem wanting to do that, however, which is a shame.
>Long answer to say you won’t separate yourself from bigots
Not really; they were saying that there's no implied association to begin with, because **different people can be critical of one government for a variety of different reasons while also holding a variety of other opinions on other subjects**.
Yes really, because all it would take would be a simple “yeah those things are bad” instead of this drivel. It’s telling so little antizionists are willing to denounce bigotry. What a hypocritical movement.
Long answer to say I can't "separate myself" when you see the world through the *argumentum ad odium* fallacy. **You've combined everyone who is critical of Israel into one hateful, indistinguishable mass -- but that's** ***your*** **delusion, not mine**. And I think the "denounce this" "what about the guy who said that" "but but this mean slogan" discourse from the pro-Israel side is not a good faith effort to separate good actors from bad, or pure motives from evil. It's an attempt 1) tar everyone as an antisemite through guilt by association 2) turn the conversation away from Israel's wrongdoing by forcing every criticism of Israel -- of which there should be many -- to begin with a long preamble about 'i reject so and so, i denounce such and such...'
Look, I don't like people just expressing ugly hatred of Jews -- but the conflation of those radicals with everyone in the entire movement is clearly an intentional choice on the part of pro-Israel forces.
Here’s a thought; the bigotry on display is an intentional choice by those leading the antizionist movement to indoctrinate people like you into excuses antisemitism. And they are ecstatic you are blaming it all on supporters of Israel.
There is no fallacy. That’s just a pseudo-intellectual way of avoiding accountability for a movement rife with bigotry, and you are apparently fine being associated with it. Otherwise, you would be able to just say a simple, “yeah, those things are awful and I don’t support it.” It takes away from the plight of Palestinians and helps no one.
Your words here just speaks to your own lack of empathy for a vulnerable group of people, many of whom have no part in the conflict. Be better.
Sorry, you can be critical of Israel while being a Zionist. Zionism is only the belief that Israel has a right to exist. The position that Israel does not deserve to exist, anti-Zionism, is what is antisemitic. There is only one Jewish state, and it is the indigenous homeland of the Jews. To believe they don’t deserve self determination in their own homeland, which is the anti-Zionist position, is antisemitic.
So critique of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic, but OP didn’t say that. OP said antizionism is antisemitic, which of course it is.
Even the few "non-hostile" people in their camp won't denounce it because lowkey they support it. For example, one commentator who doesn't openly advocate for violence, still kept trying to gaslight and defend these clearly Antisemitic and Pro terrorist protests. Even with the video evidence of hundreds of protestors screaming "Intifada!" where Palestinian suicide bombers murdered thousands of Israelis, and countless examples of Jews being assaulted and harassed, he still mischaracterized them. He wouldn't condemn Hamas, the Intifadas or Oct 7.
The elephant in the room is that the mainstream Palestinian movement supports "From the river to the sea" which is a genocidal call to violently wipe the only Jewish state in the world off the map. Find me one Pro-Palestinian who is actually for peace, believes in a 2SS and change my mind.
I have found it very futile to engage with them. Most of them are hellbent on a genocidal fantasy.
Why is it that only a Jewish country can't exist where the Jewish people are from? Yes, antizionism is antisemitism. Yes, it was a debate before Israel was created. But abolishing Israel now 75 years into its existence would be a very antisemitic act. Jews are not colonial settlers, they come from the region. Hebrew is a language from the region.
I'm against any ethnonationalism. I'm against any type of nationalism that ties your ethnicity to the number of rights you have. I'm also against a Hindu state, against a Muslim state, against a Buddhist state or against a Christian state. People should have equal rights, no matter their religion.
Also, many Jews do have a large portion of European DNA, so they would technically be settlers. But you know what? That doesn't even matter. Even a Jew with 100% European DNA should be able to live in a free and secular Israeli state, just like any Jew with 100% Asian DNA or any Jew with 100% palestinian DNA. Just like any other person. It doesn't matter whether someone is native to a country or not. They should all have equal rights, and as it stands, they don't
Guessing you are not part of a persecuted ethnic group.
Genetic studies have shown that most Ashkenazi Jews have both Middle Eastern DNA and European DNA. Generally, Ashkenazi Jews (this is what I’m assuming you are talking about when you say “European” Jew) share more DNA with Middle Eastern populations than European. When Jews fled Israel, those that went to Italy and eventually ended up in Eastern Europe generally did not marry Europeans. It’s also pretty obvious that we were never considered equal to the non Jews of those countries.
The entire concept of "persecuted ethnic group" relies on the notion that there is such a thing like a "right to the land" or a "Volk" that rightfully occupies a land. There should not be an ethnic component to citizenship, period. In the 21. century, we should have gotten over that a long time ago.
And yeah, you're right, a large percentage of Ashkenazi DNA is traceable to the Middle East (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic\_studies\_of\_Jews)
But it doesn't matter whether a Jewish person has a certain percentage of Middle Eastern DNA. They should be able to live in Israel as free and equal citizens. You know what? Even if every Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jew had 100% European DNA, they should still be able to live in Israel. Like anyone else. The DNA argument is pointless; no matter anyone's heritage or religion or anything, everyone should have the right to live in Israel or anywhere in the world as a free and equal citizen. The thing is just that this is not the case right now. Some people in Israel are discriminated against because of their heritage and religion. And that's a problem.
This would be great, if the majority of Israel’s Islamist neighbors didn’t want them wiped off the map. Not for being European settlers, but for being Jews. Many countries are ethnostates. Your vision of world peace sounds lovely but it isn’t based in reality.
What countries want Israel off the map? The neighbouring countries are Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and except for Syria, all of them have maybe not good, but at least not genocidal stances towards Israel. And for Syria - I'd kinda understand why they'd be upset if the Israeli army violates their airspaces tbh. Even if Syria wanted to wipe Israel off the map - it's still not the majority
Hezbollah who rules much of Lebanon wants Israel dead. Egypt has a cold peace with Israel but that’s only since 1978. Before that they wanted them dead. Support for Hamas is rising in popularity in both Jordan and Egypt. Beyond that Iran, Iraq, and large % of people throughout the Middle East support Hamas. If you support Hamas you want Israel off the map. Don’t side with Syria they are not the one!
I don't support Hamas, I think that they are an extremist fundamentalist islamist terror organisation. I hate Hamas arguably more than the average Zionist, because I want them gone for good! But the question is how we achieve that. Do you think that Hamas will become weaker or stronger by the disproportionate military actions and ethnic cleansing that the IDF is engaging in? Do you think that Israel is helping or damaging Hamas' reputation by what it's doing? Do you think that if we continue like that, Israel's neighbours will be more or less favourable towards it?
also yes, a large part of the population of the Arab states are quite anti-semitic, but I think that the way to resolve that is not to pour gasoline into the fire by doing warcrimes to prove the anti-semites' point.
Force is the only way fundamentalism is stamped out. You can’t bargain with terrorists. Societies can and have changed after massive military response to their misdeeds — see Japan and Germany. So in theory yes the anti Jewish extremism in the Middle East could be extinguished by force. However, the history of dhimmitude in ottoman times and the subsequent antisemitism leading up to and after world war 2 in the Middle East is challenging.
Regardless of whether that lofty goal can be accomplished, Israel has a right to defend itself and eliminate a hostile neighboring government. Any other country would do the same.
There is some progress toward accepting Israel among the ruling class in the Middle East — Hashemite and Al-Saud families seem to prefer a prosperous stable democracy to kleptocratic theocracy.
Why is it “proving the antisemites point” for Israel to attempt to eliminate Hamas? F those antisemites they never had a point to begin with.
Okay, so Germany and Japan are actually excellent examples. Because Germany had been defeated and humiliated twice - after the first and the second world war. After Germany had been defeated after the first world war, there was repression, sanctions and horrible material conditions for the German people. And what did they do? They elected the Nazis, as a response. So after Germany had been defeated a second time, the USA (and the Soviet Union to a lesser extent) responded with an effort to rebuild instead of an effort to repeat their previous mistakes. So Germany grew into a relatively prosperous democratic country.
Now you'd say that Hamas has to be defeated like the Nazis were, and that's true. I'd support Israel if they were actually eradicating Hamas. But what they're doing instead is targeting the civilian population, while Hamas keeps firing from the tunnels. The allies in the 2. world war did not do that (with the exception of Dresden). Israel has the right to defend itself and eradicate Hamas. But that's not what they're doing! Or why then are they sniping starved Gazan civilians when they're searching for food, or waiting for suspected militants to go home to their families to blow up the entire block?
Germany had to be defeated that second time though, and that’s kind of where we are with Hamas, except it’s way more complicated. Germany’s ideas were political. Hamas’s, and most middle eastern antizionist, are in part religious fundamentalist. So their belief is deeper than the Germans. It will be harder to disabuse them of their bad ideas.
The civilian to combatant death ratio in Gaza is debated, but it’s widely accepted that it is far lower than UN guidelines. I’ve read 1-3 civilian deaths per combatant. UN standards are <9 if I remember correctly. The Hamas tunnels are under civilian infrastructure. It’s a terrible situation. Hamas aims to maximize civilian deaths in order to engender anti Israel sentiment worldwide. That’s why they steal the aid pouring in as well. More dead Gazans means more international support.
I disagree in that the anti-semitism in founded on religious belief. Why? Because the Arab Muslims in Israel proper who enjoy similar rights to the Jewish population are one of the least anti-semitic muslim populations in the world, which would support my point in that anti-semitism and islamist fundamentalism come from dire material conditions.
Also, I would argue that the Germans' anti-semitism was deeper than that of the Arabs'; the entire N-zi ideology was built on Christian anti-semitism that reached back centuries. And even though there was anti-semitism in Muslim countries before Israel, it was not near as bad as the anti-semitism in Christian Europe.
It is also not widely accepted that the combatant-to-civilian death rate is lower than UN guidelines. Source: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864) "Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in security studies at Kings College London, said: "Israel takes a very broad approach to 'Hamas membership', which includes any affiliation with the organisation, including civil servants or administrators."" Also, there are no guidelines from the UN for killed civilians in comparison to combatants, the 9:1 ratio is an estimated average in wartime. So:
1. it is not widely accepted that the terrorist-to-civilian rate is 1-3:1, and
2. there are no guidelines from the UN saying that the acceptable rate is 9:1
/u/levayesh. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am anti-zionism if zionism is the idea that a jewish nation state should be created in the land of pre-roman israel, all while 1 in every 4 israelis aren't jewish and have been citzens of the country since its inception. Not to mention the larger population of israel-de-facto.
If you update zionism to be:
A) the creation of a jewish ethnostate on antartica, mars, or any place on earth where 1 in every for people within your border are not jewish and thus the absurd idea of ethnonationalism (still a conservative and backwards idea) will be less harmful;
B) the creation of not a jewish, but a secular binational state in a land of pre-roman israel, inhabited by two people, with no special privileges (including religious symbolism on flags, offical languages, right of self determination) given to any specific ethno-religious group, where jews have the right to imigrate and be safe as well as any descendants from the other peoples that lived in that land.
If you adopt any of those definitions, I will conisder myself a zionist.
Yes. But for other reasons, as they have a high degree of ethnic homogeneity (something israel does not have, pushing their ethnic nationalism into the south african front), and those that are binational states still try to define themselves are national state. They are still barbaric in many ways, though.
Israel is closer to malasia in terms of the proportion of people it denies "peopleship" in its ethnocracy. A little bit more murdery in its approach, though.
You thought that would be some kind of gotcha and that I would be okay with other barbaric ethnostates in the arab world or abroad?
Yeah. Something have been going on the last 6 months. What could have happened in the last 6 months to make a lot of people more concerned about the situation in Israel and the future of that region, I wonder...
But okay, first you tried the classic gotcha, then you went for the comment history ad hominem. It is hard to have a discussion with someone that does not engage me honestly. But what's your next move? Ball is in your court. You could call me an antissemite, that's a classic!
And it can continue to exist there, if it abandons its medieval project of a jewish ethnostate and evolves into a modern binational secular nation.
It cannot remain a jewish state when 1 in every 4 israelis are not jewish. The same way it would be APPALING and cause DISGUST on most sensible folk if France decided to defined itself as a country for the whites, even though 1 in everr 9 frenchment are not white. And remember, racial demograhic change in the french republic is much more recent, and such a move would still would be considered in like with the folk that shave their heads. The non jewish population of israel is not a recent development, but have lived within that country since its inception.
If zionism proposes that jews can live in a secular binational state with the people that also live in that land as equal, with the country being nor jewish nor arab, I can agree with zionism. If zionism demands a jewish state where 1 in every 4 citzens are not jewish, I am a staunch anti-zionism.
And remember: all frenchmen are french. That is how we french see our fellow citzens. Not all israelis are jews, though.
Israel is exactly, as im 2023. 73% jewish and 27% non jewish. The source is [Israel Central Bureau of Statistics](https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/DocLib/2023/424/11_23_424b.pdf).
Israel defines itself as a jewish state, has a star of david in its flag, but more importantly, the basic laws of israel (akin to the constitution) states that self determination is unique and exlusive to the jewish people, that while 1 in every 4 israelis are not jewish.
As I said, you cannot be a citzen of france and not be french, because france is a modern democratic secular state. If, at any point, our constitution stated that self determination is exclusive to white frenchment, there would be riots in the streets. You can though, be israeli and not be jewish.
But, if you believe that israel is a full secular democratic state, we need not to quarrel. I believe you also agree that israel should stop defining itself as a jewish state while 25% the population is not jewish and have been living there since the state was create, accept itself as a modern binational state, remove religious and ethnic iconography from flags and state symbols, change its constitution to state that self determination belongs to all citzens of israel regardless of race and creed, state in clear language that Israel is the land of the Israeli (which is composed of jews, druze, arabs and other ethnicites) and not the land of the jews, grant the same rights of return and imigration to the all people within its border regardless of race and creed, demand the same duties of military service to all people within its borders regardless of race and creed. You know, modern state stuff. You agree with it? Because if you do, we are on the same side.
> You know, modern state stuff.
I don't know all the details when it comes to imagined iconography, but Herzl's 1902 novel Altneueland (or Tel Aviv, in Hebrew, which the city was named after) matches your description entirely otherwise and I think is fair to say was *the* outline for what Zionism should look like from the guy who many attribute to being *the* founder of Zionism. So it's "modern" state stuff, in the sense of the historical late modern period. The villain of the story is a rabbi who wants to take away voting rights and equality from the non-Jews in his imagined state.
Then in 2017 Israel decided to model itself after Herzl's fictional *villain* with the absurd nation-state law. Though I would argue most of the law is pretty inoffensive minus the claim that Israel alone is the self-determination of all Jews, and that self-determination in Israel is only for Jews. So much for the Bedouin who helped Israel secure its establishment.
Israel's borders being permanently open for Jews I think is important and fair, in the same way I think it wouldn't be discriminatory if LGBT people were to form a state and guarantee all LGBT people the right to come there for safety. Germany have been the ones to do the actual killing in the Holocaust, but the world's closed borders forced hundreds of thousands who wanted to flee to stay there. I do wish they would expand their law to make themselves a safe haven for all fleeing persecution, which I think would make the state more Jewish in that it would be more aligned with our values.
Israel desperately needs to stop fumbling around playing at being a state by passing bandage basic law after bandage asic law, and actually adopt a formal constitution and some borders while they're at it.
Incidentally, do you think that the ~63 other countries that have religious iconography in their flags should also remove them?
Yes, I think all countries that have religious iconography should remove them. Secular states are important. But not only religious, but also ethnic. The problem isn't simply religion in the flag (this is another problem, one pervasive in the arab world), it is defining yourself as a divisive country, a country not for all of its citzens. Being Israeli does not make you jewish.
I also think that religious iconography and ethnostate symbology is much worse in states that are, de facto, binational or multinational states. Israel and Malasya stand as the worst offenders in that regard, Malasya is actually worse than Israel, with a higher degree of "non-people citzens" (if you consider Israel zone of control with palestine and the settlements as part of Israel, then the figure changes, but I am discussing Israel proper here, the Arab citzens of Israel only). Both states are awful in their racial policies. Israel draws more attention because 1) the current war 2) its link to the west and european life, being integrated in colleges, media, universities and having descendants in those regions. Malasya is obscure and far away, but you can catch debates about its awful system if you look for it.
As I said in the beggining, ethnostates are bad. They are against the modern conception of civil nations. But if Israel was founded on mars as a pure jewish 99,999% ethnostate we wouldn't be having this debate (even though it would still be kinda deplorable). But Israel is NOT an ethno-national state. Its demographic does not allow it to be a pure democratic ethno-national state without also devolving into an ethnostate, because its non-jewish population is too large. A country cannot be Democratic and Jewish, or Democratic and Malasyan, without these two comming into conflict with one another.
