Antisemitism vs anticatholicism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Antisemitism is not just about religious belief.

Bingo. Jews are despised for being Jewish, not because they are religious.

No. We despise Zionism.

Zionism is code for Jews.

No, it's not. Zionism is the minority of American Jews who still support Israel.

Zionism is also Christians who have nothing but violence in their hearts, for the sake of their messianic mythological prophecy.

Zionism is still the majority view of most American Jews. I think you're misunderstanding what Zionism is. One can (and many do) support the existence of the State of Israel and the right of its citizens to live in peace without supporting Bibi's administration or the specifics of the way his government is handling the war in Gaza (or settlements in the West Bank). Much like how I can be a patriotic American without supporting Trump or the Republican majority's policies. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

This is the modern liberal whitewashed version of Zionism that is really not grounded in reality.

Anybody who calls themselves a Zionist falls into one of two camps:

Evil: because they know exactly what Zionism has meant for Palestinians: displacement, massacres, occupation, apartheid. They see it, they accept it, and they justify it.

Ignorant: because they’ve bought the sanitized PR version of Zionism as “just Jewish self-determination,” without ever looking at the Nakba, the ongoing ethnic cleansing, or what “a Jewish ethnostate” on stolen land actually requires.

There’s no clean, innocent version of Zionism. Its history and its present are the same: violence and removal or elimination of Palestinians to a degree that allows Israel to exist.

This. Zionism is not merely the belief in a Jewish homeland. Nothing comes without consequences. It isn't as if Israel was some empty piece of land - people lived there. Palestinians LIVE there. Kicking them out for the sake of your "homeland" is inherently violent.

Finding and buying an empty, deserted piece of land for a homeland? Ok, sure. But Israel wasn't created without severe costs to others. If you support zionism, you inherently support violence.

Great, so what do you want to do about it going forward? This is not an argument in the 1890s or 1920s or 1940s about whether to start allowing Jews to migrate there. (Many of whom did, in fact, buy empty parcels of land, though I don't say that to deny that many others also murdered inhabitants or otherwise forced them out violently.) I don't see the point in litigating "should Israel have been founded" when it's already existed for almost 80 years.

But Zionism IS, in fact, merely the belief in a Jewish homeland, or at least, it can be. It certainly doesn't have to be the maximalist version espoused by the Israeli government and many of its allies. Why are you trying to tell me I have to choose between Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, on one hand, and people who think there shouldn't be a state of Israel at all, on the other?

Because this person is not having a discussion with you in good faith. They want Israel to cease to exists and are coming up with excuses.

While I'm sure there are some people that hold that position in the US, they seem to be few and far between.

While their path and method was a bit different (and much more sudden), the modern Jewish population in Israel are basically the descendants of colonizers who brought great harm to the existing population. And while no colonizers have done a good, or even adequate, job with this, I do think the colonizers that came out on top have an obligation to those they stepped on to clean up the mess they made. And Israel has consistently done the opposite of that.

This bold part isn’t true. Most Jewish Israelis today are descended from Middle Eastern Jews who arrived after the state was established and their families were expelled from their native countries.

Are you under the impression colonizers only include the very first group of people off the proverbial boat? Come on.

Where are you living and when did your family arrive?

I actually dig into this a lot recently hoping to find a path to citizenship in a European country...

It varies, but I was surprised to see how early many of them came. Many came from England in the 1600s, settling initially in either Virginia or Massachusetts. I would certainly call them colonizers.

A fair number came from modern day Germany and the Czech Republic in the second half of the 19th century, settling in then-sparsely-populated areas in the midwest. I'd also consider them colonizers.

Then there's a handful that came from Norway in the early 20th century.

So yes, I would certainly say I'm part of the society that has an obligation to the descendants of the native populations and slaves that certainly got the bad end of the deal and continue to face institutional challenges today.

Great, what specifically are you doing about it? What sacrifices have you made?

For one, I haven't gone out and killed 60,000 Native Americans and Black Americans. Nor have I displaced 2 million others. I also haven't built any homes for myself in areas that don't belong to me.

