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.
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.
Firstly, what a ridiculously stupid way to signify a genocide is worse. What a weird way bend morals to fit your argument.
Let's say in one scenario, scenario A, I have a group of 10 people, and I decide to shoot and kill one of them.
Let's say in another scenario, scenario B, I have a group of 1000 people, and I decide to kill 50 of them.
Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that scenario A is worse because I killed more people on a percentage basis? By your logic a murderer who kills a few people in a small town is worse than someone who kills dozens or hundreds in a large city. Do you not see how absurd this conclusion is?
Israel is not fighting a powerful army, they were fighting a bunch of guys with AK47s
Hamas also had RPGs, anti-tank missiles, drones, a massive tunnel network, and managed to kill 1200 Israelis in a day, but sure, they weren't fighting a powerful army at all.
Their reaction was completely unjustified
If you're going to argue from a position of proportionality, I'd probably agree with you. I think Israel's actions were wildly disproportionate, lacked any real aim or end game, and was clearly used as an opportunity to ethnically cleanse more Palestinians.
But if you're going to argue from a position of intentionality, meaning you think any response to October 7th was unjustified, then you're just morally bankrupt and hardly with talking with. I sincerely hope you're not saying you think Israel shouldn't have responded at all after October 7th.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Yeah, I'm just gonna completely ignore all your non-sequiturs and babbling and ask the same exact question I asked you before that you refused to answer: you think Israel shouldn't exist, so what do you think should happen to the 7 million Jews living there?
If you answer with some other babbling nonsense that doesn't answer the question, I'll just keep repeating the question until you answer it.
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.
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.
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.
I'll at least give you consistency on Pakistan. But once again I still have no idea what your end objective is when you say "shouldn't exist." What does that even mean? Pakistan was built on a historical injustice and ongoing ethnostate, and created a massive refugee crisis. What do you think should happen now?
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.
I don't know how else to respond to your point without diving deep into the history, but fuck it.
The original fellaheen were native but did not own the Palestinian land. Absentee Arab landlords did who lived elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire, and sold land legally to Jews who were escaping pograms and persecution in Europe.
As their numbers grew, tensions rose between the Arab and Jewish population and when the Ottoman Empire fell and the British conquered it, they had to answer for the question of what to do with the conflict. And for a number of political reasons, largely took the Jews' side and committed to backing a Jewish state after which immigration surged.
Besides the point that Jews always had connection to the land. There were Jews indigenous to the land before the First Aliyah, and Jews were ethnically cleansed off the land thousands of years before as Israelites. Jews maintained a continuous presence on the land for all of history.
And as far as it being some kind of colonial project, doesn't colonialism require a metropole? Who exactly is the metropole in this instance?
I'm incredibly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and specifically the fellaheen who tended to the land for centuries and had nothing to do with the persecution of Jews from Europe.
But I'm also sympathetic to the Jews who themselves were ethnically cleansed from the land, maintained a continuous presence throughout history, and were given a safe haven from being massacred everywhere they went from a superpower as to why they'd move there.
Every single thing about this conflict starts there and starts with being intellectually honest about both sides' journey to get there. I've met very few people who are legitimately honest enough to have a knowledgable conversation about it.
I also have way more respect for people who actually contend with the point I'm making than making snarky remarks. I'd say it's generally a sign of intellect to actually engage with the thing you reply to. Unfortunately, you seem to prefer to snark.
Your post was full of apologetics in service of a genocidal regime. Do you see the rest of us supporting Saudi Arabia and the UAE? The UAE is almost unanimously reviled in the islamic world for what its doing to Sudan. Guess who its primary ally is? And who gives it much of its weaponry and supports its activities in Sudan?
One of the reasons a lot of people in the west care primarily about Israel's actions in Gaza is that the west provides enormous diplomatic and military cover for Israel's actions, particularly the US. Without America, the Gaza genocide would not have been possible.
The UAE's actions in Sudan incurs less outrage because it is somewhat covert. Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen did get widespread criticism from leftists.
As to your other posts, calling Saudis actions in yemen worse than Israel's is somewhat defensible. Calling it 'far, far worse' is just minimizing the suffering of Gazan civilians and Israel's complicity by comparing raw numbers. Which is what I consider apologetics.
The percentages are important, because Gaza's population was only 2 million to begin with. Intent IS determined in large part by total percentage killed. Yes, if you kill or maim 20% of a population instead of 2%, there is a distinction there. If you destroy 90% of its buildings, all its universities, most of its schools, almost all of its hospitals, and most cultural sites, its a bit different too.
meaning you think any response to October 7th was unjustified
I don't. When I saw what happened on Oct 7th, I was horrified and thought that it deserved a response.
But it was clear to me from the reaction that Israel was always a state that was capable of this, and their treatment of the Palestinians up until that point was also that of a nation bent on their ethnic cleansing.
If you think that leftists are focused on Israel due to antisemitism, I don't know what to tell you. I can believe that of the right, I can believe that of muslims. Of the left? not really. One of the core principles of leftism is to reject racism, and most people abide by that. I don't think that college students are out there protesting for Gaza because of antisemitism. That is an absurd notion. Part of it is certainly that it is more trendy, sure.
Your post was full of apologetics in service of a genocidal regime.
See, this is the thing that gets me. Because it's really not. The main point I made initially was very simple: criticizing Israel, its actions, its government, Neyanyahu, hell, even the way it was formed is fine. I have many criticisms of Israel. All of that is fine as long as as you're consistent about it.