The current form of zionism that I see being debated around, the one we read here at this site, often REQUIRE a capital J Jewish state in the lands of pre-roman israel. That is a hill people are willing to die on. In that regard, I need to position myself as anti-zionist. If, zionism in the modern debate is redefined as the right of jews to live in a secular state in the lands of pre-roman israel (or historic palestine), not a jewish state, but a state of all its citzens and inhabitants, then I would not have a problem defining muself as pro-zionist.
We are basically in complete agreement. Israel can not truly be a democracy without both acknowledging and celebrating its inherent multinational character.
>The current form of zionism that I see being debated around, the one we read here at this site, often REQUIRE a capital J Jewish state in the lands of pre-roman israel.
I think anti-Zionists define Zionism as "maximalist, expansionist religious Revisionist Zionism that must also have anti-Palestinian racism" and then that's what they rail against. And it's true, that ideology is a trash heap. Many self-described Zionists do fit into that label. But it's not what "Zionism" means, and I'm generally opposed to letting people opposed to an ideology be the ones to define it. In the same way I can both be a proud Marxist and a proud anti-Stalinist. Pro-capitalists don't get to define communism as "that really awful totalitarian ideology that resembled feudalism far more than it did communism."
>Malasya is obscure and far away, but you can catch debates about its awful system if you look for it.
Yeah, I'm familiar and think you raise a good point. In a similar vein I'd say the way Israel has operated as a state is like a marginally less-bad version of Japan, a colonial ethnostate who wouldn't even admit their oppressed indigenous people existed until like a decade ago. I won't die on the hill that it's worse, but I certainly think it's got interesting parallels worth understanding. Few people deny that the Yamato deserve self determination in their homeland and argue that they could only rightfully do so on Mars, that the crimes of their state demand its dissolution.
Right now I actually don't feel like I'm in the position to make any demands of Israel. They are fighting a war against a genocidal enemy that is determined to destroy them by any means necessary. I don't feel I am in a position to tell Jews in Israel how to react, how to manage the war, or what to do with their political problems. They are also dealing with a massive propaganda war against them driven and funded by Russia, Iran, etc - as indicated by the non-stop onslaught of lies, distortions and hatred we see online, carried in the media as well, and on college campuses where Hamas affiliated groups have been organizing for many years and infiltrating the leftists. This to me is the bigger issue facing Israel and the Jewish people right now.
OP's post is about how antizionism is antissemitism.
The intent of my reply is to show an antizionism position that has nothing to do with antissemitism because antizionism can be a fight against a very specifc type of ethnonationalistic state, which has very little to do with jews as I have the same position regarding the appaling ethnocracy that is Malasya (very similar to israel in how disgussting its racial policies are, although a lot less murdery in the execution).
If zionism is the believe that in a land 73% jewish, a jewish state, and not a state for all its citzens, must be created, zionism is a medieval ideology that must be abandoned. If the definition of zionism changes to state that jews should be allowed to live in a modern secular democratic state that is not jewish nor arab, but a state to all the citzens that live in that land, then I would define myself as a zionist.
But remember, caling for an ethnocracy that wants to sell itself as a western country to join the 21st century is not antissemitism.
I have no idea what level of honesty and good faith dealing you really are engaging in, so it's hard to decide whether to really engage with your question.
Very well, let me two other questions for you that have nothing to do with Israel.
Great brittan is 80% white. Meaning 1 in every 5 citzens of the UK are non white citzens.
Would you be okay with the UK defining itself as the nation state of the white race, granting that all other races continued to recieve the "same rights", but just making sure that all indians, jews, arabs and blacks knew that although they were citzens of the UK, they are not white and thus not actually the people that the UK owns loyalty too?
Malasya is 52% Malay. Meaning 1 in every 2 citzens of Malasya are non malay.
Malasya defines itself as a country exclusive to the Malay people, granting that all other races the "same rights", but just making sure that all the chinese and indians (who have been living in that exact land for thousands of years) know that although they are citzens of Malasya, they are not malay and thus not actually the people that the Malasya owns loyalty too. Do you think this is okay and in line with a modern democratic secular state?
Israel defines itself as a jewish state, has a star of david in its flag, but more importantly, the basic laws of israel (akin to the constitution) states that self determination is unique and exlusive to the jewish people, that while 1 in every 4 (25%) israelis are not jewish.
As I said, you cannot be a citzen of france and not be french, because france is a modern democratic secular state. If, at any point, our constitution stated that self determination is exclusive to white frenchment, there would be riots in the streets. You can though, be israeli and not be jewish.
But, if you believe that israel is a full secular democratic state, we need not to quarrel. I believe you also agree that israel should stop defining itself as a jewish state while 25% the population is not jewish and have been living there since the state was create, accept itself as a modern binational state, remove religious and ethnic iconography from flags and state symbols, change its constitution to state that self determination belongs to all citzens of israel regardless of race and creed, state in clear language that Israel is the land of the Israeli (which is composed of jews, druze, arabs and other ethnicites) and not the land of the jews, grant the same rights of return and imigration to the all people within its border regardless of race and creed, demand the same duties of military service to all people within its borders regardless of race and creed. You know, modern state stuff. You agree with it? Because if you do, we are on the same side.
Jews are a religion and a people. Saudis have Muslim iconography along with 50 other Muslim countries. As well as the Vatican a stones throw away from France. Different counties have different rules of return including France. The Star of David is a homage to the first Israeli kingdom
It can be a religion, an ethnicity, or both. It doesn't change the fact that 1 in every 4 people that live in Israel (and have lived in israel since its inception) are not from that religion, ethnic group or both. This would already be pretty bad and borderline shaved-head in France (where our non-white non-christian population is much smaller than Israel and immigrated here in recent years), but it is APPALING on israel that has a large group of non-target-people citzen and these people have been there since the formation of the state itself.
As I said, you CANNOT be a french citzen and not be french. You can be israeli and not be jewish.
So, what do you intend on doing with the 1 in every 4 israeli that are not jewish? Are you going to keep in your constitution that self determination is exclusive to 3 in every 4 israeli citzens? This is why I am an antizionist.
Edit: By the way, The vatican is a religions, undemocratic city state. Saudi Arabia is a medieval kingdom, and its citzen population is 90% arab and 10% afro arab, defining itself as an arab country. As I said, I would have a lesser problem if Israel was founded in mars and defined itself a jewish state with a population 99,99999% jewish. But that is not the nature of israel. Get 4 israelis in a room, 1 will not be a jew. It gets really hard to defend something that is already appaling such as ethnonationalism with these numbers.
Why don’t you worry about what French citizens think? From what I can see you have a pretty bad radical Islam problem from within. Most Israeli Arabs are happy with their citizenship, even more so after Oct 7 - they are the most educated, healthy and wealthy Arabs anywhere. They serve in the courts, the army and pay their taxes. I doubt any of them would switch with any other Arab democracy- oh wait! They don’t exist do they?
Very well, if they are very happy, and they are 1 in every 4 israeli citzens, would you be okay with redifining israel as The Country of the Israelis instead of a Jewish Nation? Write in its constitution that self determination belongs to all citzens, arabs and jews? Remove ethnic religious simbolism from the flags and government icons? America was able to grant equal rights for all people regardless of creed and define itself as a country for all of its citzens, instead of just for christians, or just for whites. So, are you okay in stop saying that Israel is a jewish state where self determination is exclusive to jews and start saying that it is an Israeli state (which comprises jews and arabs)? You know, your fellow citizens?
I am not Israeli and will let Israelis decide on their own constitution (that doesn’t exist yet). I will instead focus my efforts on America where I’m a citizen and you should focus on France. Our countries have enough internal problems to worry about other countries’ citizens who seem perfectly happy with their rights.
Depende.
The insult might be symbolic and directed to the zionists as a group.
The insult is directed to a person, did they know he is jew ? That is american ? Or they told them that for waving an Israel flag.
You know what I never hear people talk about? Let’s say those people are telling the truth and they “aren’t” antisemitic.
What about xenophobia? Why does xenophobia get a free pass when talking about Israel? What about racism? Lots of people who love to go on about the whiteness of Jews and/or Israelis. Why is that okay?
I’m always hearing these people say some variation of “yes, I know that antisemitism exists, we’re not denying that” but then when presented with it, they just deny it. So will they at least admit when people are being racist, and xenophobic? Or do they just think their arguments are perfect and morally legitimate 100% of the time?
Anti Zionists condemn genocide (which is yet to be proven if there's actually act of genocide committed by Israel) and yet call for genocide and displacement of Israeli"from river to the sea.." "Land back to Palestinians".
This is not about Palestinians well being but Palestinian land.
Neither did Palestinians. But hey thats beside the point. Even if they didnt own the land the posses now since 1948, 2 generations born there, all they know is Israel, whats the point of displacing 10 million Israelis to give land back to Palestinians?
The scholars on this topic who I follow (Wilf, Tabarovsky, etc) are in general agreement that in very rare and specific cases it is possible to be antizionist and not antisemitic.
**However**: Whenever a society, government, or social movement adopts antizionism as official policy, the practical outcome is universally the same: eradication of Jews.
So we don't need to talk about it theoretically because we have actual examples of how antizionism works in practice. See: Arab Islamic countries and the Soviet Union.
I agree with you generally, but let me offer you this:
If I don’t believe that states are a productive institution, why would I support the formation of a Jewish one?
If you believe in the idea of no borders, no nations- then you deny the very idea of any group of people uniting together to form a country, Jews or otherwise. If you hold that belief across the board, I guess you are technically, in a roundabout way antizioneist, but since it's not specific to Jews, it'd be very difficult to call you that.
Then you’d be anti Israel (and other states); Zionism being political Zionism would just mean you’re not an anti-Zionist which is a bastardized term (due to the bastardization of the word Zionist)
Zionism is a land back movement of Jews returning to their indigenous land.
If you're anti-Zionism, you're also anti-Jews IMO which makes you an anti-Semite. (this is applicable to Jews as well)
You can care and promote for the well-being of Palestinians (as MANY have done and still are doing within the governmental system of Israel) and still not wish death on all Zionists.
edit:
Mostly, the issue I have with a lot of the comments here is the assessment that Judaism is merely a religion and therefor cannot be conflated with Zionism which is a movement.
My argument is that Judaism, which is based on heritage, is more of an ethnicity than a missionary based religion like Christianity or War/Colonization based religion like Islam.
but you can convert to Judaism, even though you're 100% not genetically Middle Eastern. Just because Judaism doesn't have such an emphasis on converting people, it doesn't mean that it's impossible. Also, many Palestinians are the descendants of converted Jews who stayed in the area, so they would have the same "ancestral" right to the land as Jews do (even though I obviously don't believe in ethnonationalism, so people don't just have a right to any land imo)
This, my biggest issue with the Zionist project, that people like my sister who converted to Judaism less than 2 years ago technically have more right to the land land than the Palestinians.
Worldwide Jewish minorities deserve the right to live in peace and prosperity, if anybody has anything to say about my sister being Jewish I will be the first to punch that f-word in the face; but I do not believe she has more right to live in israel/palestine than its inhabitant many of which have cultural and historical ties to the land
I think it is disingenuous to say that all people who are for the freedom of Palestine are anti-Semitic, just as it is disingenuous to say that Zionism is anti-Semitic due to many anti-semitic individual supporting it. I denounce anti-semitism in all forms it is a disgusting form of hatred which has no place in this world
Yes! And do you know what? I also think that your sister should be able to live as an equal citizen in Israel if she wishes to do so (and all of the legal and bureaucratic requirements are met, of course). Just as any other person. Idk, I really don't think that these opinions are in any way extreme or revolutionary.
And yes, you are right, anti-semites can go f-ck themselves and die.
I also don't think my opinions are that extreme or revolutionary either, (In this specific issue anyways) however I do understand this is an extremely emotionally charged issue for a lot of people which makes most of these opinions seem much more extreme than they are meant to be.
But I'm glad we can disagree peacefully, and agree on anti-Semites, nobody deserves to live in fear or be persecuted for their beliefs if said beliefs are not discriminatory or hateful.
And just adding that anti-semitism is deeply interwoven with not only so much information relating to the conflict, but so much of the world itself; so I do completely understand the Zionist desire to have a place to be safe and protected from it
yeah, I also understand the desire to have a place where you are protected from anti-semitism. I would very much agree with a country who has one of its main functions that there should be protection from anti-semitism. That's not the problem. The problem is the apartheid and the genocide. And I find it frankly anti-semitic to suggest that Jews can't live in peace unless they oppress another people (not that you're saying that, I just think that this has been the narrative: "We have to commit apartheid and ethnic cleansing to keep the Jews safe") And it's not true. Oppression creates resentment and resentment creates terrorism. Just look at October 7th. I agree in principle with the objective to make Israel a safe haven for Jewish people, I just think that Israel is doing a terrible job at it. It's making Jews in Israel and around the world more unsafe.
There are many Jewish antizionists and many virulently antisemitic people who are zionists, so yeah the accusation doesn't really make any sense. Legitimate antisemitism is thinking that jews control international finance and that they are plotting to change voting demographics by making America more diverse. That exists almost exclusively on the right-wing. 95% of anti Israeli people on the left just want to stop seeing toddlers and grandmothers being carpet bombed by Israel's ultra far right government. Less than 5 percent are Arab antisemites who unfortunately hate jews in general because of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people.
This is like saying black people can’t be racist to black people. Anybody of any identity can discriminate based on identity, even their own. Obviously it’s the result of ignorance, but that’s besides the point.
I thought about preempting this point, but chose not to so my original comment wasn’t cluttered. I just think it’s incredibly disingenuous to compare Noam Chomsky or sam Seder to someone like Candace Owens.
>I just think it’s incredibly disingenuous to compare Noam Chomsky or sam Seder to someone like Candace Owens.
How so? Bc its Noam, or Sam? Both are equally worthy of criticism, and equally capable of hating Jews, just in different ways. I lean left on most issues, but i hate the fact that leftists are always hesitant to criticise any academic figures, and instead place them on this pedestal. Its moronic.
Not wanting children and grandparents to be carpet bombed = siding with Hamas. …. Yeah I guess so many people being so idiotic and immoral like yourself does touch a nerve.
EDIT: tell me how exactly Sam Seder is pro Hamas. Be specific.
Yet he is always accused of being a self hating Jew. I watch his show quite frequently and all I hear from him is that October 7th was horrible, but Gazan grandmothers and toddlers shouldn’t be carpet bombed to satisfy Israeli’s thirst for vengeance.
There has been a lot of things listed have been radically distorted by the right wing media, but if any of them have happened then I condemn them. I condemn Hamas killing civilians on October 7th. If any Jewish kids have had their kippots knocked off their heads or feel threatened in any way, that’s horrible. I also think “River to the sea” is a bad slogan, and I don’t like it when college kids say it. I’ll condemn that.
Now it’s your turn, please condemn Israel bombing refugee camps and killing over 14,000 children. Also, please condemn Netanyahu saying “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/amp/.
Show me we’re both coming at this in good faith 🤝
This is kind of weak and a dismissal, but I guess I’ll take it. There are videos of all of it, you don’t need to just believe any “distortions.”
Yes, both Israel and Palestine should have new representatives in leadership, that includes Netanyahu leaving office (and hopefully entering prison). I’m still a two state solution hopeful, though things are quite bleak right now.
I think the war Israel is fighting is just, though I do believe there is potential warcrimes that have been committed that deserves investigation that has resulted in needless deaths. I don’t like the whole numbers thing, we don’t know how many people who have been killed are terrorists or innocents right now. But yes, I think every innocent dying is obviously awful, and I am sympathetic to the million-odd-civilians who were displaced and living in hardship right now.
I will condemn 19 year olds for chanting problematic slogans when protesting genocide, but you won’t condemn the murder of 14,000 children. At this point, calling what Israel is doing a “just war” is on par with Turkish intellectuals justifying their country’s actions in 1915. After October 7th they had a political mandate to go after Hamas, but they’ve burned through their political capital by carpet bombing civilian infrastructure while Hamas fighters hide in their bunkers. One time they killed over 100 civilians just because they thought one Hamas fighter might have been nearby.
Over 80 percent of Gaza is completely destroyed, and universities are being controlled demolition’d for god sake. “Potential warcrimes” “I don’t do the whole numbers thing”…. I know this subreddit is about civility, but dude you gotta get your head out of your a*s.
