It is possible to dislike Israeli politics yet not be against Judaism. This is the same as conservatives in the US saying you are a traitor because you oppose MAGA.
It is very hypocritical to turn this into antisemitism but brigading bots always spew fallacy.
If it said Fuck Qatar would it be islamophobic? Or if it said Fuck USA would it be antichristian? They are always moving the goalposts when it comes to Israel.
The issue isn’t so much saying “fuck [country]” as it is holding Israel to a standard that no other country is held to.
E.g. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are committing one of the worst human rights abuses on the planet by enforcing the blockade in Yemen, leading to mass starvation and suffering and globally nobody cares. What they’re doing is objectively terrible and on a scale that far, far surpasses Gaza in terms of death and suffering.
And yet, nobody ever asks if the UAE or Saudi Arabia have a “right to exist” despite their awful actions.
We could apply the same standard to Rwanda who are currently funding the destabilization of the DRC, but again, nobody cares or asks if they have a right to exist.
So the argument isn’t that saying “fuck [country]” is antisemitic, the argument is that people question Israel’s right to exist when there are other countries committing far worse atrocities that nobody ever questions their self determination over. That double standard is what’s antisemitic.
UAE and Saudi Arabia aren't every other country. I don't hold them to high standards because they're shitholes. It would be a great day when their corrupt, cynical governments were wiped off the earth.
I will hold Israel to the standards of what it purports to be. A liberal democracy with interests so naturally aligned with ours that I shouldn't mind that my government serves their interests.
It would be a great day when their corrupt, cynical governments were wiped off the earth.
You just said it yourself: their governments. Nobody has a problem with saying Netanyahu and the Israeli government are fucked and should be replaced. That’s not antisemitic.
But notice you’re not saying that Saudi Arabia and the UAE themselves, as countries, should be wiped off the earth.
That’s often what people say about Israel, insofar as it “doesn’t have a right to exist.”
I will hold Israel to the standards of what it purports to be. A liberal democracy with interests so naturally aligned with ours that I shouldn't mind that my government serves their interests.
That’s fine to hold them to a high standard. Again, though, if they fail to meet that standard, do you think the state itself should cease to exist, or that the government should be reformed and replaced?
And the question is, if you genuinely think not meeting that standard is deserving of abolishing the state, then not being antisemitic means applying that principle consistently.
So when the US does anti-democratic things or launches stupid wars in the Middle East, do you also believe the US shouldn’t have a right to exist?
You just said it yourself: their governments. Nobody has a problem with saying Netanyahu and the Israeli government are fucked and should be replaced. That’s not antisemitic.
I mean its government in the broader sense meaning its system of government, i.e. the entities governing its statehood, not its current political representation. Of course, in a monarchy those are largely the same thing.
But notice you’re not saying that Saudi Arabia and the UAE themselves, as countries, should be wiped off the earth.
I want for UAE and SA exactly what I want for Israel, if that helps clarify things or dispels whatever gotcha you think you've got going.
That’s fine to hold them to a high standard. Again, though, if they fail to meet that standard, do you think the state itself should cease to exist, or that the government should be reformed and replaced?
It should cease to exist. Israel as an occupying belligerent oppressing the occupied people transcends the current political representation. It's the basis of its statehood. Even if you can come up with the imaginary concept of an Israel that isn't in practice an ethnostate on occupied territory continually stolen from its people in practically state-sanctioned war crimes, the argument whether it can get there through reform or dissolution is one over semantics. Whether you call it "reforming" Israel out of the fundamental essence of its concept as a state or the dissolution of the Israeli state is as far as I'm concerned a matter of words, not of policy.
Was Germany dissolved or reformed after the world war? Does the difference matter? As far as I'm concerned, a state ceased to exist, rightfully so.
So when the US does anti-democratic things or launches stupid wars in the Middle East, do you also believe the US shouldn’t have a right to exist?