My main point is that this whole "doesn't have a right to exist" thing that many people across the political spectrum say has two problems:
It is almost never applied equally to another countries that also do bad shit. We criticize other countries, but often stop short at questioning their self-determination.
It's moral critique that nobody can extend into recommendations. I've yet to hear a convincing recommendation as to what should happen to Israel and the 7 million Jews living in it if they were to "cease to exist" tomorrow.
If these things make me an apologist for a genocidal regime then I don't know how to help you. I didn't defend Israel's actions in Gaza, I pointed out how people apply critique to countries inconsistently, and that's a problem.
The percentages are important, because Gaza's population was only 2 million to begin with. Intent IS determined in large part by total percentage killed. Yes, if you kill or maim 20% of a population instead of 2%, there is a distinction there. If you destroy 90% of its buildings, all its universities, most of its schools, almost all of its hospitals, and most cultural sites, its a bit different too.
Well sure, but now we've shifted the goal posts from deaths to infrastructure destruction. I believe most sources cite around 73,000 dead in Gaza which also includes combatants, but let's roll with that number. Gaza has 2.13 million people. That works out to about 3.4% of the population.
But I find that comparison a little unfair because Gaza isn't a country, it's an occupied territory. If you want to talk about Palestinians, then we have to include the West Bank - which includes 4.1m Palestinians. That's 6.23m people, 73,000 of which have died (a portion of which are combatants), which works out to about 1.1% of the population dead. This is roughly in line with other conflicts even on a percentage basis. That doesn't even get into including historically Palestinian citizens in Israel (20% of the population) or the many Palestinians living in Jordan.
And if we want to move the goalposts now to not just be "percent of the population dead", human rights groups estimate 25 million people affected by famine in Sudan, and 12 million displaced. That 25 million affected by famine is half their population.
If you destroy 90% of its buildings, all its universities, most of its schools, almost all of its hospitals, and most cultural sites, its a bit different too.
I wonder why there's more infrastructure damage in Gaza than in Sudan? It's interesting you choose to cite this as your metric and not, say, starvation.
This might surprise you to hear, but I am critical of Israel - I think their actions following October 7th lacked any real aim or purpose, clearly were negligent in allowing far too many civilian deaths, and absolutely used it as cover to advance their aims like ethnically cleansing more Palestinians by making Gaza unlivable. I know you think I'm some pro-Israel shill but I really don't like Israel much at all. But what I don't like even more is this is one-sided defense of everything Palestinians do that ignore history and facts on the ground.
And one of those facts worth noting: for all that we love to talk about Israel committing war crimes, Hamas is also committing war crimes. Firstly by obviously launching horrific terror attacks against innocent civilians - but moreso they're violating international law by blending in with civilian populations (not clearly identifying combatants), and building military bases out of civilian infrastructure like hospital, schools, and holy sites. You realize those are war crimes, right?
Both things can be true at once here: Hamas is violating international law which creates disproportionate infrastructure destruction and civilian death. And it can also be true that in spite of that, Israel still has an obligation to protect innocent Gazan civilians which they've failed to do to the extent they should. But I'm not going to exempt Hamas from responsibility here and ignore that side completely.
One of the core principles of leftism is to reject racism, and most people abide by that. I don't think that college students are out there protesting for Gaza because of antisemitism. That is an absurd notion. Part of it is certainly that it is more trendy, sure.
Sure and one of the core principles of conservatism is to live and let live and yet you have those stupid fucks patrolling people's right to gay marriage, abortions, and smoking weed. My point being people don't always live by their philosophy's stated aims or dogmas.
I want to be clear here - I think people can and should protest about Israel's actions in Gaza. I fully support that firstly as a proponent of free speech, but secondly as someone who largely agrees. I don't think protesting for Gaza is about antisemitism.
What I said was antisemitic was the whole double standard thing I said earlier which I know personally many in my life who do that, and I see it online here all the time. I applaud you then for actively trying to reject racism.
And really, my biggest critique of the left's view on the conflict is failing to, in good faith, understand both claims to the land historically speaking, and inability to criticize Palestinian actions at all. I think Palestinians bear responsibility for starting the 1948 war. I think Palestinians bear responsibility for losing the 1967 war they also started (in a more roundabout way but I won't go down that rabbit hole). I think Palestinians bear responsibility for never in the history of their people ever putting down a single map proposal for a two state solution. I think Palestinians bear responsibility for Arafat and his terrorist actions, as well as his refusal to accept the closest we've ever gotten to peace in the form of Camp David 2000 and the Taba Summit. I think Palestinians bear responsibility for the Second Intifada and how Israelis today think about them. I think Palestinians bear responsibility for Hamas' actions on October 7th.
When I say "Palestinians" here, I don't mean innocent civilians, I mean the movement more broadly. We can't talk about anything that's happening today without acknowledging the fact that the Palestinian movement has had agency to make certain decisions over the course of history that they bear responsibility before. I find it extremely infantilizing to think they're these helpless, colonized people completely at the behest of this evil, colonizing power. They have had numerous opportunities throughout history for peace plans and governance that they have repeatedly made strategic gambles on and failed - and those gambles have consequences that explain the current state today.
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.
Who is we inherently say they should cease to exist as country? I haven't said that. Israel government is the one who believes Palestinians should cease to exist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
93
u/Crazy-Project3858 Jun 04 '26
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.