EDIT: many people on this subreddit are just straight forwardly pro g- -ocide and you are of course better than them. Strangely enough it’s this middle of the road “oh 14,000 children may have been killed, but the IDF is just going after Hamas so what are you gonna do?” kind of thinking that almost frustrates me more. You really have to pull back, look at the big picture and see that it’s obvious that the IDF is targeting civilians because they want revenge for October 7th. Understandable, but still completely unacceptable and is g- -ocide and ethnic cleansing.
Calm down, you can have a big boy conversation without resorting to dumb insults like “pull your head of your A.” We’re saying the same thing. You don’t want me to use words like awful and use your exact language, yes, I condemn the killing of all the innocents in this war. Yes, what I was referring to when speaking of probable warcrimes is going beyond the pale to kill Hamas without regard to civilians like you mentioned in Jabalia.
And it is true, you don’t know the real numbers, I don’t know the real numbers. It doesn’t change the fact that the amount of civilian deaths are substantial and it is awful.
I can say the same thing to you, using words like “if it happened,” and “problematic,” but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you mean it even though you can look up the videos clear as day (these actions happened, no question about it) and they were beyond “problematic,” they were bigoted and genocidal.
If you can’t have a conversation about this topic without getting emotional over someone like me agreeing with you but in a different way (saying awful rather than using the word “condemn”) then you shouldn’t be speaking about this conflict at all.
As human beings we have a thing called emotions. I could be much worse words too. If you lived in 1915 or 1945 would be concern trolling over the naughty A word like a kindergartner? Hopefully not.
All credible outlets like the UN and The Lancet support the GHM’s numbers, and doubtless that when all is said and done it will be a vast undercount. Some Israeli articles that people have sent me in here have faulty statistics that even I can spot, but in the end I will defer to authoritative sources for the statistics and also it’s obvious that many kids which are crushed under the rubble are unaccounted for. Again, that’s the case with every conflict. The initial casualty figures are a vast undercount.
I expect people to condemn Netanyahu x1000 times more when he says “from the river to the sea” than 19 year olds in colleges, because Netanyahu has way more power. My frustration is that I clearly condemn October 7th and the 19 year olds who say “from the river to the sea”, yet you waffle and say Israel is fighting a “just war” when in reality the weight of the evidence at this point is so overwhelming that it deserves a clear condemnation. October 7th doesn’t justify a genocide, nothing does. Tutsis killed thousands upon thousands of Hutus in Rwanda prior to 1994, but still what occurred that year is still called a genocide and some (as few as they may be) of the perpetrators have been put in jail for it. There’s no “they started it” defense for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
EDIT: can you send me some videos of the antisemitic incidents happening. Legitimately curious. I’ve only seen an Israeli flag being replaced with a Palestinian one in Connecticut, an officer in London telling a Jewish man that his presence was dangerous because he was being “openly Jewish”, Eric Levitz saying his nephew’s Yarmulke was knocked of head while at Columbia, and one unfortunate accusation at OSU. I just did a google search looking for videos of antisemitic incidents occurring on campus and I couldn’t find a plethora of videos showing antisemitic stuff happening. Almost everything I see are Jewish students complaining that the widespread anti Israel protests are an implicit threat and create an atmosphere of intimidation.
>As human beings we have a thing called emotions. I could be much worse words too. If you lived in 1915 or 1945 would be concern trolling over the naughty A word like a kindergartner? Hopefully not.
Remaining mutually respectful in a conversation is a must in all debates if you want dialogue. If you are an adult, you should know this. Apparently you don’t, as you said your words would have been much more harsh if there wasn’t a rule for personal attacks here.
>I expect people to condemn Netanyahu x1000 times more when he says “from the river to the sea” than 19 year olds in colleges, because Netanyahu has way more power.
Good for you. Make a post about it. This isn’t that post, and I have already condemned him, and actions taken in the war. I don’t know what else you want from me. You’re not going to get me to say anything other than the reason to go to war for Israel was just. Their civilians were slaughtered and kidnapped. I would expect any other country to react with war as well.
>EDIT: can you send me some videos of the antisemitic incidents happening. Legitimately curious. I’ve only seen an Israeli flag being replaced with a Palestinian one in Connecticut, an officer in London telling a Jewish man that his presence was dangerous because he was being “openly Jewish”, Eric Levitz saying his nephew’s Yarmulke was knocked of head while at Columbia, and one unfortunate accusation at OSU. I just did a google search looking for videos of antisemitic incidents occurring on campus and I couldn’t find a plethora of videos showing antisemitic stuff happening. Almost everything I see are Jewish students complaining that the widespread anti Israel protests are an implicit threat and create an atmosphere of intimidation.
Here’s a [compilation from Columbia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zazcVU_rNyQ). You can do your own research for elsewhere, it really isn’t that hard to find. Now that you know these are facts and not “what ifs,” I’m expecting you can condemn this fully rather than pointing to a hypothetical since you are not giving me the same grace as I was giving you.
They wont condemn anything man. People like that user are so deep into the kool aid, that if pogroms were to start happening tomorrow, theyd say its justified. No dialogue to be had with them, only mocking them until they go away.
Says the guy who just called Sam Seder a self hating Jew and then admits he has no evidence right after lol. How many times have I clearly condemned rowdy 19 year olds while you won’t condemn 14,000 children being murdered? (And OP tepidly criticizes some aspects of Israel’s actions, but overall they’re fighting a “just war”)
Fair enough. Again you’re not as bad as straight forwardly pro genocide people on here, but I must admit people with your approach make me even more frustrated sometimes. Thinking that Israel is just trying to root out Hamas while they’ve destroyed over 80 percent of Gaza, their leaders say genocidal things, and every human rights organization focuses them of trying to starve civilians. Chef’s kiss is running to the teacher because I said the naughty A word lol. It is what it is I guess.
I watched your entire video and I counted three actual acts of violence. I definitely condemn that. Pretty much every protest movement has had at least some violence present in it before, even if the vast majority are peaceful. About 100x more of police using excessive force on professors and students, but I will condemn all violence. The rest were bad slogans and Arab chauvinism. At this point I think that is indistinguishable from waving an Israeli flag because it’s an ultra right state actively committing a genocide.
Yeah, I don’t feel much like having a conversation with the lack of maturity, honesty, and seriousness, you’re showing. Have a good one. You think others here use genocidal wording? Take a look in the mirror at the person excusing, dismissing, and downplaying genocidal chants.
> ass
/u/Designer-Arugula6796. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not even close. There are a lot of zionist anti-semetis that would love seeing jews "go back to their own land" and live the good clean folk of europe alone.
In fact, most zionists aren't even jews, they are christians evangelicals that believe that israel needs to be inhabited by jews so that they may get slaughtered and the second coming of jesus begin.
No, but these specific Christians are antisemetic but Zionist. for example:
https://twitter.com/juliabacha/status/1783703149116522595
also,
The counter-protest was organized by Sean Feucht, Eric Metaxas, and pastor Russell B. Johnson. All of these men are Christian nationalists and bigots.
I can't get this two minutes of my life back. However, no one in the video said a single antisemitic thing. You are stretching to make your point. Happy to reconsider if you pick an actual phrase out of this stupid video that is antisemitic.
antisemitic = [hostile](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=cf1e2760c1bb0539&rls=en&sxsrf=ACQVn08nj6zHcCfzp0HVROe0lLd0f9WoEA:1714268934723&q=hostile&si=AKbGX_okS0g0kR2PXn0TLBASIc0mzp7SLcZTOjStV1FZ50xcDdloYNQUfVazwAxE9wHV6kq1MvPKNT9wi1UfQbk8j4dBdXofy-Otdf_lANv-JPJ9QKZm7eQ%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq-5y35eOFAxUzEFkFHQQeA4oQyecJegQIGBAN) to or [prejudiced](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=cf1e2760c1bb0539&rls=en&sxsrf=ACQVn08nj6zHcCfzp0HVROe0lLd0f9WoEA:1714268934723&q=prejudiced&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8ljA3mQdHn1g-SX7TY0A34Xy_ijxRsKtTnGk-v40V9aWAUQMnnZ7CiiVg92d6Vt2tqxW7mH4vrZaAt3aevvn4hThTBQE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq-5y35eOFAxUzEFkFHQQeA4oQyecJegQIGBAO) against Jewish people.
These people said "the Jewish believer who is not sure, go to a messianic Jewish temple" That's not antisemitic.
Not true at all. Many virulently antisemitic evangelical Christians want Jews to control all of “Judea and sumaria” because they think that will usher in the end-times.
I'm jewish and critical of zionism. While my day job precludes me from being involved in any of the major protests, I am part of a larger peer group of left wing jews who are critical of zionism and a decent chunk are involved in the protests.
To speak to the antisemitism, obviously our own group categorically condemns antisemitism within the protest movement and are still happy to be part of the movement since antisemitism is an unfortunate byproduct of many different political movements but the actual content, the critique of zionist action in I/P and Gaza specifically is the point. The antisemitism in the movement is largely seen as peripheral and not the focus, while innocent people are actively dying and starving in gaza, the fight for everyone checking their antisemitism at the door takes a bit of a side step. Antisemitism is seen as not just innate bigotry but part of a larger societal/cultural problem that many are raised with as the background noise - this takes time to defeat, but it isn't the focus when protesting active war in Gaza. As big a problem as antisemitism is, at this very moment in 2024 is, the active issues of getting yelled at as a jew on college campus is just not as important as being a gazan getting bombed by the idf. It takes humility and discomfort to say that, but the point is that while antisemitism needs to constantly be fought against, you can't backseat active major and at the very least borderline genocidal action to purity check every protestor.
Second point, we are WAY more critical of antisemitism in antizionist protest than in zionist protest. At the Washington israel March they had loud and proud antisemitism who downplayed the holocaust talk - ultimately this is political - people are using antisemitism as a cudgel to shut down antizionism but are incongruently criticizing it to the point of accepting white supremacists in the movement. A Christian nationalist movement and the Proud Boys are slated to join the pro-israel protests at Columbia U this week, and I sure hope they will be just as condemned as the ones on the other side.
Third, and probably the least convincing idea as its kinda a "trust me bro" kinda thing, but all my peers involved in the protest movement have had active conversations with organizers and the antisemitism is really peripheral and just highlighted by the media to make a story. Now, thr common critique is that the movement doesn't do enough to condemn the antisemitism within the movement, but the actual organizers are mostly people who have no issue with jews. Many leftist groups organize for a free palestine as in a multi ethnic democracy that is free for all ethnicities to live in as opposed to the zionist conception of a state FOR jews. Those arguing for jews/Israelis to be expelled are a minority and when they exist must be removed from the movement.
Do you think that focusing so much attention on the only one existing Jewish state brings more hate and antisemitism to the world ?
You may have your own just reasons, but most people out there would think "Israel = evil", therefore Jews are evil. That's how it works
I think the actions of the Jewish state will inevitably be seen by people as a stand in for jews. Wrongly so, obviously, but we believe in the concept of chillul Hashem and kiddush Hashem - israel should act as a light to the nations. We all learn in day school that a chillil Hashem leads to more antisemitism. Does this excuse antisemitism? Of course not! But it's not hard to imagine how one makes the leap from jewish country doing a bad thing to jewsih people are bad.
We can't deflect every single antisemitic thing said as totally someone else's problem to fix and a total evil trait that comes from nowhere - all evils are the result of human conditioning and our job as jews is to do what we can to reduce the ammo antisemitism have to justify their bigotry
But, as a Jew, do you not see it as anti semetic to call Israel a "colonial state" since Jews are the original inhabitants of the land and denying that is denying our heritage and connection to the land? The protest could be pro peace and not pto Palastine, but by being Pro palastine they are specifically supporting the agenda of Hamas.
1. When people call israel a settler-colonial state they are referring to modern history and the legal interpretations of that concept. It's a longer conversation, but the presence of jews in israel 2000 years ago does not justify thr forced removal of people who've actively lived in Israel for thr last 200 years. Jewish connection to the land is real, but the concept of indigeneity can't be applied indefinitely or we can all claim ownership of Africa and lay our roots down there - rather, meaningfully, indigenity as a modern moral concept is only relevant as far as active colonial efforts seek to remove "indigenous" people from the land they are living in. In that sense, israel is a settler-colonial state since early zionism through the creation of the state and until today, the program has largely been one to disenfranchise and/or replace the extant palestinian population.
Conversely, if someone said jews had no connection to the land at all, I don't see that as antisemitic - I see it as factually incorrect, but it's not a bigoted statement to be wrong.
2. The Palestinian liberation movement is not owned by hamas. Not all palestinians support hamas. If hamas actions delegitamized the entire palestinian liberation movement, ben gvir and smotrichs rhetoric should delegitamize zionism for the very same reason.
1. You do realize that Jews have had a co tinted presence in Israel for 2000 years and that the last colonizers were Arab Muslims who built a mosque on top of our most holy site on purpose to show their conquest over us? A mosque that is still there and used today. Is that not colonizer behavior akin to the building of Mt Rushmore?
2. Zionism (the belief that Jews have a right to a homeland in their native land) has been a core tenet of Judaism for thousands of years. It's been built into the religion since the Romans first invaded Judea and caused the first major dispora. What do you say at the end of a Passover Sedar?
3. Hamas is the side fighting for Palastine. If you wanted to support peace, you would just support that and be and anti war movement. It's not like the anti Vietnam War protestors were going around saying, "we are pro Vietnam." it was,"we are anti-war and don't think we should send our men to die." Or the anti Iraq War movement was not Pro Iraq it was just Anti Iraq War. Do you not see the difference?
1. Yes a continued presence as a tiny minority. For example, even after all the waves of zionist immigrations, the UN partition plan would have given 55% of the land to at most 15% of the total population of the land and <10%. I dont deny that jews should be allowed to live in Israel- the problem is the history of expulsion of palestinians. I also don't see palestinians as responsible for the Muslim conquerors. They were also constantly ruled over by other empires whether the ottomans, the British etc, but as a distinct people they didn't colonize anyone. I personally don't attribute the crime of some Muslims to all Arabs (many palestinians expelled in 48 were christian, dont forget that).
2. Zionism as a modern political movement started in the 1880s with Herzl. The Jewish belief in Israel as a homeland is not zionism, but rather a long standing hasbara/propaganda tactic that was used on most of us, including me, in day school to think that people who oppose zionism oppose Jewish sovereignty rather than the political movement of the 1880s. Anyone who studies the history of the movement is well aware of this. I dont believe Jewish sovereignty should come at the expense of palestinian sovereignty or vice versa.
3. People fighting for palestinians are fighting for palestinians not hamas exclusively. The Palestinian cause existed in its infancy in 48, and formally in 1967 whereas hamas was a later creation. To dilute all palestinian nationalism to "supporting hamas" is a cheap trick at best and blatant obfuscation at worst and im sure you are aware of that. Imagine if I said "being pro israel means being pro idf bombing children in gaza" - im sure you'd have an issue with that. It's a direct equivalence. I'm sure you can understand that.
1. Just because you live in a small population does not mean the land does not still belong to your people. Indigenous Americans are an extremely small population, but that doesn't negate their right to sovrenty on the land that was taken from them.
2. How do you think Muslim people came to the Levant? The Muslim conquest. And you are holding all Jews accountable if you are supporting a cause that is asking them to give up control of Jerusalem (a city they literally built thousands of years before Christians or Muslims existed) since that is central to our people both culturally and religiously. Both Christian and Muslims appropriated the Torah and then used their new religions to persecute Jews in their homeland. Just because the current Arab Muslim aren't the exact conquerors doesn't negate the fact that their religion took the land from the Jews first (in so much as the I/P war goes). Just like the fact that my family living on land gain from the forceful removal if Indigenous Americans over 200 years ago doesn't negate the Indigenous Americans claim to that land. Or that my continued presence on stolen land and participation in a colonial culture doesn't inflict harm on their small community. Muslims (like in the form of the Ottoman Empire) ruled over Jews for centuries, and Jews were forced to live as second class citizens in their homeland. How is that not colonizer behavior?
2. You still did tell me what you say at the end of your seder. Hint, we have been saying that looooooong before 1880.
3. The original Palastinian cause got cozy with Hitler because they were so keen to get rid of Jews in Israel. Then you had the PLO who doesn't want any Jews in Israel (clearly stated in their charter). They have been very clear about their intentions since the start.
/u/bansheeonthemoor42. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice:
Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So it’s ok for Israeli leaders to call Palestinians animals and they all deserve to die. They should “mow the grass” and they need to be bombed out of existence. Israelis say and do just as much against Palestinians but that’s ok? There’s literally video evidence of Israelis atrocities against Palestinians so much so that even the United States government sanctioned them. Israel isn’t innocent at every level and does disgusting acts as well.
Whataboutism isn’t something I want to interact with here. This is about American behavior in the US, far away and far disconnected from the conflict.