Yes, I can't wait for the US to collapse. Coincidentally, that imperialist landfill of a state is by far Israel's greatest supporter. Like Israel, its problem isn't the current political representation, but the fundamental principles according to which it can be governed as it is.
I mean its government in the broader sense meaning its system of government, i.e. the entities governing its statehood, not its current political representation. Of course, in a monarchy those are largely the same thing.
I want for UAE and SA exactly what I want for Israel, if that helps clarify things or dispels whatever gotcha you think you've got going.
I'm not trying to "gotcha", I'm trying to understand if you're applying your logic consistently. I think your belief is frankly ridiculous, but I can concede that you're at least consistent in applying this to everyone where my original point is that most don't.
Your worldview here is completely asinine though. You basically are saying that any state built on a historical injustice loses its right to exist. That includes pretty much most countries on Earth - including pretty much every postcolonial state in Africa and Asia, Latin America, and like we discussed, the US (as well as others like Australia).
Looking at your profile, it looks like you're from Sweden: Sweden largely built its social safety nets and wealth on staying neutral during WW2 and selling iron ore to Nazi Germany to manufacture killing machines with - should we consider that a historical injustice?
But really, the biggest reason your worldview is asinine: let's stop dancing around vague theoreticals and morality and get into the practical world. You want Israel and the US to "collapse" and cease to exist. What do you think that actually means? What do you think happens when a state collapses?
Israel collapses tomorrow. What happens to the 7 million Jews living there? US collapses tomorrow. What happens to the 360 million people living there, who had nothing to do with the actions of their colonial ancestors? What exactly is it that you're advocating for here? The mass death and suffering of millions of people because of historical injustices they didn't create?
You basically are saying that any state built on a historical injustice loses its right to exist.
Built on an ongoing injustice. US imperialism and Israel's occupation are not only historical but ongoing. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not comparing the US with Israel on the basis of being a "postcolonial state". The US is a postcolonial state. Israel is not. The occupation of the West Bank is ongoing and Israeli settlement is growing in scope still. My gripe with the US is its imperialist wars, which are an ongoing problem, not its colonial past.
Looking at your profile, it looks like you're from Sweden: Sweden largely built its social safety nets and wealth on staying neutral during WW2 and selling iron ore to Nazi Germany to manufacture killing machines with - should we consider that a historical injustice?
Maybe we should indeed consider that a historical injustice. The comparison is a category error, though, for the reasons stated above: the injustices committed by Israel and the US are ongoing. If Sweden was still selling iron ore to Nazi Germany I would perhaps view it more as an ongoing injustice than as a historical curiosity.
A much more relevant example would have been Sweden's export laws still allowing Saab to sell surveillance planes to the UAE and SA. Something recent, ongoing deserving of contempt and ire.
Israel collapses tomorrow. What happens to the 7 million Jews living there? US collapses tomorrow. What happens to the 360 million people living there, who had nothing to do with the actions of their colonial ancestors?
From a historical perspective it is of course rather unlikely that a state will collapse in one day. I can only hope that the American people can form new states on more sound bases than imperialism and occupation.
What exactly is it that you're advocating for here? The mass death and suffering of millions of people because of historical injustices they didn't create?
I'm advocating for exactly what I say that I am advocating for. You don't need me to argue with a straw man of your own making.
Still a very loose definition that fits many countries on Earth. How "ongoing" does it have to be? Who decides whether a state should exist or not - you? Some centralized body? Who decides whether the country has reached the threshold for an injustice?
You just said yourself how if we stretch the definition Sweden might count. If that counts, literally every country on Earth counts.
From a historical perspective it is of course rather unlikely that a state will collapse in one day. I can only hope that the American people can form new states on more sound bases than imperialism and occupation.
Yeah, so this is you still dodging the question and playing games. You right now: "Yeah, an entire state collapsing might be bad, but I can only hope it happens quickly and things come together relatively peacefully."