Of course, we both know that problems of this magnitude require institutional and political effort, even if you don't care to acknowledge that. And acknowledging it is a whole lot easier than actually doing anything about it. you haven't said a lot here, but the limited number of things you have said (e.g., your position on the withdrawal from occupied territories) would suggest you're likely moderate, maybe even a little progressive, compared to Israelis. And if you're not even willing to acknowledge such things, it doesn't speak well for the chances that the Israelis will ever do what is needed for peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Antisemitism is not just about religious belief.

Bingo. Jews are despised for being Jewish, not because they are religious.

No. We despise Zionism.

Zionism is code for Jews.

No, it's not. Zionism is the minority of American Jews who still support Israel.

Zionism is also Christians who have nothing but violence in their hearts, for the sake of their messianic mythological prophecy.

Zionism is still the majority view of most American Jews. I think you're misunderstanding what Zionism is. One can (and many do) support the existence of the State of Israel and the right of its citizens to live in peace without supporting Bibi's administration or the specifics of the way his government is handling the war in Gaza (or settlements in the West Bank). Much like how I can be a patriotic American without supporting Trump or the Republican majority's policies. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

This is the modern liberal whitewashed version of Zionism that is really not grounded in reality.

Anybody who calls themselves a Zionist falls into one of two camps:

Evil: because they know exactly what Zionism has meant for Palestinians: displacement, massacres, occupation, apartheid. They see it, they accept it, and they justify it.

Ignorant: because they’ve bought the sanitized PR version of Zionism as “just Jewish self-determination,” without ever looking at the Nakba, the ongoing ethnic cleansing, or what “a Jewish ethnostate” on stolen land actually requires.

There’s no clean, innocent version of Zionism. Its history and its present are the same: violence and removal or elimination of Palestinians to a degree that allows Israel to exist.

This. Zionism is not merely the belief in a Jewish homeland. Nothing comes without consequences. It isn't as if Israel was some empty piece of land - people lived there. Palestinians LIVE there. Kicking them out for the sake of your "homeland" is inherently violent.

Finding and buying an empty, deserted piece of land for a homeland? Ok, sure. But Israel wasn't created without severe costs to others. If you support zionism, you inherently support violence.

Great, so what do you want to do about it going forward? This is not an argument in the 1890s or 1920s or 1940s about whether to start allowing Jews to migrate there. (Many of whom did, in fact, buy empty parcels of land, though I don't say that to deny that many others also murdered inhabitants or otherwise forced them out violently.) I don't see the point in litigating "should Israel have been founded" when it's already existed for almost 80 years.

But Zionism IS, in fact, merely the belief in a Jewish homeland, or at least, it can be. It certainly doesn't have to be the maximalist version espoused by the Israeli government and many of its allies. Why are you trying to tell me I have to choose between Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, on one hand, and people who think there shouldn't be a state of Israel at all, on the other?

You keep trying to change the meaning of Zionism. It isn't just that Israel should exist, nor is it a belief in a "Jewish homeland."

Fundamental to Zionism has always been to
create and maintain a *Jewish state*, not a state with equal rights that is safe for Jews.

Some of your other posts strongly suggest you also subscribe to that notion of Zionism. You just want people to ignore how it necessarily results in a discriminatory society.

I think you’re arguing with more than one person here, because I have not suggested anything except that I want Israel to exist and that I think it is deeply, deeply flawed.

Perhaps, but I assumed you were the poster that supports relinquishing control of the occupied territories to, in part, ensure a clear Jewish majority in the population of Israel.

I support relinquishing the occupied territories because of international law and obvious ethics. I mentioned the demographics of the state vs. the territories because you suggested it’s impossible for Israel to maintain Jewish majorities under any circumstances, which isn’t true, but that’s obviously not the reason for them to withdraw from land they illegally took over.

It wouldn't be impossible to maintain a Jewish majority under *any circumstances *, but it certainly wouldn't be likely in a free society given that immediately result in something close to an even split.