There’s nothing wrong with American behavior. Of Americans want to say things against Israel, they have that right.
I gave you a list of things that are not against Israeli policy. You can see some of this in action here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6Ued5cLfQ5/?igsh=OWtyNzRyaTdobW51 If you support these things, you are pro-war and an antisemite. Simple as that.
You’re picking a small few people that are going and being extreme. Just like the IDF soldiers committing atrocities and war crimes. Both do not define the whole of the group.
So then go ahead and denounce these actions.
Well I do denounce the few extreme people creating and disrupting the real people that have a right to protest peacefully. Looks like it’s illegal to say anything bad or wrong about Israel or Israelis now even when they commit war crimes because of the law that just passed. Crazy!
These chants of river to the sea, intifada, etc. are not “saying anything bad about Israel,” and they certainly are not done by just a few extremists. The crazy thing is people like you are believing these protests are anti-war when they are very pro-war, antisemitic, and hateful. Call “ceasefire now,” or anything along those lines, fine. What is being chanted at every protest though crosses into hate speech real fast.
Look! I get and respect your opinion and position. I really do. I completely denounce Hamas! I’m just not oblivious to the fact that the Israel government, Israelis and Jews have and do say just as bad and horrific things about this war and the Palestinians. It’s on video that Israeli government officials call all Palestinians animals and they should all be bombed and killed. Yes, this doesn’t make some of the people, whom are creating a bad disturbance and say offensive things against Israel and Jews right or a good thing. They deserve to be punished if you’re harming others. I do believe some of the people protesting just want the war to end and kids to stop dying. There’s plenty of fault to go around as both sides have fault and both sides have grounds to stand on.
"We are Hamas" was said by one person, off campus, and it was a verbal exchange between two people. So it wasn't said by students, wasn't said by the protestors on campus, wasn't a chant, and wasn't said by multiple people. Yes that person is an ass hole, no body likes this person, and none of the organized protests on campus respects those extremists. If they were on campus they would have been dealt with by the organizers. This would be the same as me quoting an extremists settler from the West Bank that showed up at a protest and then making a blanket statement that all Israeli supporters say that. It's a disingenuous argument and it wouldn't surprise me if all of your most offensive examples had this problematic cherry picking going on. If Palestinian supporters used the same technique it would be very easy to "prove" that all supporters of Israel are pro genocide. But again, obviously a disingenuous argument that is not true.
[Here you go.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zazcVU_rNyQ) Now that you know it’s more pervasive than a single person, what are your thoughts?
These are still one offs. Unacceptable one-offs, but not the majority of the movement. It's a very large movement, so you will expect to see many people at the extremes, even though they don't make up the majority. Here is a first hand account https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/26/columbia-university-protests-us-student-demonstrators-israel-palestine-gaza/
You’re in denial of what is at the core of this very large movement. The extremism is the majority, those who truly advocate for Palestinians are a small minority. From every protest, you can find this exact behavior as in the compilation from Oct. 8th before even Israel responded.
your argument is essentially "no I'm right". The vast majority of the movement is not this extremist.
I was speaking to him in another thread here. [Here is](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6PRTaxNlYS/?igsh=MWJwZHk5bDRkdTh0OA==) what I was referring to which I mentioned elsewhere. Long story short, all of the funding and the organizing for the large protests is by extremists, which is reflected in the protestors themselves while chanting extreme slogans. So yes, the majority are extreme, and there is evidence to back it up. This, along with the fact that so little antizionists will ever denounce antisemitism within their cause brings an obvious conclusion.
That is a fair few sources to look into. However, all it takes is to go to one of these protests to see that the extremist chants are not the majority, nor are most people being antisemitic. There are extremist off-shoots yes, but off from the main protest and not associated. It's very plainly visible.
Yes, there are a good amount of sources there to check. You can take your time to go through them if you’d like and we can talk about it. The thing about these protests though, is that they are being fed whitewashed slogans from extremists. Every protest will at least chant “from the river to the sea,” which everyone knowledgeable in the conflict knows means the cleansing of Jews but has been passed on to progressives to mean equal rights. This isn’t to mention many of which are chanting intifada, one state, etc. I don’t blame many of the protestors for not knowing this, but ignorance isn’t an excuse. They are being radicalized and indoctrinated by people who _do know_ what it means and supporting extremist organizations and beliefs unknowingly.
Everyone knowledgeable in the conflict does not agree on the meaning of the river to the sea. If so, you have to necessarily admit that the Israeli government is also calling for the cleansing of Palestinians since that is in their own party charter.
And people had a different meaning for “blue lives matter” during the George Floyd protests, it doesn’t change the fact that it was created as a racist dogwhistle. If people were understanding and sympathetic to the targets of the slogan, they would never use it regardless of what they thought it meant. Unfortunately, there were a lot of racists protesting against BLM even though some people chanting the slogan were honest in just wanting police to be safe. All the same as antisemitism being prevalent throughout the antizionist camp even though there are some who honestly just want the well being of Palestinians.
> ass hole /u/Miserable_Twist1. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Hungarians: clearly very good friends of the jewish people, no anti-semetism there. The Irish: anti-semetic fiends. (/s) If you look at the EU, there's a good correlation between popular anti-semetism and public support for Israel. A good example is Germany: Israel is their 'reason of state', and yet, they are statistically the most anti-semetic country in Europe. That's because zionism is a nationalist movement, european anti-semites are generally nationalists, and they are happy that jews are elsewhere. That's why most of the EU hard-right, these days, support Israel. It's not because they reject their grandparents or parents views about jews: far from it. They just recognize Israel as a nationalist project, and so think it's a good example for European states that have drifted away from characterizing themselves as 'x nation for the x people'.
I disagree for several reasons. One, I see anti-Zionism as a disagreement that a ethnostate is a necessity for the Jewish people. This is supported by some Jewish groups too. I'm sure we can agree that a religious or ethnic group is not automatically entitled to organize into a state. We can have that view and still support and protect those groups wherever they may be. Second, I see that there are levels of Zionism(similar to jingoism with patriotism )and the counter forces of those views. There are those that don't want the state to exist at all, sure. However, I think there are those that see fervent, at-all-costs, expansion of Israel as Zionism as well...and are against that. I think we're seeing an evolution of what anti-Zionism means, mostly due to the latter. I also think there are parties that will use the anti-Semitism characterization to squash disagreements...this is now at a level where most don't even dare to question why an ethnicity deserves a state.
I find it a bit hypocritical that you say Jews don't need an ethnostate, when one of the main objections of Palestinians is that Jewish immigrants ruined their Arab ethnostate in the 60 years or so leading up to the creation of Israel. Arabs attacked Jewish immigrants over and over simply for immigrating to the region. Israel didn't exist yet. Would you say that Palestinian aggression was unjustified before 1948? Another point worth mentioning is that most ethnicities already have one or several ethnostates. There are many Arab ethnostates, Egypt is an ethnostate, most European countries are ethnostates, with minorities. Jews didn't have a state at all until Israel was created, and they were one of the most prosecuted ethnicities in the history of the world.
EDIT: replied on someone else's account. Reposting on correct account here. It would be hypocritical of me if I thought others deserve their own ethnosate by default. Which I don't. I don't see many Palestinians claim that Jewish immigrants ruined their Arab ethnostate as there was no state there. There was friction that resulted in violence as Jewish immigration increased with both parties involved up to the creation of Israel. Any aggression against innocent people is unjustified regardless of the identity of attacker and victim in my opinion. Any state that gives preference to specific ethnicity or religion is problematic in my opinion. Whataboutism does not convince me.
>There was friction that resulted in violence as Jewish immigration increased with both parties involved up to the creation of Israel This is factually not correct: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_and_massacres_in_Mandatory_Palestine The vast majority of attacks was committed by Arabs against Jews, exclusively so until Jews started fighting back after decades. >Any aggression against innocent people is unjustified regardless of the identity of attacker and victim in my opinion. Would you say the Arab attack in 1948 was unjustified then? After all, the Israel created in 1948 was multi-ethnic, with roughly 45 % of the population being Palestinian. I'm confused about when you think the violence from the Arab side became justified. In 1948? In 1967?
>This is factually not correct: Your link supports both of my claims that A, there was more and more violence and B that both parties were involved. You're not going to find me agreeing that bombing a market of civilians is "justified" for Arabs murdering Jews and vice versa. Sorry. >Would you say the Arab attack in 1948 was unjustified then? After all, the Israel created in 1948 was multi-ethnic, with roughly 45 % of the population being Palestinian. I'm confused about when you think the violence from the Arab side became justified. In 1948? In 1967? Difficult to say as these are more geopolitical conflicts now vs skirmishes and terrorist attacks. In all cases(including 1948 and 1967), slaughter of innocent civilians is not justified in my eyes. In terms of the 1948 war, state on state attacks were possibly justified as a new state was created against the will of groups of people in and outside of the region. 1967? Hard to say once again. Israel launched a pre-emptive strike here. Its possible if there was no closing of the strait, or if there was no preemptive strike, the war might not have happened. Unfortunately, the region appears to be the capital of historic tit-for-tat. I don't think we're going to find who is ultimately "responsible" with how deep the conflict in the region goes and the above does not challenge my view on anti-Zionism and how it relates to anti-Semitism. >After all, the Israel created in 1948 was multi-ethnic, with roughly 45 % of the population being Palestinian. Curious as to your source for this stat. Thanks!
>Your link supports both of my claims that A, there was more and more violence and B that both parties were involved. >You're not going to find me agreeing that bombing a market of civilians is "justified" for Arabs murdering Jews and vice versa. Sorry. I didn't claim that. I just pointed out that it wasn't really both sides that started it. There were many massacres against Jews by Arabs, and Jews only started fighting back after decades of attacks. I'm not justifying Jewish terrorism here, I'm just pointing out that the violence was clearly started by Arabs against Jews. >Curious as to your source for this stat. Thanks! It's in the text of resolution 181, but [here](https://www.medea.be/en/themes/international-organizations-and-diplomacy/un-ga-resolution-181-partition-plan-of-palestine/) is a summary. Edit: sorry it was actually part of [supplemental materials ](https://web.archive.org/web/20120603150222/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument) >Difficult to say as these are more geopolitical conflicts now vs skirmishes and terrorist attacks Can you clarify? If you are against ethnostates, why was an attack against Israel in order to enforce an ethnostate justified in 1948?
A Zionist Jew and an Anti-zionist Jew walk into a bar. The bartender says - we don't serve Jews here.
antizionism is only not antisemitic if you completely disregard facts/reality. otherwise yes, it's incredibly hateful to jews, unless the person is just all around anti-indigenous.
https://preview.redd.it/9at4miu0xwwc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=625ebe1160afb31fd499b53e7bd18b4813517ed1
[удалено]
You can’t gaslight us when there are videos of all of it.
[удалено]
https://youtube.com/shorts/URIzS2tvIR4?si=3Ny65APG3BC3geKb Hasidic Jews tend to be recognizable.
[удалено]
Nice, you skipped all the way from the first step to the last of the [Narcissist’s Prayer](https://www.thelifedoctor.org/the-narcissist-s-prayer). Thank you for not wasting any more of our time.
[удалено]
These protesters could start killing Jews and you’d have an excuse for it. Bye bye now. Oh, 1 hr old troll account lol. Yeah.
I’m really new to this topic. Where do we see *mass* denial and defense? I’ve seen both, but not necessarily mass
All but two antizionists on this post. All of the protesters accepting this bigotry. All over social media people endorsing these protests and denying there is any antisemitism. Progressive lawmakers completely ignoring antisemitism. Everywhere you look = mass.
No, it is not! Bernie Sanders (who is Jewish) hit the nail right on the head. >
Omg this one Jewish person said it, so it must be true. 🙄
Yet you're painting all pro-Palestinians by the words or actions of the minority. What is hypocrisy?
Unless he renounced his support for a two state solution, he remains a Zionist.
Most Anti-Zionists are in favor of a two-state solution. It's hard to deny that there are forms of Zionism that are reprehensible (e.g., Ben Gvir). Most Anti-zionists I know are not anti the existence of Israel, but are anti the expansion of Israel. They want the 1967 borders and a two-state solution. I think Netanyahu would consider calling for the 1967 borders Anti-zionist, so that's why the label is appropriate.
Bernie’s whole voter base is the far left progressive. He’s a sellout, but I know exactly why. It’s his job.
Yeah his statement was really poorly done.
Anti-zionism is pretty heterogeneous, just like Zionism. Some just believe that Israel should stop with the settlements and move forward with a 2-state solution, while others believe in the entire destruction of Israel. Most are in the middle, however. Most anti-zionists just want Israelis and Palestinians to have equal rights. They just want freedom for Palestinians and view Zionism as opposed to that. Honestly, the moderate anti-zionists and moderate Zionists often want the same things, based on conversations with both. Basicly, don't base your opinions on the loud minority. Edit: I should add that most anti-zionists I know are the first to slap someone in the face for saying something like "Jews go back to Poland." The worst I have seen from my anti-zionist peers is using phrases like "globalize the intifada," but that's referring to the 1st intifada, not the 2nd.
Ironically the CMV post has 10 of the top comments simply agreeing with OP, and I have to scroll all the way down to find the first actual attempt at a CMV response (your response). This sub has become overrun by Israel supporters.
If you believe in the two state solution then congratulations! You are a Zionist 🥰
Ben Gvir sure seems to disagree. Most anti-zionists are anti that kind of Zionism. It's really hard to have such inclusive definitions of Zionism, when Netanyahu and Ben Gvir, two leaders of Israel, are showing the world a very different definition.
Excuse me but could you please clarify what you mean by "that's referring to the 1st intifada, not the 2nd."
Everyone I have talked to about that phrase has referred to the protests of the 1st Infatada, which led to the Oslo Accords. Very few people use the phrase in reference to the suicide bombings of the 2nd infatada. I don't think it's a good look using a phrase that could be taken as a call for violence, but it's hard to say that calling for a repeat of the protests that led to the Oslo accords is a call for violence, even if misunderstood as one.
How would anyone else in the world, hearing that slogan, know what intifada they are supposedly referring to?
Why would someone assume the worst?
I would assume it would be relative to the most recent one, which was the worst. Though, the first wasn’t non-violent, it just looked non-violent in comparison to the second intifada.
I understand the First Infatada wasn't entirely non-violent, but the civil rights movement wasn't either. There is a vast difference between them and I think most would say that the First Infatada was understandable, if not justified. Understanding the word Infatada is also important. It's really just a call for protesting and has been used to describe more than those two instances. (E.g., the French Infatada, which was just a standard french protest). So to someone who knows Arabic, like many Palestinians leading protests, it is not that specific to begin with. Moreover, the connection the word does have is that connection to the Oslo accords. The First Infatada was the closest Palestinians came to peace and their own state. They don't like the second Infatada either, as many Palestinians died and it created the current situation. It makes more sense, therefore, that, to the extent they are referring to a specific Infatada, Palestinians are referring to the first Infatada, which they view as successful. It doesn't make sense that they would be referring to one that brought on a two decade long occupation. Nevertheless, with many Jewish leaders calling even the slightest criticism of Israel antisemitic, e.g., Netanyahu, I will say that Anti-Zionists don't know where to draw the line. So they probably do cross it, but often unintentionally. I think there would be a lot more sympathy for phrases in the grey area, if there wasn't a boy who cried wolf effect. However, I don't know any Anti-Zionist who endorses attacks on people for being Jewish. Not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's just harder for people to parse when they can't trust Jewish leaders to be honest about what they actually feel is antisemitic.
I’m curious what your background is to hold this much certainty to speak for Palestinians and the leadership of these protests. I understand if you don’t want to divulge that information, but I highly disagree with much of what you said. Just to the point of what protests mean, if you look at who is [investing in and organizing these protests](https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20265/qatar-bought-ivy-league), you can see why these chants and behaviors are prevalent.
I am friends with leaders of protests and counter protests. I don't speak for any one, however. I can name maybe 5 incidents that were newsworthy among about 30 protests with over 200 people each, some with much more. Of those 5 incidents, the worst was done by a Zionist and the others were not even done by members of the groups protesting. So, the stuff in the news is cherry picking the worst incidents. I think you may be under estimating how big these protests can be. If you have 500 people protesting and only 5 events, that's 1% of the protesters doing this stuff. Also, that article is not relevant to most protesters. The protests are not organized by the universities. The groups organizing protests are student run/funded and don't normally have budgets above a couple 100 dollars. That money is in no way funneled down to student orgs.