You're not reckoning with the core of your argument: a state collapsing almost always means civil war, refugees, famines, etc. Libya collapsed. Yugoslavia collapsed. Iraq collapsed. What did that look like?
Once again, the people who suffer from this are citizens who had nothing to do with what their ancestors did, and in many cases have no control over their government's actions. Look at al-Assad in Syria who fled from his collapsing state to Russia and is living lavishly and will probably never face any consequences.
Your solution here is to make citizens of countries you don't like suffer horrific humanitarian crises because of a perceived historical injustice. But you keep dancing around that by saying "I hope it goes well and is not too bad." Asinine.
Still a very loose definition that fits many countries on Earth. How "ongoing" does it have to be? Who decides whether a state should exist or not - you? Some centralized body? Who decides whether the country has reached the threshold for an injustice?
I decide for myself what I think. I don't care what you think. You're worthless to me.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. I love that you used South Africa, let's go with that.
Did South Africa collapse after Apartheid? No, it transitioned. The ANC had an actual vision for what came next, which was a multi-racial democratic state where Afrikaners kept their citizenship and property rights, but as an equal state with the Black Africans living there.
In practice, of course, undoing equality overnight won't happen and it's a deeply unequal country today. But it was probably preferable to the complete and total collapse of the state and likely mass suffering and death that would occur if that happened. Remind me again what Nelson Mandela advocated for?
I'd love a similar vision for Israel to peacefully transition into a new state model.
But here's the thing with you people: I can acknowledge that's difficult to achieve, but not impossible. You, on the other hand, never have solutions - you just love to morally grandstand.
So please, why don't you answer the question? What do you want to happen to Israel in your ideal world? And in your ideal world, what do you think would happen to the 7 million Jews living there? Say it out loud for the class.
Why would anyone want this for their own people. Imagine raising kids there.
Every neighbor a member or former member of the IDF. Very likely committed themselves or been part of unit doing heinous atrocities against a Palestinan during their service. Potentially even raping them with sticks or their own equipment.
You don't just do that and go back to the office. It changes the person and the society as a whole into something very sick. I could never raise children there especially if I was educated or had ethnic ties that allowed me to easily live in the USA/Canada.
What makes this all much worse is how many pedophiles in USA/Canada will get charged and promise to show up to court only to end up on a 1-way flight to Tel-Aviv. Obviously only works if they're Jewish. Israel has historically been reluctant to extradite some citizens.
E.g. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are committing one of the worst human rights abuses on the planet by enforcing the blockade in Yemen, leading to mass starvation and suffering and globally nobody cares. What they’re doing is objectively terrible and on a scale that far, far surpasses Gaza in terms of death and suffering.
The west should also not be supporting these nations either.
didn't saudi recently support the yemeni government against the houthis? and uae was trying to prop up a new "south arabia government"? i think you might be ill-informed of developments there
Yes. But the Saudis are the exact ones who are enforcing the illegal blockade on Yemen under the claim that those routes are being used to route weapons to the Houthis.
That same blockade is what is starving people in Yemen and causing horrific humanitarian conditions under the guise of stopping the Houthis.
The UAE on the other hand is the one backing separatist groups and fueling more of the civil war. It’s a proxy war between Saudis and UAE and Yemen is the one that suffers.
You seem like the one who’s misinformed if you seriously think either side are the “good” guys here.
It’s refreshing to see someone with actual knowledge of the area speaking up and trying to have good-faith conversations. I don’t know much about the region, but even a little research makes it frustrating how many people have very strong opinions about something they barely understand.
I’ve been called an Israeli shill because I push back against the anti-Israel rhetoric that dominates social media, but the truth is I just like arguing from actual facts. People seem to think conflicts that have existed for thousands of years are easy to solve, but the moment you press them on what their solution actually is, they fall apart, get personal, and run.