But sure, they could kill another 100k to get some more breathing room and perhaps expel another million or two. And, of course, they'd have to continue to prevent formerly displaced Palestinians from returning.

Though, if your concern is over illegally seized land, then why not go back to the 1947 borders for Palestine and Israel? The Palestinians never ceded those regions. Then you might actually have two separate, viable nations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Antisemitism is not just about religious belief.

Bingo. Jews are despised for being Jewish, not because they are religious.

No. We despise Zionism.

Zionism is code for Jews.

No, it's not. Zionism is the minority of American Jews who still support Israel.

Zionism is also Christians who have nothing but violence in their hearts, for the sake of their messianic mythological prophecy.

Zionism is still the majority view of most American Jews. I think you're misunderstanding what Zionism is. One can (and many do) support the existence of the State of Israel and the right of its citizens to live in peace without supporting Bibi's administration or the specifics of the way his government is handling the war in Gaza (or settlements in the West Bank). Much like how I can be a patriotic American without supporting Trump or the Republican majority's policies. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

This is the modern liberal whitewashed version of Zionism that is really not grounded in reality.

Anybody who calls themselves a Zionist falls into one of two camps:

Evil: because they know exactly what Zionism has meant for Palestinians: displacement, massacres, occupation, apartheid. They see it, they accept it, and they justify it.

Ignorant: because they’ve bought the sanitized PR version of Zionism as “just Jewish self-determination,” without ever looking at the Nakba, the ongoing ethnic cleansing, or what “a Jewish ethnostate” on stolen land actually requires.

There’s no clean, innocent version of Zionism. Its history and its present are the same: violence and removal or elimination of Palestinians to a degree that allows Israel to exist.

This. Zionism is not merely the belief in a Jewish homeland. Nothing comes without consequences. It isn't as if Israel was some empty piece of land - people lived there. Palestinians LIVE there. Kicking them out for the sake of your "homeland" is inherently violent.

Finding and buying an empty, deserted piece of land for a homeland? Ok, sure. But Israel wasn't created without severe costs to others. If you support zionism, you inherently support violence.

Great, so what do you want to do about it going forward? This is not an argument in the 1890s or 1920s or 1940s about whether to start allowing Jews to migrate there. (Many of whom did, in fact, buy empty parcels of land, though I don't say that to deny that many others also murdered inhabitants or otherwise forced them out violently.) I don't see the point in litigating "should Israel have been founded" when it's already existed for almost 80 years.

But Zionism IS, in fact, merely the belief in a Jewish homeland, or at least, it can be. It certainly doesn't have to be the maximalist version espoused by the Israeli government and many of its allies. Why are you trying to tell me I have to choose between Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, on one hand, and people who think there shouldn't be a state of Israel at all, on the other?

Because this person is not having a discussion with you in good faith. They want Israel to cease to exists and are coming up with excuses.

While I'm sure there are some people that hold that position in the US, they seem to be few and far between.

While their path and method was a bit different (and much more sudden), the modern Jewish population in Israel are basically the descendants of colonizers who brought great harm to the existing population. And while no colonizers have done a good, or even adequate, job with this, I do think the colonizers that came out on top have an obligation to those they stepped on to clean up the mess they made. And Israel has consistently done the opposite of that.

This bold part isn’t true. Most Jewish Israelis today are descended from Middle Eastern Jews who arrived after the state was established and their families were expelled from their native countries.

Are you under the impression colonizers only include the very first group of people off the proverbial boat? Come on.

Where are you living and when did your family arrive?

I actually dig into this a lot recently hoping to find a path to citizenship in a European country...

It varies, but I was surprised to see how early many of them came. Many came from England in the 1600s, settling initially in either Virginia or Massachusetts. I would certainly call them colonizers.

A fair number came from modern day Germany and the Czech Republic in the second half of the 19th century, settling in then-sparsely-populated areas in the midwest. I'd also consider them colonizers.

Then there's a handful that came from Norway in the early 20th century.

So yes, I would certainly say I'm part of the society that has an obligation to the descendants of the native populations and slaves that certainly got the bad end of the deal and continue to face institutional challenges today.