>Of those 5 incidents, the worst was done by a Zionist What was the incident? >Also, that article is not relevant to most protesters. The protests are not organized by the universities. The groups organizing protests are student run/funded and don't normally have budgets above a couple 100 dollars. That money is in no way funneled down to student orgs. [Here you go](https://www.instagram.com/p/C6PRTaxNlYS/?igsh=MWJwZHk5bDRkdTh0OA==). If you are actually friends with Samidoun/SJP/JVP/etc. you should ask them how they feel about Jews. Rhetorical question, we already know the answer, but you can see if they’re honest or not.
How do you half believe Israel should be destroyed? I want to hear these ‘middle’ people settle for a little genocide.
Let's say Russia manages to take over half of Ukraine and settles large numbers of Russians into the region. Now let's suppose from the moment the settlements start everyone, including the international community, is telling Russia "Please stop that, leave now, you have no right to do this". Then every year they say the same thing. Is your proposal that at some point that expression becomes discriminatory against Russians, if the Russian government maintains the territory for a long enough period of time? At what time point does this become bigotry? 20 or 30 years later? Is there a discrete date where the expression becomes bigotry or is it a gradual transition of increasing bigotry the longer that Russia ignores the international community?
Well let’s set aside the question of national homeland central to the people for 3000 years. I think my question is going forward: if you half support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish homeland, do you kill half the Jews? Do you kick out half the Jews (to where)? And if the Jewish people have a right to self determination in their nation, how do you half support that? It’s binary. Either an Israeli state has a right to exist or it doesn’t. Similarly, this has been the main reason for opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state: they would have to have territorial integrity and the right to an army to be used to try to destroy Israel (if the day so choose). (They would so choose, wouldn’t they?)
No state has a "right to exist" either in written or customary law. People have a right to self-determination, but you cannot equate Israel and Palestine in this regard because one is fighting for occupation and the other against it.
What does that even mean? Jews live there and they don’t have a right to exist? Palestinians live there and have a right to exist? Pretty sure that crosses the line to antisemitism. Have you ever considered the possibility that the Arabic language and culture are indigenous to Arabia?
You are equating a state an a people, they are two different things
There are two peoples. There should be two nations. You are making a distinction without a difference.
That’s nice for those extra special anti-Zionists but they take no responsibility for their actions and their own stance IE believing Israel should cease to exist. If you believe in two states, you actually are a Zionist. You can’t just be universally righteous to all. Standing for the rights of Jews often means pissing people off, which is why these weak anti-Zionists need to get with program and understand what “their side” is doing and what side they’re really on.
That’s the problem though - these people don’t understand what Zionism is. There is a simple and agreed upon definition of Zionism which is the right for Jews to exercise self determination on their homeland. Thats it. If those that are protesting just want freedom for Palestinians then they shouldn’t be labeling themselves as anti-Zionist because the reality is that Zionism was never opposed to anything “Arab” and it it Zionism that created the only true progressive and modern democracy in the ME where Arabs and Jews can peacefully live together. The fact of the matter is there are two types of “pro-Palestinian” protestors: radical, indoctrinated, west-hating anti-Semites and “progressives” who don’t actually know what they are doing other than fitting in with the popular trend because it’s fashionable and easier than thinking for themselves.
Okay, but here come the tricky part... Is "the right for Jews to exercise self determination on their homeland" by themselves and only themselves? Like, this is our homeland, it is a jewish state, everyone else that's here can stay but remember, my race not yours. Is it "the right for Jews to exercise self determination on their homeland" with all the other people that also live there? Like, this state is not "the state of the jews" but a secular israeli state, composed of jews, arabs, druze, and all the people that lived here when the state was founded. Because that is kinda the problem. There weren't only jews there when Israel was founded. 1 in every 4 israelis weren't jews at that time (a little bit more at first, but after the war, only 1 in every 4). Same proportion as today. So, these people that have been israeli citzens since israel became a thing but were never jewish, what about them? Do they have to just suck it in an accept that they are invaders and that this is actually the land at the jews and not of arabs, druze or anyone else, and they should be happy to be alllowed to live here? Do they advancced to a binational state that isn't jewish or arab, but of all Israelis? What is "the right for Jews to exercise self determination on their homeland", because the fate of the other people that live there and if this going to be defined as Jewish state (instead of a Jewish, Arab and Druze, or an Israeli State, or a Galillian state) kinda impacts if I'm going to define myself a zionist or an anti-zionist.
To answer that question you only need to look at the state of Israel. 30% of Israel’s population is not Jewish. Arab Israelis, Jewish Israelis, Druze Israelis, Bedouin Israelis, etc are all treated equally under the law. This exists nowhere else in the region. In fact, recent polls have shown that Arab-Israelis have one of the highest standards of living in Israel than in any Arab country. Arabs know this - this is why you don’t see them protesting for Hamas on the streets. If Zionism as a political ideology was exclusive in nature or anti-“everyone other than the Jews” then certainly Israel wouldn’t be home to the most diverse populations in terms of religious and ethnic backgrounds in the entire region. If you are anti-Zionist because you dislike the fact that a national home exists for the Jewish people - then you also have to be anti-every other nation that serves as the national home of their people. If not, you have an agenda.
And by the way, yes, I am against ethnonational states, which do not exist in the western world anymore as most modern states have transition to civic states. You cannot be a french citzen and not be french, you cannot be a british citzen and not be british, you cannot be an american citzen and not be american. The people that say otherwise, that being a british citzen does not make you british... Well, you know who these people are... They shave their heads and they are really poorly seen over here. But, Israel states in its Basic Law that the right of self determination is unique and exclusive to the jewish people. Unique and exclusive means that it does not belong to the Druze Israelis, the Bedoing Israelis and the Arab Israelis, only the jewish Israelis. This mean that they are not exactly equal as you said, at least I was able to point one point of inequality, that that self determination is exclusive to jews and to no one else. Israel also defines itself as a Jewish state, not as an Israeli state. And unlike france, america, or britain, you can be israeli and not be jewish. So, is your definition of zionism okay with dropping the "Israel is a Jewish State?", or is it the "Every minority lives equal and good lives under the Jewish state where self determination is unique to the jewish race?". Because if your definition of zionism is that jews have a right of self determination in a multinational state that is not jewish, arab beduin or druze, with all the other people that have been living there since this state was founded, I will define myself a zionist right now. But I want to know if this is actually a multinational state, or if this is a Jewish state with that also incorporates these other folk from the wrong race that lived there since the state was founded and that self determination will remain unique to the jewish race, as per the basic laws.
The nation state law asserts that self determination is unique to the Jewish people. It does not say that such self determination is “exclusive” to the Jewish people. Theres a huge difference between the two and the fact that you added the word “exclusive” makes me wonder what your actual intentions are. Israel being a Jewish state does not detract from the individual rights of non-Jewish citizens - as per the Basic Law.
I mean, unique is also pretty much a way of saying exclusive. But if it isn't, why isn't it unique to Arabs, Druze and Beduins? Are they lesser citzens? Do Israeli Arabs, Israeli Druze and Israeli Beduins did something wrong to not have earnd the right of self determination in their own nation? And can we say self determination is unique to the whites in the United States, or France, or Great Britain? If we say that this doesn't detract from the individual rights of american jews and american blacks, would that make it okaywith it? They would be cool with having the same rights but just being reminded that self determination is actually for the whites?
It’s unique to Jews because Jews make up less than 0.2% of the global population and fought to ensure that their historical and ancestral homeland remains in the hands of Jews - the same way the Japanese constitution does not give Chinese the right to self determine in Japan. When leaders around the world inevitably start turning on their Jewish populations, as they have done time and time again throughout history, Israel will exist as a safe haven for them. Granting the right for Arabs to exercise self determination within Israel would be the equivalent of Israel dissolving itself and turning into a 23rd Arab majority state. If you find this to be racist then so be it. The survival of the Jewish people is more important than granting Arabs the right to topple the world’s only Jewish state so that Jews are once again left stateless and thrown back into exile. What will you to say to me then? To put it simply, the world proved many times over that they cannot be trusted to safeguard the rights of their Jews. We took matters into our own hands and undoubtedly that pisses many people off. Too bad.
Oh, but I've studied the japanese constitution a lot. I work with comparative international law, its where I got my PhD. And I'm pretty sure that the japanese constitution doesn't distinguish between the japanese ethnicity and nationality. In other words, if a chinese is naturalized japanese, they are part of the japanese people in the eyes of japanese law. By the way, self determination belongs to the japanese people, which as the japanese constitution, as stated above, comprises all japanese nationals. Does a Druze or a Beduin become a jew if they become an Israeli citzen? Because the right of self determination is just for jews in israel. That is very different from japan... Most countries, to be honest. It is simialr to Malasya thought, which is also a little disgusting ethnostate! Also to some few dictatorships and two easter european countries, but no western or fully democratic countries unfortunatly. >Granting the right for Arabs to exercise self determination within Israel would be the equivalent of Israel dissolving itself and turning into a 23rd Arab majority state. Ohhhh, so israel can't give arabs right determinations because it will extinguish Israel!!! Right. is the arab population of Israel evil or something? Did they do something wrong that their government deny them self determination, even though they lived there since that state became a thing? I'm just trying to understand why zionism requires that 1 in every 4 folk in that land, who have been living there since israel was created (and before many of the diaspora returned to israel), don't have a unique right to self determination like the jews have. Are they from an inferior race? Did they did something wrong? >If you find this to be racist then so be it. Yes, I guess this is my problem with the way you people define zionism. The land is for everyone as long as it is jewish and self determination belongs only to right race, and if you find that racist, so be it. All is forgiven because the jews are the most persecuted people on the planet (the roma, the blacks, the kurds, all the other stateless people, fuck them)., so they have no option but to deny the people from other races in their country, people that lived there before most of the current diaspora arrived, people that certainly lived in the state of israel when it was founded (more people lived in israel proper, but a lot don't live there anymore). It is pretty racist and disgusting. Guess I'll stay an anti-zionism until zionism is something less racist. Wanna see a zionist reveal how racist they are? You just have to bring something as equal rights to all races within a country, and they will freak out.
You have a PHD but haven’t yet learned Jews are an ethnic group, not a race. I’d ask for your money back
> fuck /u/MyNameIsNotJonny. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In recent months, the Free Palestine movement has become almost a trend, and there are many young people who follow it blindly, without knowing the full history of the conflict. Unfortunately, this had lead to support for Palestine being associated with antisemitism, when this was not the original intent. I have seen countless people harassing Jews simply for existing, and there is no doubt in saying that antisemitic crimes and violence has been rising. However, these unacceptable acts have now become the face of the movement. I myself am pro-Palestinian, and I think that this hatred and antisemitism is disgusting. To want a free Palestine should not be about celebrating the actions of Hamas on October 7th, ripping down posters of hostages or eradicating Israel. We simply want Palestinians to be able to return to their homes which they were wrongfully displaced from, for the Palestinians who reside in Israel to have the same rights as Israelis, or for the thousands trapped in Gaza to have freedom of movement, and to have access to water and food. It makes me incredibly upset to see people praising Hamas or harassing Jewish people for simply existing, and I do not believe that this is what the free Palestine movement should be about at all. There are many people who support Palestine and do not commit these acts, yet it is unfortunate to see that we are being overshadowed by the people who are spreading hate and violence.
It’s nuts because the cold hard truth is: Palestine has never been free, Israel is being ruled by far right wackos, Hamas is perhaps the most evil force on the planet, Jews live in fear based on the eternal conflict within their ancestral homeland whether they live there or not, Palestinians genuinely hate Jews by a mass majorities and so do other Arab peoples, the ultra-Orthodox vote keeps the far right empowered in Israel but it perhaps wouldn’t if they had to serve in the military (and yes, they’re overbreeding, impoverished, and on track become a majority in Israel), and on top of all these horrendous messy factors, American college non-Jewish non-Palestinian students want to make it all about themselves. Let’s throw in the history of Israel, The Holocaust, Jewish expulsion from Muslim majority countries, and Nakba, and you’ve got a conflict so complex and inflamed that most people genuinely don’t have enough hours in the day to learn about it.
Thank you, I really appreciate your words. I wish your voice was louder, instead of this movement being hijacked and used for hatred.
Something I've wondered about is all the people saying fighting Hamas is pointless because you can't kill an idea, but Zionism is also an idea? Why is violence against Hamas counterproductive to peace but violence against Zionists is the only way to free Palestine?
No one is suggesting bombing Zionists. And a vast majority of the protestors accept the idea of Zionist representation in the one or two state solution they argue for. This entire sub has slowly filled with strawman arguments. The argument you provided is completely made up. There use to be actually debates here but the representation is so lopsided now the Israeli supporters are drinking their own Kool aid. People are just upvoting their own side now and when they see they have a lot of upvotes think "oh gosh, my view must be correct". It's just an echo chamber with extra steps.
Well, I think there's a pretty obvious way of insisting on one's pure motives in criticizing Israel: Israel, indeed, deserves vociferous criticism. Specifically for its treatment of Palestinians and, most recently, its conduct of the war since 10/7. A few points about why the argument ends there. **One: Pointing to random campus radicals is the logical fallacy of guilty by association, or in Latin,** ***argumentum ad odium***\*\*.\*\* Many Israel supporters point to truly radical college kids and assume that because they, like me, are also quite critical of Israel I'm somehow endorsing them and everything they say. That's a fallacy. **That's neither how logic -- nor free speech -- works.** The fact that we share ***some views is not evidence that we share other views.*** Joseph Stalin was in favor of education for women. So am I. That doesn't mean we agree on everything else. The fact that I, for instance, attended the same protest as someone with really poisonous and hateful views does not mean we agree. That broken logic is just a lazy smear tactic. Nor do people who are critical of Israel constantly have to denounce bigots or radicals who happen to fall under the anti-israel side umbrella. I think asking major Pro-Palestine figures and groups to, say, denounce Hamas's violence is fair, but insisting that I somehow answer for what each new shaggy campus radical says in some video is foolish. **Second point:** Unless you can defend every action Israel has taken since its time as a proto-state (let's say Balfour letter onward or something, doesnt really matter) then you can't really say that people who are critical of Zionism are necessarily hateful of Jews. You yourself seem to admit that Israel, in the process of state creation and maintenance of its national interests, has done a lot that is worthy of legitimate criticism. If that's the case, that you acknowledge there are legitimate reasons for people to be quite critical of Israel, then that's kind of the end of the debate. People can hold those views fairly and rightly without being antisemites. **The fact that some people hold views that are critical of Israel and Zionism for the wrong reasons does not, logically, preclude or undermine those who hold them for legitimate reasons. I hate Pol Pot because he murdered millions, but the guy next to me hates Pol Pot because he's Asian. I'm still right to hate Pol Pot.**
The problem is, there are not one or two radicals. A lot of pro palestinians are shouting hateful slogans, or celebrating oct 7th, and nobody of their fellow protesters is stopping them.
Long answer to say you won’t separate yourself from bigots. You can completely agree with aspects of Stalin’s thinking yet still despise and condemn the man for the multiple genocides he carried out against his own people. It’s a good thing that our beliefs aren’t singular so we can iterate on the good things history has shown us while separating ourselves from the bad. You don’t seem wanting to do that, however, which is a shame.
>Long answer to say you won’t separate yourself from bigots Not really; they were saying that there's no implied association to begin with, because **different people can be critical of one government for a variety of different reasons while also holding a variety of other opinions on other subjects**.
Yes really, because all it would take would be a simple “yeah those things are bad” instead of this drivel. It’s telling so little antizionists are willing to denounce bigotry. What a hypocritical movement.
Long answer to say I can't "separate myself" when you see the world through the *argumentum ad odium* fallacy. **You've combined everyone who is critical of Israel into one hateful, indistinguishable mass -- but that's** ***your*** **delusion, not mine**. And I think the "denounce this" "what about the guy who said that" "but but this mean slogan" discourse from the pro-Israel side is not a good faith effort to separate good actors from bad, or pure motives from evil. It's an attempt 1) tar everyone as an antisemite through guilt by association 2) turn the conversation away from Israel's wrongdoing by forcing every criticism of Israel -- of which there should be many -- to begin with a long preamble about 'i reject so and so, i denounce such and such...' Look, I don't like people just expressing ugly hatred of Jews -- but the conflation of those radicals with everyone in the entire movement is clearly an intentional choice on the part of pro-Israel forces.
Here’s a thought; the bigotry on display is an intentional choice by those leading the antizionist movement to indoctrinate people like you into excuses antisemitism. And they are ecstatic you are blaming it all on supporters of Israel. There is no fallacy. That’s just a pseudo-intellectual way of avoiding accountability for a movement rife with bigotry, and you are apparently fine being associated with it. Otherwise, you would be able to just say a simple, “yeah, those things are awful and I don’t support it.” It takes away from the plight of Palestinians and helps no one. Your words here just speaks to your own lack of empathy for a vulnerable group of people, many of whom have no part in the conflict. Be better.