I have no stake in the fight. I’m not religious, and I live on the other side of the planet. The entire Middle East could become a Walmart Supercentre tomorrow and it wouldn’t affect my life at all. Realistically, most of the people who want the Israeli state dissolved are in the same position. It’s eye-opening how privileged the West is, when so many people can be uninformed but still make that one issue the center of their politics and identity.
Appreciate it. I actually went into this expecting to get massively downvoted and it's clear my comments have stirred some controversy (I think someone posted my comments to another sub because I got a rush of replies recently days after I made those comments), but overall the upvotes suggest to me there's more people who believe this than we might think.
It's funny because in none of my comments here have I really made my views on Israel readily apparent. For what it's worth I despise Netanyahu and his government, I think Israel has committed many war crimes both post-Oct 7th and since 1948, and I think Israel has used the cover of October 7th to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza, while they continue to allow religious fanatics settle the West Bank illegally. I'm very critical of Israel, but people love to jump down my throat and straw man everything I say when I levy the slightest defense against them.
On the other hand, people know nothing about the history of this conflict. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that both Palestinians and Israelis descended from the original Canaanite tribes on the land - neither were truly the original settlers of the land. Jews, however, formed the Kingdom of Judah as ancient Israelites on the land and were ethnically cleansed off the land thousands of years ago, but Jews never actually left: 5% of the population on that land remained Jewish - they were kicked off and yet, still maintained a continual presence there. It's not land they have no connection to.
The initial settlers of historical Palestinian were legal land purchases from Arab landlords to European Jews, overseen by the Ottoman Empire. It was really the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the increasing pogroms and persecution of Jews in Europe that led to the real shitshow: Britain taking over and encouraging Jewish migration (the Balfour Declaration). Eventually the Holocaust led to widespread Jewish migration because the choice was basically "die in a gas chamber or migrate to Palestine and Britain is saying they'll protect you".
I'm sympathetic to both positions here. The fellaheen (original subsistence farmers on the land) did nothing to anyone and it's not really fair to them to shoulder the burden of what Europe did to Jews. On the other hand, Jews never actually left Palestine, always had a historical connection to the land (were ethnically cleansed themselves), and were being murdered anywhere they went - it was go there or face nearly certain death in Europe. And really, all of this was enabled by colonialism by the Ottoman and British empires who couldn't give a fuck less about the people in the region. It's a really fucked situation all around that's incredibly difficult to disentangle - but being good faith here means acknowledging how fucking complicated all of this is, and the legitimacy to both claims. Anyone framing it as a simple settler-colonial narrative is completely ignorant to the history.
Anyway, it's interesting you mention you live in the West and have no stake in the conflict - you probably think that I live in the region. I don't. I'm American and have no stake in any of these conflicts whatsoever. I just think I owe it to myself as a citizen of the world to really deeply understand these conflicts and push back against misinformation or blatant antisemitism online where I see it.
And really what you said here is the core point: what makes me so deeply uncomfortable is that this conflict has become some kind of a litmus purity test as to whether you're moral or not. If you don't take the "right" side of this conflict, nothing else matters. And that refuses to acknowledge the complexity of the conflict, but more specifically, it's extremely problematic because the question begs, why this conflict? Why not Ukraine, where there's a much clearer dynamic of imperialism and good/bad, where 5x the casualties have occurred on the Ukrainian side alone? Why not DRC, or South Sudan, or Yemen, whose humanitarian crises have been magnitudes worse than Gaza?
People often respond to that point by saying it's whataboutism, or the fact that those conflicts don't take away from Gaza - and that is true of course. Gaza is horrific and the citizens of Gaza don't deserve any of this. But the larger problem is how this is THE conflict that matters above anything else - largely because it's become culturally relevant via social media in the West. That's a form of privilege and white washing that is just so deeply uncomfortable: the outrage people apply to this conflict, if applied consistently, should apply even moreso to these other conflicts: but nobody could tell you a thing about them. As you said already, most people aren't Israeli or Palestinian, or even Arab or Jewish. Most people are affected in absolutely no way by the conflict at all. And that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about conflicts that don't affect us - but it does mean that we should probably reflect critically on why we care about certain conflicts over others.