Great, what specifically are you doing about it? What sacrifices have you made?

For one, I haven't gone out and killed 60,000 Native Americans and Black Americans. Nor have I displaced 2 million others. I also haven't built any homes for myself in areas that don't belong to me.

Of course, we both know that problems of this magnitude require institutional and political effort, even if you don't care to acknowledge that. And acknowledging it is a whole lot easier than actually doing anything about it. you haven't said a lot here, but the limited number of things you have said (e.g., your position on the withdrawal from occupied territories) would suggest you're likely moderate, maybe even a little progressive, compared to Israelis. And if you're not even willing to acknowledge such things, it doesn't speak well for the chances that the Israelis will ever do what is needed for peace.

You're again addressing one poster when you think you're addressing another.

I don't know about anyone else in this thread, but I am not Israeli, and I also have not done any of these things, either in the United States or in Israel or Palestine.

I don't know what you're talking about as far as who has or hasn't acknowledged the need for political and institutional efforts, but I've been giving money to groups in Israel that advocate for equal rights for Palestinians there since before the war, and obviously have increased those donations since the war, which is about as much political effort as I feel like making in a country that I've been to once, 30 years ago. (I also gave money to some NGOs that used to drive Palestinians from Gaza to Israel for medical care, but they have shut down since most of their volunteers lived, unfortunately, in the towns in the Gaza envelope that the Israeli government has abandoned since 10/7.)

Anyway, congratulations on not killing any Native Americans or African Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But I'll add this more directly to the case of Israel: if you want to move into an area claimed as a holy land by multiple religions, you better be willing to share.

Palestinians and Muslims certainly aren't without blame, either. They were there before the modern Jewish population, and I certainly don't think the Palestine Mandate or the UN Partition Plan were remotely fair to the existing population, but in the time since they certainly haven't demonstrated a willingness to share, either.

Which religion was first in the area?

Which religion acquires area in the area and the surrounding area got land by conquest?

No one owes Muslims anything.

So, because Romans killed a bunch of Jews 2,000 years ago, their descendants were justified in killing and forcibly removing Muslims about 80 generations later?

Heck, it was the Muslim Caliphates that first allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem.

NP: Modern day people are acting in modern self-interest on all sides. In the history of humanity, no piece of land has ever permanently belonged to anyone, nor will it ever. Arguments were and will be made about who has a better claim or right and each will make that argument as passionately and publicly as they can (e.g., I was here first, a greater power gave it to me told me it was mine, I invested in and improved the land the most so its mine, I won the war so it's mine, you stole it from me through evil means and so it is still mine give it back, etc.), and who gets a disputed piece of land will always be solved by modern people with modern ideas or weapons. Let's pray that the weapons can be laid down all over the world and civilized means of solving disputes over land and resources everywhere can prevail in a way that allows everyone to thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's ridiculous to even compare, OP. My maternal family is very Catholic and I really don't think there's anti-Catholicism discrimination in western countries (US and Europe).

In the West, I feel it's Islam that is by far the most heavily discriminated against. It's normalized so you don't even realize it, which is a terrible thing. Hardly anyone talks about it, unless someone's on the news for stabbing or raping Muslims (which has happened in our area).

This is very accurate
Anti-Semitism exists too, of course, but at least there are many extremely influential Jewish people and organizations to speak out against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hhmm, could it be the millennia of discrimination endured by Jews? Maybe the 6 million gassed and shot? What a dumb question.

Look, we can all agree that there is no singular event in Western history as horrific as the Nazis and their crimes against the Jews. That doesn’t give anyone a free pass to Catholic bash though.

Do you not know history?

[Anonymous]

In NYC, in Islamophobia is much worse than either anti Catholicism or anti semitism

[Anonymous]

If you think people questioning and condemning your homophobia, dedication to covering up and facilitating child abuse, and misogyny is “anticatholic,” you need to reflect that valid criticism and concern is not hatred, it’s a call for accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think people questioning and condemning your homophobia, dedication to covering up and facilitating child abuse, and misogyny is “anticatholic,” you need to reflect that valid criticism and concern is not hatred, it’s a call for accountability.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think people questioning and condemning your homophobia, dedication to covering up and facilitating child abuse, and misogyny is “anticatholic,” you need to reflect that valid criticism and concern is not hatred, it’s a call for accountability.