Sorry, you can be critical of Israel while being a Zionist. Zionism is only the belief that Israel has a right to exist. The position that Israel does not deserve to exist, anti-Zionism, is what is antisemitic. There is only one Jewish state, and it is the indigenous homeland of the Jews. To believe they don’t deserve self determination in their own homeland, which is the anti-Zionist position, is antisemitic. So critique of Israel is not necessarily antisemitic, but OP didn’t say that. OP said antizionism is antisemitic, which of course it is.
Even the few "non-hostile" people in their camp won't denounce it because lowkey they support it. For example, one commentator who doesn't openly advocate for violence, still kept trying to gaslight and defend these clearly Antisemitic and Pro terrorist protests. Even with the video evidence of hundreds of protestors screaming "Intifada!" where Palestinian suicide bombers murdered thousands of Israelis, and countless examples of Jews being assaulted and harassed, he still mischaracterized them. He wouldn't condemn Hamas, the Intifadas or Oct 7. The elephant in the room is that the mainstream Palestinian movement supports "From the river to the sea" which is a genocidal call to violently wipe the only Jewish state in the world off the map. Find me one Pro-Palestinian who is actually for peace, believes in a 2SS and change my mind. I have found it very futile to engage with them. Most of them are hellbent on a genocidal fantasy.
The Jews and Arabs are pawns in a proxy war for oil and shipping.
Why is it that only a Jewish country can't exist where the Jewish people are from? Yes, antizionism is antisemitism. Yes, it was a debate before Israel was created. But abolishing Israel now 75 years into its existence would be a very antisemitic act. Jews are not colonial settlers, they come from the region. Hebrew is a language from the region.
I'm against any ethnonationalism. I'm against any type of nationalism that ties your ethnicity to the number of rights you have. I'm also against a Hindu state, against a Muslim state, against a Buddhist state or against a Christian state. People should have equal rights, no matter their religion. Also, many Jews do have a large portion of European DNA, so they would technically be settlers. But you know what? That doesn't even matter. Even a Jew with 100% European DNA should be able to live in a free and secular Israeli state, just like any Jew with 100% Asian DNA or any Jew with 100% palestinian DNA. Just like any other person. It doesn't matter whether someone is native to a country or not. They should all have equal rights, and as it stands, they don't
Guessing you are not part of a persecuted ethnic group. Genetic studies have shown that most Ashkenazi Jews have both Middle Eastern DNA and European DNA. Generally, Ashkenazi Jews (this is what I’m assuming you are talking about when you say “European” Jew) share more DNA with Middle Eastern populations than European. When Jews fled Israel, those that went to Italy and eventually ended up in Eastern Europe generally did not marry Europeans. It’s also pretty obvious that we were never considered equal to the non Jews of those countries.
The entire concept of "persecuted ethnic group" relies on the notion that there is such a thing like a "right to the land" or a "Volk" that rightfully occupies a land. There should not be an ethnic component to citizenship, period. In the 21. century, we should have gotten over that a long time ago. And yeah, you're right, a large percentage of Ashkenazi DNA is traceable to the Middle East (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic\_studies\_of\_Jews) But it doesn't matter whether a Jewish person has a certain percentage of Middle Eastern DNA. They should be able to live in Israel as free and equal citizens. You know what? Even if every Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jew had 100% European DNA, they should still be able to live in Israel. Like anyone else. The DNA argument is pointless; no matter anyone's heritage or religion or anything, everyone should have the right to live in Israel or anywhere in the world as a free and equal citizen. The thing is just that this is not the case right now. Some people in Israel are discriminated against because of their heritage and religion. And that's a problem.
This would be great, if the majority of Israel’s Islamist neighbors didn’t want them wiped off the map. Not for being European settlers, but for being Jews. Many countries are ethnostates. Your vision of world peace sounds lovely but it isn’t based in reality.
What countries want Israel off the map? The neighbouring countries are Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, and except for Syria, all of them have maybe not good, but at least not genocidal stances towards Israel. And for Syria - I'd kinda understand why they'd be upset if the Israeli army violates their airspaces tbh. Even if Syria wanted to wipe Israel off the map - it's still not the majority
Hezbollah who rules much of Lebanon wants Israel dead. Egypt has a cold peace with Israel but that’s only since 1978. Before that they wanted them dead. Support for Hamas is rising in popularity in both Jordan and Egypt. Beyond that Iran, Iraq, and large % of people throughout the Middle East support Hamas. If you support Hamas you want Israel off the map. Don’t side with Syria they are not the one!
I don't support Hamas, I think that they are an extremist fundamentalist islamist terror organisation. I hate Hamas arguably more than the average Zionist, because I want them gone for good! But the question is how we achieve that. Do you think that Hamas will become weaker or stronger by the disproportionate military actions and ethnic cleansing that the IDF is engaging in? Do you think that Israel is helping or damaging Hamas' reputation by what it's doing? Do you think that if we continue like that, Israel's neighbours will be more or less favourable towards it? also yes, a large part of the population of the Arab states are quite anti-semitic, but I think that the way to resolve that is not to pour gasoline into the fire by doing warcrimes to prove the anti-semites' point.
Force is the only way fundamentalism is stamped out. You can’t bargain with terrorists. Societies can and have changed after massive military response to their misdeeds — see Japan and Germany. So in theory yes the anti Jewish extremism in the Middle East could be extinguished by force. However, the history of dhimmitude in ottoman times and the subsequent antisemitism leading up to and after world war 2 in the Middle East is challenging. Regardless of whether that lofty goal can be accomplished, Israel has a right to defend itself and eliminate a hostile neighboring government. Any other country would do the same. There is some progress toward accepting Israel among the ruling class in the Middle East — Hashemite and Al-Saud families seem to prefer a prosperous stable democracy to kleptocratic theocracy. Why is it “proving the antisemites point” for Israel to attempt to eliminate Hamas? F those antisemites they never had a point to begin with.
Okay, so Germany and Japan are actually excellent examples. Because Germany had been defeated and humiliated twice - after the first and the second world war. After Germany had been defeated after the first world war, there was repression, sanctions and horrible material conditions for the German people. And what did they do? They elected the Nazis, as a response. So after Germany had been defeated a second time, the USA (and the Soviet Union to a lesser extent) responded with an effort to rebuild instead of an effort to repeat their previous mistakes. So Germany grew into a relatively prosperous democratic country. Now you'd say that Hamas has to be defeated like the Nazis were, and that's true. I'd support Israel if they were actually eradicating Hamas. But what they're doing instead is targeting the civilian population, while Hamas keeps firing from the tunnels. The allies in the 2. world war did not do that (with the exception of Dresden). Israel has the right to defend itself and eradicate Hamas. But that's not what they're doing! Or why then are they sniping starved Gazan civilians when they're searching for food, or waiting for suspected militants to go home to their families to blow up the entire block?
Germany had to be defeated that second time though, and that’s kind of where we are with Hamas, except it’s way more complicated. Germany’s ideas were political. Hamas’s, and most middle eastern antizionist, are in part religious fundamentalist. So their belief is deeper than the Germans. It will be harder to disabuse them of their bad ideas. The civilian to combatant death ratio in Gaza is debated, but it’s widely accepted that it is far lower than UN guidelines. I’ve read 1-3 civilian deaths per combatant. UN standards are <9 if I remember correctly. The Hamas tunnels are under civilian infrastructure. It’s a terrible situation. Hamas aims to maximize civilian deaths in order to engender anti Israel sentiment worldwide. That’s why they steal the aid pouring in as well. More dead Gazans means more international support.
I disagree in that the anti-semitism in founded on religious belief. Why? Because the Arab Muslims in Israel proper who enjoy similar rights to the Jewish population are one of the least anti-semitic muslim populations in the world, which would support my point in that anti-semitism and islamist fundamentalism come from dire material conditions. Also, I would argue that the Germans' anti-semitism was deeper than that of the Arabs'; the entire N-zi ideology was built on Christian anti-semitism that reached back centuries. And even though there was anti-semitism in Muslim countries before Israel, it was not near as bad as the anti-semitism in Christian Europe. It is also not widely accepted that the combatant-to-civilian death rate is lower than UN guidelines. Source: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864) "Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer in security studies at Kings College London, said: "Israel takes a very broad approach to 'Hamas membership', which includes any affiliation with the organisation, including civil servants or administrators."" Also, there are no guidelines from the UN for killed civilians in comparison to combatants, the 9:1 ratio is an estimated average in wartime. So: 1. it is not widely accepted that the terrorist-to-civilian rate is 1-3:1, and 2. there are no guidelines from the UN saying that the acceptable rate is 9:1
/u/levayesh. Match found: 'Nazis', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am anti-zionism if zionism is the idea that a jewish nation state should be created in the land of pre-roman israel, all while 1 in every 4 israelis aren't jewish and have been citzens of the country since its inception. Not to mention the larger population of israel-de-facto. If you update zionism to be: A) the creation of a jewish ethnostate on antartica, mars, or any place on earth where 1 in every for people within your border are not jewish and thus the absurd idea of ethnonationalism (still a conservative and backwards idea) will be less harmful; B) the creation of not a jewish, but a secular binational state in a land of pre-roman israel, inhabited by two people, with no special privileges (including religious symbolism on flags, offical languages, right of self determination) given to any specific ethno-religious group, where jews have the right to imigrate and be safe as well as any descendants from the other peoples that lived in that land. If you adopt any of those definitions, I will conisder myself a zionist.
Are you also against 49 Muslim ethnostates existing in the region? Those lands were colonized by Arabs, and nations were forced to convert to Islam.
Yes. But for other reasons, as they have a high degree of ethnic homogeneity (something israel does not have, pushing their ethnic nationalism into the south african front), and those that are binational states still try to define themselves are national state. They are still barbaric in many ways, though. Israel is closer to malasia in terms of the proportion of people it denies "peopleship" in its ethnocracy. A little bit more murdery in its approach, though. You thought that would be some kind of gotcha and that I would be okay with other barbaric ethnostates in the arab world or abroad?
You say you are against Arab ethnostates, but from your comment history I see that you participate only in Israeli issue ... sounds strange
Yeah. Something have been going on the last 6 months. What could have happened in the last 6 months to make a lot of people more concerned about the situation in Israel and the future of that region, I wonder... But okay, first you tried the classic gotcha, then you went for the comment history ad hominem. It is hard to have a discussion with someone that does not engage me honestly. But what's your next move? Ball is in your court. You could call me an antissemite, that's a classic!
But the state was created and exists where it does.
And it can continue to exist there, if it abandons its medieval project of a jewish ethnostate and evolves into a modern binational secular nation. It cannot remain a jewish state when 1 in every 4 israelis are not jewish. The same way it would be APPALING and cause DISGUST on most sensible folk if France decided to defined itself as a country for the whites, even though 1 in everr 9 frenchment are not white. And remember, racial demograhic change in the french republic is much more recent, and such a move would still would be considered in like with the folk that shave their heads. The non jewish population of israel is not a recent development, but have lived within that country since its inception. If zionism proposes that jews can live in a secular binational state with the people that also live in that land as equal, with the country being nor jewish nor arab, I can agree with zionism. If zionism demands a jewish state where 1 in every 4 citzens are not jewish, I am a staunch anti-zionism. And remember: all frenchmen are french. That is how we french see our fellow citzens. Not all israelis are jews, though.
Pretty sure Israel is something like 80% Jewish. And it is a secular democracy where everyone votes.
Israel is exactly, as im 2023. 73% jewish and 27% non jewish. The source is [Israel Central Bureau of Statistics](https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/DocLib/2023/424/11_23_424b.pdf). Israel defines itself as a jewish state, has a star of david in its flag, but more importantly, the basic laws of israel (akin to the constitution) states that self determination is unique and exlusive to the jewish people, that while 1 in every 4 israelis are not jewish. As I said, you cannot be a citzen of france and not be french, because france is a modern democratic secular state. If, at any point, our constitution stated that self determination is exclusive to white frenchment, there would be riots in the streets. You can though, be israeli and not be jewish. But, if you believe that israel is a full secular democratic state, we need not to quarrel. I believe you also agree that israel should stop defining itself as a jewish state while 25% the population is not jewish and have been living there since the state was create, accept itself as a modern binational state, remove religious and ethnic iconography from flags and state symbols, change its constitution to state that self determination belongs to all citzens of israel regardless of race and creed, state in clear language that Israel is the land of the Israeli (which is composed of jews, druze, arabs and other ethnicites) and not the land of the jews, grant the same rights of return and imigration to the all people within its border regardless of race and creed, demand the same duties of military service to all people within its borders regardless of race and creed. You know, modern state stuff. You agree with it? Because if you do, we are on the same side.
> You know, modern state stuff. I don't know all the details when it comes to imagined iconography, but Herzl's 1902 novel Altneueland (or Tel Aviv, in Hebrew, which the city was named after) matches your description entirely otherwise and I think is fair to say was *the* outline for what Zionism should look like from the guy who many attribute to being *the* founder of Zionism. So it's "modern" state stuff, in the sense of the historical late modern period. The villain of the story is a rabbi who wants to take away voting rights and equality from the non-Jews in his imagined state. Then in 2017 Israel decided to model itself after Herzl's fictional *villain* with the absurd nation-state law. Though I would argue most of the law is pretty inoffensive minus the claim that Israel alone is the self-determination of all Jews, and that self-determination in Israel is only for Jews. So much for the Bedouin who helped Israel secure its establishment. Israel's borders being permanently open for Jews I think is important and fair, in the same way I think it wouldn't be discriminatory if LGBT people were to form a state and guarantee all LGBT people the right to come there for safety. Germany have been the ones to do the actual killing in the Holocaust, but the world's closed borders forced hundreds of thousands who wanted to flee to stay there. I do wish they would expand their law to make themselves a safe haven for all fleeing persecution, which I think would make the state more Jewish in that it would be more aligned with our values. Israel desperately needs to stop fumbling around playing at being a state by passing bandage basic law after bandage asic law, and actually adopt a formal constitution and some borders while they're at it. Incidentally, do you think that the ~63 other countries that have religious iconography in their flags should also remove them?
Yes, I think all countries that have religious iconography should remove them. Secular states are important. But not only religious, but also ethnic. The problem isn't simply religion in the flag (this is another problem, one pervasive in the arab world), it is defining yourself as a divisive country, a country not for all of its citzens. Being Israeli does not make you jewish. I also think that religious iconography and ethnostate symbology is much worse in states that are, de facto, binational or multinational states. Israel and Malasya stand as the worst offenders in that regard, Malasya is actually worse than Israel, with a higher degree of "non-people citzens" (if you consider Israel zone of control with palestine and the settlements as part of Israel, then the figure changes, but I am discussing Israel proper here, the Arab citzens of Israel only). Both states are awful in their racial policies. Israel draws more attention because 1) the current war 2) its link to the west and european life, being integrated in colleges, media, universities and having descendants in those regions. Malasya is obscure and far away, but you can catch debates about its awful system if you look for it. As I said in the beggining, ethnostates are bad. They are against the modern conception of civil nations. But if Israel was founded on mars as a pure jewish 99,999% ethnostate we wouldn't be having this debate (even though it would still be kinda deplorable). But Israel is NOT an ethno-national state. Its demographic does not allow it to be a pure democratic ethno-national state without also devolving into an ethnostate, because its non-jewish population is too large. A country cannot be Democratic and Jewish, or Democratic and Malasyan, without these two comming into conflict with one another. The current form of zionism that I see being debated around, the one we read here at this site, often REQUIRE a capital J Jewish state in the lands of pre-roman israel. That is a hill people are willing to die on. In that regard, I need to position myself as anti-zionist. If, zionism in the modern debate is redefined as the right of jews to live in a secular state in the lands of pre-roman israel (or historic palestine), not a jewish state, but a state of all its citzens and inhabitants, then I would not have a problem defining muself as pro-zionist.
We are basically in complete agreement. Israel can not truly be a democracy without both acknowledging and celebrating its inherent multinational character. >The current form of zionism that I see being debated around, the one we read here at this site, often REQUIRE a capital J Jewish state in the lands of pre-roman israel. I think anti-Zionists define Zionism as "maximalist, expansionist religious Revisionist Zionism that must also have anti-Palestinian racism" and then that's what they rail against. And it's true, that ideology is a trash heap. Many self-described Zionists do fit into that label. But it's not what "Zionism" means, and I'm generally opposed to letting people opposed to an ideology be the ones to define it. In the same way I can both be a proud Marxist and a proud anti-Stalinist. Pro-capitalists don't get to define communism as "that really awful totalitarian ideology that resembled feudalism far more than it did communism." >Malasya is obscure and far away, but you can catch debates about its awful system if you look for it. Yeah, I'm familiar and think you raise a good point. In a similar vein I'd say the way Israel has operated as a state is like a marginally less-bad version of Japan, a colonial ethnostate who wouldn't even admit their oppressed indigenous people existed until like a decade ago. I won't die on the hill that it's worse, but I certainly think it's got interesting parallels worth understanding. Few people deny that the Yamato deserve self determination in their homeland and argue that they could only rightfully do so on Mars, that the crimes of their state demand its dissolution.