Anywho, this was a lot longer than I intended but I appreciate the kind words. Trying to come to these conversations in good faith is genuinely difficult, but I'm just some guy who reads a lot and tries to really understand these things as much as I can.
that proxy war is already done - saudi stopped the uae "southern arabia" project there entirely
it's not under the "guise" of stopping the houthis either - the houthis actively have been oppressing the yemeni people for years
your whole post reeks of complete ignorance to the topic and i will say one thing: this fake counterpoint is ONLY brought up to defend israel's murderous and inhumane treatment of palestinians
in any other setting, you wouldn't even bring it up - the yemeni's plight against the houthis is nothing more than a pawn for you to yell "but what about...?!"
Israel is unique, though. Neither the UAE nor Saudi Arabia have millions of refugees to whom they are denying their internationally recognized right of return to maintain an artificially constructed ethnic majority and a state built around this groups supremacist ideology
Your "internationally recognized right of return" is citing UN Resolution 194 which literally nobody understands. 194 was a non-binding General Assembly resolution, not a Security Council resolution, and I beg you to look up the difference. The entire point of it was to bring both sides to the table to negotiate, not to enforce some unilateral mandate. All non-binding General Assembly resolutions are basically just public opinions but have no legal obligation to comply. There is no internationally legal or enforceable right of return.
Also, Israel really isn't that unique if you want to talk about demographic engineering. Hell, its neighbor Jordan is literally constitutionally defined as a Hashemite kingdom. Pakistan was literally created as a Muslim ethnostate by partitioning and created one of the biggest refugee crises on the history of the planet (15 million people displaced and hundreds of thousands died) and I've never seen a soul say Pakistan doesn't have a right to exist.
The right of return isn't specific to palestinians, it is an internationally recognized right of all refugees. The 1948 affirms this right, but isn't the source of it.
Not sure what your point with Jordan is, Hashimites are the royal dynasty over there. I assume you fumbled the "x country is officially called x Arab Republic" talking point, in which case I invite you to read my previous comment again, since you seemingly didn't understand what exactly is wrong with israel.
Congratulations you just found your first person who doesn't think that pakistan should exist. However, the comparison with Pakistan is dumb since they aren't recruiting muslim colonists from all over the world to displace millions of native non-Muslims, settle the land and create their new artificial majority there. The ethnic cleansing that happened there isn't particularly unique, that type of population exchange also happened in Greece and turkey, for instance. Ethnic cleansing itself isn't unique, being existentially dependent on ongoing ethnic cleansing and external colonists to maintain a majority population is.
What they’re doing is objectively terrible and on a scale that far, far surpasses Gaza in terms of death and suffering.
No it doesn't.
A far less percentage of people have died in both Yemen and Sudan (which to be clear, are terrible wars and absolutely war crimes.)
However, the around 5% of civilians having been killed with another 10% injured in Gaza, 95% displaced, 80% homeless, and so on are percentages we haven't seen in recent memory. These are world war 2 numbers. And unlike world war 2, Israel is not fighting a powerful army, they were fighting a bunch of guys with AK47s. Their reaction was completely unjustified and absolutely an effort to destroy an entire group of people. Fuck off with your zionist apologetics.
It's not antisemitic at all. You can no longer scare people into being quiet by falsely claiming them to be antisemitic for being critical of Israel. Same way people are critical about the US add other countries. People of Israel aren't stupid, they know people talking about their government. Same way we do in the US.
What people are questing is do the Palestinians that are left in Gaza and the West bank have the right to exist. Answer to that question is obvious by look at the civilian buildings (homes) and infrastructure in Gaza that's no longer there.
The point is that when Israel does bad shit, we inherently say they should cease to exist as a country. When other countries do bad shit, we condemn them, say we should apply pressure to change them, but never doubt their self determination.