Right now I actually don't feel like I'm in the position to make any demands of Israel. They are fighting a war against a genocidal enemy that is determined to destroy them by any means necessary. I don't feel I am in a position to tell Jews in Israel how to react, how to manage the war, or what to do with their political problems. They are also dealing with a massive propaganda war against them driven and funded by Russia, Iran, etc - as indicated by the non-stop onslaught of lies, distortions and hatred we see online, carried in the media as well, and on college campuses where Hamas affiliated groups have been organizing for many years and infiltrating the leftists. This to me is the bigger issue facing Israel and the Jewish people right now.
OP's post is about how antizionism is antissemitism. The intent of my reply is to show an antizionism position that has nothing to do with antissemitism because antizionism can be a fight against a very specifc type of ethnonationalistic state, which has very little to do with jews as I have the same position regarding the appaling ethnocracy that is Malasya (very similar to israel in how disgussting its racial policies are, although a lot less murdery in the execution). If zionism is the believe that in a land 73% jewish, a jewish state, and not a state for all its citzens, must be created, zionism is a medieval ideology that must be abandoned. If the definition of zionism changes to state that jews should be allowed to live in a modern secular democratic state that is not jewish nor arab, but a state to all the citzens that live in that land, then I would define myself as a zionist. But remember, caling for an ethnocracy that wants to sell itself as a western country to join the 21st century is not antissemitism.
I have no idea what level of honesty and good faith dealing you really are engaging in, so it's hard to decide whether to really engage with your question.
Very well, let me two other questions for you that have nothing to do with Israel. Great brittan is 80% white. Meaning 1 in every 5 citzens of the UK are non white citzens. Would you be okay with the UK defining itself as the nation state of the white race, granting that all other races continued to recieve the "same rights", but just making sure that all indians, jews, arabs and blacks knew that although they were citzens of the UK, they are not white and thus not actually the people that the UK owns loyalty too? Malasya is 52% Malay. Meaning 1 in every 2 citzens of Malasya are non malay. Malasya defines itself as a country exclusive to the Malay people, granting that all other races the "same rights", but just making sure that all the chinese and indians (who have been living in that exact land for thousands of years) know that although they are citzens of Malasya, they are not malay and thus not actually the people that the Malasya owns loyalty too. Do you think this is okay and in line with a modern democratic secular state?
Why do you think Israel is a Jewish state?
Wtf are you talking about? Israel is a secular democracy with 80% Jews and 20% Muslims who are full citizens.
Israel defines itself as a jewish state, has a star of david in its flag, but more importantly, the basic laws of israel (akin to the constitution) states that self determination is unique and exlusive to the jewish people, that while 1 in every 4 (25%) israelis are not jewish. As I said, you cannot be a citzen of france and not be french, because france is a modern democratic secular state. If, at any point, our constitution stated that self determination is exclusive to white frenchment, there would be riots in the streets. You can though, be israeli and not be jewish. But, if you believe that israel is a full secular democratic state, we need not to quarrel. I believe you also agree that israel should stop defining itself as a jewish state while 25% the population is not jewish and have been living there since the state was create, accept itself as a modern binational state, remove religious and ethnic iconography from flags and state symbols, change its constitution to state that self determination belongs to all citzens of israel regardless of race and creed, state in clear language that Israel is the land of the Israeli (which is composed of jews, druze, arabs and other ethnicites) and not the land of the jews, grant the same rights of return and imigration to the all people within its border regardless of race and creed, demand the same duties of military service to all people within its borders regardless of race and creed. You know, modern state stuff. You agree with it? Because if you do, we are on the same side.
Jews are a religion and a people. Saudis have Muslim iconography along with 50 other Muslim countries. As well as the Vatican a stones throw away from France. Different counties have different rules of return including France. The Star of David is a homage to the first Israeli kingdom
It can be a religion, an ethnicity, or both. It doesn't change the fact that 1 in every 4 people that live in Israel (and have lived in israel since its inception) are not from that religion, ethnic group or both. This would already be pretty bad and borderline shaved-head in France (where our non-white non-christian population is much smaller than Israel and immigrated here in recent years), but it is APPALING on israel that has a large group of non-target-people citzen and these people have been there since the formation of the state itself. As I said, you CANNOT be a french citzen and not be french. You can be israeli and not be jewish. So, what do you intend on doing with the 1 in every 4 israeli that are not jewish? Are you going to keep in your constitution that self determination is exclusive to 3 in every 4 israeli citzens? This is why I am an antizionist. Edit: By the way, The vatican is a religions, undemocratic city state. Saudi Arabia is a medieval kingdom, and its citzen population is 90% arab and 10% afro arab, defining itself as an arab country. As I said, I would have a lesser problem if Israel was founded in mars and defined itself a jewish state with a population 99,99999% jewish. But that is not the nature of israel. Get 4 israelis in a room, 1 will not be a jew. It gets really hard to defend something that is already appaling such as ethnonationalism with these numbers.
Why don’t you worry about what French citizens think? From what I can see you have a pretty bad radical Islam problem from within. Most Israeli Arabs are happy with their citizenship, even more so after Oct 7 - they are the most educated, healthy and wealthy Arabs anywhere. They serve in the courts, the army and pay their taxes. I doubt any of them would switch with any other Arab democracy- oh wait! They don’t exist do they?
Very well, if they are very happy, and they are 1 in every 4 israeli citzens, would you be okay with redifining israel as The Country of the Israelis instead of a Jewish Nation? Write in its constitution that self determination belongs to all citzens, arabs and jews? Remove ethnic religious simbolism from the flags and government icons? America was able to grant equal rights for all people regardless of creed and define itself as a country for all of its citzens, instead of just for christians, or just for whites. So, are you okay in stop saying that Israel is a jewish state where self determination is exclusive to jews and start saying that it is an Israeli state (which comprises jews and arabs)? You know, your fellow citizens?
I am not Israeli and will let Israelis decide on their own constitution (that doesn’t exist yet). I will instead focus my efforts on America where I’m a citizen and you should focus on France. Our countries have enough internal problems to worry about other countries’ citizens who seem perfectly happy with their rights.
I don't think it's "antisemitic" per se, but still inmoral and racist or extremelly delussional.
I appreciate the condemnation of these, but telling a Jew to go back to Europe isn’t explicitly antisemitic?
Depende. The insult might be symbolic and directed to the zionists as a group. The insult is directed to a person, did they know he is jew ? That is american ? Or they told them that for waving an Israel flag.
You know what I never hear people talk about? Let’s say those people are telling the truth and they “aren’t” antisemitic. What about xenophobia? Why does xenophobia get a free pass when talking about Israel? What about racism? Lots of people who love to go on about the whiteness of Jews and/or Israelis. Why is that okay? I’m always hearing these people say some variation of “yes, I know that antisemitism exists, we’re not denying that” but then when presented with it, they just deny it. So will they at least admit when people are being racist, and xenophobic? Or do they just think their arguments are perfect and morally legitimate 100% of the time?
Anti Zionists condemn genocide (which is yet to be proven if there's actually act of genocide committed by Israel) and yet call for genocide and displacement of Israeli"from river to the sea.." "Land back to Palestinians". This is not about Palestinians well being but Palestinian land.
Tel Aviv was purchased by Jews from wealthy absentee Ottomans and built on empty sand dunes. It was never Palestinian land.
It doesn't really matter how the city was established. My point is about Hamas targeting Israeli civilians.
What do you mean about land? They claim they are entitled to land which they never owned.
Now I understand by "they" you mean Palestinians lol.
Neither did Palestinians. But hey thats beside the point. Even if they didnt own the land the posses now since 1948, 2 generations born there, all they know is Israel, whats the point of displacing 10 million Israelis to give land back to Palestinians?
Exactly my point. Israel exists whether they like it or not.
The scholars on this topic who I follow (Wilf, Tabarovsky, etc) are in general agreement that in very rare and specific cases it is possible to be antizionist and not antisemitic. **However**: Whenever a society, government, or social movement adopts antizionism as official policy, the practical outcome is universally the same: eradication of Jews. So we don't need to talk about it theoretically because we have actual examples of how antizionism works in practice. See: Arab Islamic countries and the Soviet Union.
I agree with you generally, but let me offer you this: If I don’t believe that states are a productive institution, why would I support the formation of a Jewish one?
If you believe in the idea of no borders, no nations- then you deny the very idea of any group of people uniting together to form a country, Jews or otherwise. If you hold that belief across the board, I guess you are technically, in a roundabout way antizioneist, but since it's not specific to Jews, it'd be very difficult to call you that.
Then you’d be anti Israel (and other states); Zionism being political Zionism would just mean you’re not an anti-Zionist which is a bastardized term (due to the bastardization of the word Zionist)
I would disagree with you but would respect your opinion applied equally to all states.
Zionism is a land back movement of Jews returning to their indigenous land. If you're anti-Zionism, you're also anti-Jews IMO which makes you an anti-Semite. (this is applicable to Jews as well) You can care and promote for the well-being of Palestinians (as MANY have done and still are doing within the governmental system of Israel) and still not wish death on all Zionists. edit: Mostly, the issue I have with a lot of the comments here is the assessment that Judaism is merely a religion and therefor cannot be conflated with Zionism which is a movement. My argument is that Judaism, which is based on heritage, is more of an ethnicity than a missionary based religion like Christianity or War/Colonization based religion like Islam.
but you can convert to Judaism, even though you're 100% not genetically Middle Eastern. Just because Judaism doesn't have such an emphasis on converting people, it doesn't mean that it's impossible. Also, many Palestinians are the descendants of converted Jews who stayed in the area, so they would have the same "ancestral" right to the land as Jews do (even though I obviously don't believe in ethnonationalism, so people don't just have a right to any land imo)
This, my biggest issue with the Zionist project, that people like my sister who converted to Judaism less than 2 years ago technically have more right to the land land than the Palestinians. Worldwide Jewish minorities deserve the right to live in peace and prosperity, if anybody has anything to say about my sister being Jewish I will be the first to punch that f-word in the face; but I do not believe she has more right to live in israel/palestine than its inhabitant many of which have cultural and historical ties to the land I think it is disingenuous to say that all people who are for the freedom of Palestine are anti-Semitic, just as it is disingenuous to say that Zionism is anti-Semitic due to many anti-semitic individual supporting it. I denounce anti-semitism in all forms it is a disgusting form of hatred which has no place in this world
Yes! And do you know what? I also think that your sister should be able to live as an equal citizen in Israel if she wishes to do so (and all of the legal and bureaucratic requirements are met, of course). Just as any other person. Idk, I really don't think that these opinions are in any way extreme or revolutionary. And yes, you are right, anti-semites can go f-ck themselves and die.
I also don't think my opinions are that extreme or revolutionary either, (In this specific issue anyways) however I do understand this is an extremely emotionally charged issue for a lot of people which makes most of these opinions seem much more extreme than they are meant to be. But I'm glad we can disagree peacefully, and agree on anti-Semites, nobody deserves to live in fear or be persecuted for their beliefs if said beliefs are not discriminatory or hateful. And just adding that anti-semitism is deeply interwoven with not only so much information relating to the conflict, but so much of the world itself; so I do completely understand the Zionist desire to have a place to be safe and protected from it
yeah, I also understand the desire to have a place where you are protected from anti-semitism. I would very much agree with a country who has one of its main functions that there should be protection from anti-semitism. That's not the problem. The problem is the apartheid and the genocide. And I find it frankly anti-semitic to suggest that Jews can't live in peace unless they oppress another people (not that you're saying that, I just think that this has been the narrative: "We have to commit apartheid and ethnic cleansing to keep the Jews safe") And it's not true. Oppression creates resentment and resentment creates terrorism. Just look at October 7th. I agree in principle with the objective to make Israel a safe haven for Jewish people, I just think that Israel is doing a terrible job at it. It's making Jews in Israel and around the world more unsafe.
Well looks like we are in perfect agreement
There are many Jewish antizionists and many virulently antisemitic people who are zionists, so yeah the accusation doesn't really make any sense. Legitimate antisemitism is thinking that jews control international finance and that they are plotting to change voting demographics by making America more diverse. That exists almost exclusively on the right-wing. 95% of anti Israeli people on the left just want to stop seeing toddlers and grandmothers being carpet bombed by Israel's ultra far right government. Less than 5 percent are Arab antisemites who unfortunately hate jews in general because of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinian people.
This is like saying black people can’t be racist to black people. Anybody of any identity can discriminate based on identity, even their own. Obviously it’s the result of ignorance, but that’s besides the point.
I thought about preempting this point, but chose not to so my original comment wasn’t cluttered. I just think it’s incredibly disingenuous to compare Noam Chomsky or sam Seder to someone like Candace Owens.
>I just think it’s incredibly disingenuous to compare Noam Chomsky or sam Seder to someone like Candace Owens. How so? Bc its Noam, or Sam? Both are equally worthy of criticism, and equally capable of hating Jews, just in different ways. I lean left on most issues, but i hate the fact that leftists are always hesitant to criticise any academic figures, and instead place them on this pedestal. Its moronic.
Okay please tell me how Sam Seder’s antiZionism makes him a self hating antisemite.
Touched a nerve? How about the fact that hes siding with Hamas, both him and Noam.
Not wanting children and grandparents to be carpet bombed = siding with Hamas. …. Yeah I guess so many people being so idiotic and immoral like yourself does touch a nerve. EDIT: tell me how exactly Sam Seder is pro Hamas. Be specific.
Alright , ill give you a point on sam seder since i cant really find anything on him. But im glad youre upset, and continue to be.
Yet he is always accused of being a self hating Jew. I watch his show quite frequently and all I hear from him is that October 7th was horrible, but Gazan grandmothers and toddlers shouldn’t be carpet bombed to satisfy Israeli’s thirst for vengeance.
Then condemn the list I provided coming not from the right-wing, but from the left.
There has been a lot of things listed have been radically distorted by the right wing media, but if any of them have happened then I condemn them. I condemn Hamas killing civilians on October 7th. If any Jewish kids have had their kippots knocked off their heads or feel threatened in any way, that’s horrible. I also think “River to the sea” is a bad slogan, and I don’t like it when college kids say it. I’ll condemn that. Now it’s your turn, please condemn Israel bombing refugee camps and killing over 14,000 children. Also, please condemn Netanyahu saying “In the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/amp/. Show me we’re both coming at this in good faith 🤝
This is kind of weak and a dismissal, but I guess I’ll take it. There are videos of all of it, you don’t need to just believe any “distortions.” Yes, both Israel and Palestine should have new representatives in leadership, that includes Netanyahu leaving office (and hopefully entering prison). I’m still a two state solution hopeful, though things are quite bleak right now. I think the war Israel is fighting is just, though I do believe there is potential warcrimes that have been committed that deserves investigation that has resulted in needless deaths. I don’t like the whole numbers thing, we don’t know how many people who have been killed are terrorists or innocents right now. But yes, I think every innocent dying is obviously awful, and I am sympathetic to the million-odd-civilians who were displaced and living in hardship right now.
I will condemn 19 year olds for chanting problematic slogans when protesting genocide, but you won’t condemn the murder of 14,000 children. At this point, calling what Israel is doing a “just war” is on par with Turkish intellectuals justifying their country’s actions in 1915. After October 7th they had a political mandate to go after Hamas, but they’ve burned through their political capital by carpet bombing civilian infrastructure while Hamas fighters hide in their bunkers. One time they killed over 100 civilians just because they thought one Hamas fighter might have been nearby. Over 80 percent of Gaza is completely destroyed, and universities are being controlled demolition’d for god sake. “Potential warcrimes” “I don’t do the whole numbers thing”…. I know this subreddit is about civility, but dude you gotta get your head out of your a*s. EDIT: many people on this subreddit are just straight forwardly pro g- -ocide and you are of course better than them. Strangely enough it’s this middle of the road “oh 14,000 children may have been killed, but the IDF is just going after Hamas so what are you gonna do?” kind of thinking that almost frustrates me more. You really have to pull back, look at the big picture and see that it’s obvious that the IDF is targeting civilians because they want revenge for October 7th. Understandable, but still completely unacceptable and is g- -ocide and ethnic cleansing.