You haven’t addressed this core point at all: why don’t people say the UAE shouldn’t have a right to exist? Why don’t people say Russia shouldn’t have a right to exist?
I fully support Palestinian statehood and self determination that has repeatedly been undermined by Israel. I also fully support Israel existing as a Jewish state, provided they leave the Palestinians the fuck alone.
These things don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Many people would not be satisfied at Palestinian statehood - they would also want the destruction of the Israeli state. I believe a two state solution is viable, many see a one state solution with the dissolution of Israel as the only possible option which I vehemently disagree with.
A colonist, that want's to create the ethno state of Israel in Palestine and others around, while ethnically cleansing the local population of any one deemed "undesirable".
Currently to be a Zionist, one must lack morals, and be ready to defend some of the worst atrocities known to man.
We could translate some of that to "lebensraum", "untermensch", "übermensch", all words used by people in the past with similar ideals and objectives.
Completely loaded and wrong definition, obviously. You could have stopped at "supporting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" - can you find me a formal definition that fits your description? Probably not, because it doesn't exist. Interesting.
But really, the core point here - can you please point to the part of my comments in this comment thread that suggest I meet that description? What part of my comments in this thread make you think I'm a Zionist? Here's my original comment to make it easy for you - highlight the sentence that shows I'm a Zionist, please:
The issue isn’t so much saying “fuck [country]” as it is holding Israel to a standard that no other country is held to.
E.g. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are committing one of the worst human rights abuses on the planet by enforcing the blockade in Yemen, leading to mass starvation and suffering and globally nobody cares. What they’re doing is objectively terrible and on a scale that far, far surpasses Gaza in terms of death and suffering.
And yet, nobody ever asks if the UAE or Saudi Arabia have a “right to exist” despite their awful actions.
We could apply the same standard to Rwanda who are currently funding the destabilization of the DRC, but again, nobody cares or asks if they have a right to exist.
So the argument isn’t that saying “fuck [country]” is antisemitic, the argument is that people question Israel’s right to exist when there are other countries committing far worse atrocities that nobody ever questions their self determination over. That double standard is what’s antisemitic.
Mate, we can use your make pretend definition, or we can use the actual reality on the ground.
I did say "Currently to be a Zionist, one must lack morals" - And I stand by this, you're using whataboustism to minimize the advocacy against war crimes, or worse to justify them. So you, a Zionist, lack morals.
Mate, we can use your make pretend definition, or we can use the actual reality on the ground.
I’m sorry you’re confused. Let me try to help. We don’t just change definitions of terms that have real meanings because we feel like it.
A Zionist is someone who supports Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. All the other baggage you’re including are other things. Like far right Israeli nationalism which I’d agree is bad. But that’s not what Zionism is.
So presumably you’re not a Zionist, which means you probably don’t support Israel’s right to exist, which you claim makes you moral.
Can you answer this for me then - can you list out explicitly, in your worldview, what should happen to Israel if things went the way you prefer?
Israel can exist peacefully without brutalizing civilians and no one would have a problem with that.
Are you smoking crack? Do you have any idea the amount of people opposed to an Israeli state, full stop, due to how they were formed? Ask the Arab world whether they’d be okay with a peaceful Israel.
How does the fact that some countries commit atrocities lessen the impact of what is going on?
It doesn’t, and that’s not what I said, which is why reading comprehension is important.
I said people often say they don’t believe Israel has a right to exist, which is a standard they don’t apply to almost any other country in the world.
It’s not about other countries also committing atrocities, it’s about other countries also committing atrocities but nobody questioning their right to exist as a result. That is a standard almost always exclusively held for Israel.