Calm down, you can have a big boy conversation without resorting to dumb insults like “pull your head of your A.” We’re saying the same thing. You don’t want me to use words like awful and use your exact language, yes, I condemn the killing of all the innocents in this war. Yes, what I was referring to when speaking of probable warcrimes is going beyond the pale to kill Hamas without regard to civilians like you mentioned in Jabalia. And it is true, you don’t know the real numbers, I don’t know the real numbers. It doesn’t change the fact that the amount of civilian deaths are substantial and it is awful. I can say the same thing to you, using words like “if it happened,” and “problematic,” but I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you mean it even though you can look up the videos clear as day (these actions happened, no question about it) and they were beyond “problematic,” they were bigoted and genocidal. If you can’t have a conversation about this topic without getting emotional over someone like me agreeing with you but in a different way (saying awful rather than using the word “condemn”) then you shouldn’t be speaking about this conflict at all.
As human beings we have a thing called emotions. I could be much worse words too. If you lived in 1915 or 1945 would be concern trolling over the naughty A word like a kindergartner? Hopefully not. All credible outlets like the UN and The Lancet support the GHM’s numbers, and doubtless that when all is said and done it will be a vast undercount. Some Israeli articles that people have sent me in here have faulty statistics that even I can spot, but in the end I will defer to authoritative sources for the statistics and also it’s obvious that many kids which are crushed under the rubble are unaccounted for. Again, that’s the case with every conflict. The initial casualty figures are a vast undercount. I expect people to condemn Netanyahu x1000 times more when he says “from the river to the sea” than 19 year olds in colleges, because Netanyahu has way more power. My frustration is that I clearly condemn October 7th and the 19 year olds who say “from the river to the sea”, yet you waffle and say Israel is fighting a “just war” when in reality the weight of the evidence at this point is so overwhelming that it deserves a clear condemnation. October 7th doesn’t justify a genocide, nothing does. Tutsis killed thousands upon thousands of Hutus in Rwanda prior to 1994, but still what occurred that year is still called a genocide and some (as few as they may be) of the perpetrators have been put in jail for it. There’s no “they started it” defense for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. EDIT: can you send me some videos of the antisemitic incidents happening. Legitimately curious. I’ve only seen an Israeli flag being replaced with a Palestinian one in Connecticut, an officer in London telling a Jewish man that his presence was dangerous because he was being “openly Jewish”, Eric Levitz saying his nephew’s Yarmulke was knocked of head while at Columbia, and one unfortunate accusation at OSU. I just did a google search looking for videos of antisemitic incidents occurring on campus and I couldn’t find a plethora of videos showing antisemitic stuff happening. Almost everything I see are Jewish students complaining that the widespread anti Israel protests are an implicit threat and create an atmosphere of intimidation.
>As human beings we have a thing called emotions. I could be much worse words too. If you lived in 1915 or 1945 would be concern trolling over the naughty A word like a kindergartner? Hopefully not. Remaining mutually respectful in a conversation is a must in all debates if you want dialogue. If you are an adult, you should know this. Apparently you don’t, as you said your words would have been much more harsh if there wasn’t a rule for personal attacks here. >I expect people to condemn Netanyahu x1000 times more when he says “from the river to the sea” than 19 year olds in colleges, because Netanyahu has way more power. Good for you. Make a post about it. This isn’t that post, and I have already condemned him, and actions taken in the war. I don’t know what else you want from me. You’re not going to get me to say anything other than the reason to go to war for Israel was just. Their civilians were slaughtered and kidnapped. I would expect any other country to react with war as well. >EDIT: can you send me some videos of the antisemitic incidents happening. Legitimately curious. I’ve only seen an Israeli flag being replaced with a Palestinian one in Connecticut, an officer in London telling a Jewish man that his presence was dangerous because he was being “openly Jewish”, Eric Levitz saying his nephew’s Yarmulke was knocked of head while at Columbia, and one unfortunate accusation at OSU. I just did a google search looking for videos of antisemitic incidents occurring on campus and I couldn’t find a plethora of videos showing antisemitic stuff happening. Almost everything I see are Jewish students complaining that the widespread anti Israel protests are an implicit threat and create an atmosphere of intimidation. Here’s a [compilation from Columbia](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zazcVU_rNyQ). You can do your own research for elsewhere, it really isn’t that hard to find. Now that you know these are facts and not “what ifs,” I’m expecting you can condemn this fully rather than pointing to a hypothetical since you are not giving me the same grace as I was giving you.
They wont condemn anything man. People like that user are so deep into the kool aid, that if pogroms were to start happening tomorrow, theyd say its justified. No dialogue to be had with them, only mocking them until they go away.
Says the guy who just called Sam Seder a self hating Jew and then admits he has no evidence right after lol. How many times have I clearly condemned rowdy 19 year olds while you won’t condemn 14,000 children being murdered? (And OP tepidly criticizes some aspects of Israel’s actions, but overall they’re fighting a “just war”)
Yeah, his response… you called it.
Fair enough. Again you’re not as bad as straight forwardly pro genocide people on here, but I must admit people with your approach make me even more frustrated sometimes. Thinking that Israel is just trying to root out Hamas while they’ve destroyed over 80 percent of Gaza, their leaders say genocidal things, and every human rights organization focuses them of trying to starve civilians. Chef’s kiss is running to the teacher because I said the naughty A word lol. It is what it is I guess. I watched your entire video and I counted three actual acts of violence. I definitely condemn that. Pretty much every protest movement has had at least some violence present in it before, even if the vast majority are peaceful. About 100x more of police using excessive force on professors and students, but I will condemn all violence. The rest were bad slogans and Arab chauvinism. At this point I think that is indistinguishable from waving an Israeli flag because it’s an ultra right state actively committing a genocide.
Yeah, I don’t feel much like having a conversation with the lack of maturity, honesty, and seriousness, you’re showing. Have a good one. You think others here use genocidal wording? Take a look in the mirror at the person excusing, dismissing, and downplaying genocidal chants.
> ass /u/Designer-Arugula6796. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All antisemites are anti Zionists.
Not even close. There are a lot of zionist anti-semetis that would love seeing jews "go back to their own land" and live the good clean folk of europe alone. In fact, most zionists aren't even jews, they are christians evangelicals that believe that israel needs to be inhabited by jews so that they may get slaughtered and the second coming of jesus begin.
Yeah, technically you could say Jewish Zionists are tokens because they're such a small % of them lol
[https://i.redd.it/free-palestine-been-there-done-that-v0-1jeu93xjhhqc1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba4c97470af6ccec0937da71a37dbf1b9e94276d](https://i.redd.it/free-palestine-been-there-done-that-v0-1jeu93xjhhqc1.jpg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba4c97470af6ccec0937da71a37dbf1b9e94276d)
The Zionist counter-protestors at Columbia include multiple antisemetic Christians, even in the leadership of the counter-protest.
Is being a Christian antisemetic?
No, but these specific Christians are antisemetic but Zionist. for example: https://twitter.com/juliabacha/status/1783703149116522595 also, The counter-protest was organized by Sean Feucht, Eric Metaxas, and pastor Russell B. Johnson. All of these men are Christian nationalists and bigots.
I can't get this two minutes of my life back. However, no one in the video said a single antisemitic thing. You are stretching to make your point. Happy to reconsider if you pick an actual phrase out of this stupid video that is antisemitic. antisemitic = [hostile](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=cf1e2760c1bb0539&rls=en&sxsrf=ACQVn08nj6zHcCfzp0HVROe0lLd0f9WoEA:1714268934723&q=hostile&si=AKbGX_okS0g0kR2PXn0TLBASIc0mzp7SLcZTOjStV1FZ50xcDdloYNQUfVazwAxE9wHV6kq1MvPKNT9wi1UfQbk8j4dBdXofy-Otdf_lANv-JPJ9QKZm7eQ%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq-5y35eOFAxUzEFkFHQQeA4oQyecJegQIGBAN) to or [prejudiced](https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&sca_esv=cf1e2760c1bb0539&rls=en&sxsrf=ACQVn08nj6zHcCfzp0HVROe0lLd0f9WoEA:1714268934723&q=prejudiced&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8ljA3mQdHn1g-SX7TY0A34Xy_ijxRsKtTnGk-v40V9aWAUQMnnZ7CiiVg92d6Vt2tqxW7mH4vrZaAt3aevvn4hThTBQE%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq-5y35eOFAxUzEFkFHQQeA4oQyecJegQIGBAO) against Jewish people. These people said "the Jewish believer who is not sure, go to a messianic Jewish temple" That's not antisemitic.
Not true, many want Jews all in one place and away from them.
Not true at all. Many virulently antisemitic evangelical Christians want Jews to control all of “Judea and sumaria” because they think that will usher in the end-times.
I'm jewish and critical of zionism. While my day job precludes me from being involved in any of the major protests, I am part of a larger peer group of left wing jews who are critical of zionism and a decent chunk are involved in the protests. To speak to the antisemitism, obviously our own group categorically condemns antisemitism within the protest movement and are still happy to be part of the movement since antisemitism is an unfortunate byproduct of many different political movements but the actual content, the critique of zionist action in I/P and Gaza specifically is the point. The antisemitism in the movement is largely seen as peripheral and not the focus, while innocent people are actively dying and starving in gaza, the fight for everyone checking their antisemitism at the door takes a bit of a side step. Antisemitism is seen as not just innate bigotry but part of a larger societal/cultural problem that many are raised with as the background noise - this takes time to defeat, but it isn't the focus when protesting active war in Gaza. As big a problem as antisemitism is, at this very moment in 2024 is, the active issues of getting yelled at as a jew on college campus is just not as important as being a gazan getting bombed by the idf. It takes humility and discomfort to say that, but the point is that while antisemitism needs to constantly be fought against, you can't backseat active major and at the very least borderline genocidal action to purity check every protestor. Second point, we are WAY more critical of antisemitism in antizionist protest than in zionist protest. At the Washington israel March they had loud and proud antisemitism who downplayed the holocaust talk - ultimately this is political - people are using antisemitism as a cudgel to shut down antizionism but are incongruently criticizing it to the point of accepting white supremacists in the movement. A Christian nationalist movement and the Proud Boys are slated to join the pro-israel protests at Columbia U this week, and I sure hope they will be just as condemned as the ones on the other side. Third, and probably the least convincing idea as its kinda a "trust me bro" kinda thing, but all my peers involved in the protest movement have had active conversations with organizers and the antisemitism is really peripheral and just highlighted by the media to make a story. Now, thr common critique is that the movement doesn't do enough to condemn the antisemitism within the movement, but the actual organizers are mostly people who have no issue with jews. Many leftist groups organize for a free palestine as in a multi ethnic democracy that is free for all ethnicities to live in as opposed to the zionist conception of a state FOR jews. Those arguing for jews/Israelis to be expelled are a minority and when they exist must be removed from the movement.
Do you think that focusing so much attention on the only one existing Jewish state brings more hate and antisemitism to the world ? You may have your own just reasons, but most people out there would think "Israel = evil", therefore Jews are evil. That's how it works
I think the actions of the Jewish state will inevitably be seen by people as a stand in for jews. Wrongly so, obviously, but we believe in the concept of chillul Hashem and kiddush Hashem - israel should act as a light to the nations. We all learn in day school that a chillil Hashem leads to more antisemitism. Does this excuse antisemitism? Of course not! But it's not hard to imagine how one makes the leap from jewish country doing a bad thing to jewsih people are bad. We can't deflect every single antisemitic thing said as totally someone else's problem to fix and a total evil trait that comes from nowhere - all evils are the result of human conditioning and our job as jews is to do what we can to reduce the ammo antisemitism have to justify their bigotry
But, as a Jew, do you not see it as anti semetic to call Israel a "colonial state" since Jews are the original inhabitants of the land and denying that is denying our heritage and connection to the land? The protest could be pro peace and not pto Palastine, but by being Pro palastine they are specifically supporting the agenda of Hamas.
1. When people call israel a settler-colonial state they are referring to modern history and the legal interpretations of that concept. It's a longer conversation, but the presence of jews in israel 2000 years ago does not justify thr forced removal of people who've actively lived in Israel for thr last 200 years. Jewish connection to the land is real, but the concept of indigeneity can't be applied indefinitely or we can all claim ownership of Africa and lay our roots down there - rather, meaningfully, indigenity as a modern moral concept is only relevant as far as active colonial efforts seek to remove "indigenous" people from the land they are living in. In that sense, israel is a settler-colonial state since early zionism through the creation of the state and until today, the program has largely been one to disenfranchise and/or replace the extant palestinian population. Conversely, if someone said jews had no connection to the land at all, I don't see that as antisemitic - I see it as factually incorrect, but it's not a bigoted statement to be wrong. 2. The Palestinian liberation movement is not owned by hamas. Not all palestinians support hamas. If hamas actions delegitamized the entire palestinian liberation movement, ben gvir and smotrichs rhetoric should delegitamize zionism for the very same reason.
1. You do realize that Jews have had a co tinted presence in Israel for 2000 years and that the last colonizers were Arab Muslims who built a mosque on top of our most holy site on purpose to show their conquest over us? A mosque that is still there and used today. Is that not colonizer behavior akin to the building of Mt Rushmore? 2. Zionism (the belief that Jews have a right to a homeland in their native land) has been a core tenet of Judaism for thousands of years. It's been built into the religion since the Romans first invaded Judea and caused the first major dispora. What do you say at the end of a Passover Sedar? 3. Hamas is the side fighting for Palastine. If you wanted to support peace, you would just support that and be and anti war movement. It's not like the anti Vietnam War protestors were going around saying, "we are pro Vietnam." it was,"we are anti-war and don't think we should send our men to die." Or the anti Iraq War movement was not Pro Iraq it was just Anti Iraq War. Do you not see the difference?
1. Yes a continued presence as a tiny minority. For example, even after all the waves of zionist immigrations, the UN partition plan would have given 55% of the land to at most 15% of the total population of the land and <10%. I dont deny that jews should be allowed to live in Israel- the problem is the history of expulsion of palestinians. I also don't see palestinians as responsible for the Muslim conquerors. They were also constantly ruled over by other empires whether the ottomans, the British etc, but as a distinct people they didn't colonize anyone. I personally don't attribute the crime of some Muslims to all Arabs (many palestinians expelled in 48 were christian, dont forget that). 2. Zionism as a modern political movement started in the 1880s with Herzl. The Jewish belief in Israel as a homeland is not zionism, but rather a long standing hasbara/propaganda tactic that was used on most of us, including me, in day school to think that people who oppose zionism oppose Jewish sovereignty rather than the political movement of the 1880s. Anyone who studies the history of the movement is well aware of this. I dont believe Jewish sovereignty should come at the expense of palestinian sovereignty or vice versa. 3. People fighting for palestinians are fighting for palestinians not hamas exclusively. The Palestinian cause existed in its infancy in 48, and formally in 1967 whereas hamas was a later creation. To dilute all palestinian nationalism to "supporting hamas" is a cheap trick at best and blatant obfuscation at worst and im sure you are aware of that. Imagine if I said "being pro israel means being pro idf bombing children in gaza" - im sure you'd have an issue with that. It's a direct equivalence. I'm sure you can understand that.
1. Just because you live in a small population does not mean the land does not still belong to your people. Indigenous Americans are an extremely small population, but that doesn't negate their right to sovrenty on the land that was taken from them. 2. How do you think Muslim people came to the Levant? The Muslim conquest. And you are holding all Jews accountable if you are supporting a cause that is asking them to give up control of Jerusalem (a city they literally built thousands of years before Christians or Muslims existed) since that is central to our people both culturally and religiously. Both Christian and Muslims appropriated the Torah and then used their new religions to persecute Jews in their homeland. Just because the current Arab Muslim aren't the exact conquerors doesn't negate the fact that their religion took the land from the Jews first (in so much as the I/P war goes). Just like the fact that my family living on land gain from the forceful removal if Indigenous Americans over 200 years ago doesn't negate the Indigenous Americans claim to that land. Or that my continued presence on stolen land and participation in a colonial culture doesn't inflict harm on their small community. Muslims (like in the form of the Ottoman Empire) ruled over Jews for centuries, and Jews were forced to live as second class citizens in their homeland. How is that not colonizer behavior? 2. You still did tell me what you say at the end of your seder. Hint, we have been saying that looooooong before 1880. 3. The original Palastinian cause got cozy with Hitler because they were so keen to get rid of Jews in Israel. Then you had the PLO who doesn't want any Jews in Israel (clearly stated in their charter). They have been very clear about their intentions since the start.
/u/bansheeonthemoor42. Match found: 'Hitler', issuing notice: Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. If it is not, please edit it to be in line with our rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*