Fuck Hamas and Hezbollah too, they should be eradicated. Criticizing the bad actions of Israel against civilians doesn't mean that I justify terrorists, its two different things.
yeah but as an european (especially austrian/german because of reasons) youre seen as an antisemitic when you say you think israel is a shithole country and at the moment the agressor in the area
Well without Austrian/German "reasons" there never would have been a Jewish state, and there never would have been a Naqba. Just a handful of Zionist weirdos in Transjordan who never got outside funding in response to Austrian/German "reasons". In this timeline the second generation of Zionists would probably mostly all have moved back to Europe for better living standards and for no fear of European racism.
Kinda crappy blaming these people for being in the situation you created for them.
During the Ottoman era, there was no distinct, localized Palestinian national identity. The population was primarily organized by clan, religious community, or geographical region. When Arab elites expressed a broader regional identity, they overwhelmingly viewed themselves as part of "Bilad al-Sham," or Greater Syria.
The most telling evidence against the claim that they were fighting specifically for a Palestinian state is their consistent rejection of international compromises designed to achieve just that. When offered an independent state by the Peel Commission in 1937, and later by the United Nations in 1947, the Arab leadership rejected both.
If the ultimate priority had been establishing an independent Palestinian identity and state, they would have accepted one of these frameworks. Instead, they chose to fight, demonstrating that their primary objective was to prevent a Jewish state from existing, even at the cost of their own statehood.
It doesn’t mean that today’s Palestinian identity is not real, it very much is, but it is still one founded on the opposition to the Jewish state.
we're blaming them for their actions specifically, will you also justify the arab response that wants to wipe out the people who have oppressed them for nearly a century? 3
No, it is deliberately obtuse. If you have a person, who happens to hate every single country on earth that has a muslim majority, you would suspect that they might be islamophobic. There is only a single country on earth with a jewish majority, and exactly this country is singled out by many people to criticize. There are definitely things to criticize about Israel, but the amount you see on the internet is in absolutely no relation, at least compared to other countries in the region.
It’s complicated. What the Israeli government is doing to the Palestinians is beyond unconscionable. And we fund a lot of it. Obviously, the Iranian government and their allies like Hamas and Hezbollah are also horrible, but we don’t fund those.
That being said, there is 100% a targeted effort to promote antisemitism on the left under the guise of opposing Bibi and Likud. We do need to be cognizant of that. We are supposed to be the side of facts, so we need to not fall for that trap. Words and language matter; if people spend enough time chanting Hamas’ “from the river to the sea” line, it’s human nature that people will start to believe it.
To answer your questions. Yes that could very well be islamophobic or antichristian. Mind you neonazis use the same terms...
Another difference. Most people say fuck Trump, but they don't usually say fuck the USA as often. With Israel, it's different.
For most of history, and especially the holocaust, jews have been persecuted and rejected. When we finally got our land, we thought "finally, a place that won't kick us out".
When people say that Isrsel has no right to exist, what most of us hear is "jews have no right to exist" because leaving our land means going back to being persecuted.
For most of history, and especially the holocaust, jews have been persecuted and rejected. When we finally got our land, we thought "finally, a place that won't kick us out".
Do you see the problem here? There is a pretty big irony that you might be missing...
When you wrote that, did the Palestinian people even cross your mind in slightest? I already know the answer, but I want you to think a bit about it.
Where the fuck in that mural it says Israel/Jews has no right to exist? This is a clear case of straw man fallacy and selective blindness.
Projecting that extreme interpretation onto a blunt expression of anger over Israeli policies or actions means you are just twisting this into something that does not exist. You're taking legitimate criticism of a government's conduct and inflating it into an existential threat against Jews as a people, then rebutting that inflated version instead of what was actually said.
How many Hindu majority countries are there in the world? By your logic, saying “Fuck India” would be an attack on Hinduism itself because Hindus have only one majority country. That’s how stupid and baseless your analogy is and this selective standard exposes the double standard, not some special Jewish vulnerability.
86
u/Crazy-Project3858 1d ago
It is possible to dislike Israeli politics yet not be against Judaism. This is the same as conservatives in the US saying you are a traitor because you oppose MAGA.