I don’t disagree

[Anonymous]

I was raised Catholic, stopped going to church at 15m and never looked back. I have no respect for an organization that bans women from its highest positions and overtly seeks to control their bodies and life choices. If that makes me anti-Catholic, I don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Antisemitism is not just about religious belief.

Bingo. Jews are despised for being Jewish, not because they are religious.

No. We despise Zionism.

Zionism is code for Jews.

No, it's not. Zionism is the minority of American Jews who still support Israel.

Zionism is also Christians who have nothing but violence in their hearts, for the sake of their messianic mythological prophecy.

Zionism is still the majority view of most American Jews. I think you're misunderstanding what Zionism is. One can (and many do) support the existence of the State of Israel and the right of its citizens to live in peace without supporting Bibi's administration or the specifics of the way his government is handling the war in Gaza (or settlements in the West Bank). Much like how I can be a patriotic American without supporting Trump or the Republican majority's policies. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

This is the modern liberal whitewashed version of Zionism that is really not grounded in reality.

Anybody who calls themselves a Zionist falls into one of two camps:

Evil: because they know exactly what Zionism has meant for Palestinians: displacement, massacres, occupation, apartheid. They see it, they accept it, and they justify it.

Ignorant: because they’ve bought the sanitized PR version of Zionism as “just Jewish self-determination,” without ever looking at the Nakba, the ongoing ethnic cleansing, or what “a Jewish ethnostate” on stolen land actually requires.

There’s no clean, innocent version of Zionism. Its history and its present are the same: violence and removal or elimination of Palestinians to a degree that allows Israel to exist.

The history can no longer be changed. Unless you’re planning to move 8 million Jewish Israelis elsewhere, whatever happens in the future has to account for Israel existing. But plenty of people who describe ourselves in some form as Zionists are well aware of the Nakba and the very ugly way the state was born. Many of us oppose the ethnostate law that the Knesset passed. You’re trying to set up a binary that flattens everything into categories that ultimately cuts out people who should be natural allies of the goal of a more just future for Palestinians and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

I agree with the idea that it isn't practical or reasonable to imagine removing Jews who settled in Israel after WW2. But that doesn't mean that it reasonable to deny Palestinians rights in those areas. That's what makes Zionism bad.

Yes, and many people who are Zionists (and therefore "bad") agree with you that it's not reasonable to deny Palestinians rights. We just also don't want Israel to disappear tomorrow, either.

Except that they've deliberately created a society that is unequal. Surely you understand that. Ensuring the continuation of Israel isn't enough for Zionists. They also want to ensure that the Jewish people in the country remain in power.

It would be like if the US decided to institute strict immigration limits and normalize institutional discrimination for the purposes of keeping a political party or demographic in power. Which, unfortunately, is close to what we're seeing right now.

I really don't understand how you can justify or defend a philosophy inherently based on discriminatory values. Regardless of the philosophy, the country, or the ethnic/religious group.

I’m confused. You’re totally okay with the 53 Muslim countries where Muslims are in power and treat other religions poorly, but you can’t understand why Jews want ONE country where they maintain power? Jews aren’t the colonizers of the Middle East. That doesn’t mean I am okay with this war, but I’m just confused how you cannot understand this.

Where has anyone in this thread defended the discriminatory practices of majority Muslim nations?

You've given up on defending it on its merits- now your defense is that other countries do bad things, too? You don't see a problem with that?

Nope the defense is that these counties are all doing normal things.

Discrimination may be normal, but that's not justification.

You are using the word discrimination, that is your pretext.

You don't think treating people better or worse based on their religion or ethnicity is discrimination? Of course it is.

Was it OK when US immigration policy (and the administration of those policies) were clearly intended to limit Jewish immigration before WW2?

Just because it is common for countries to discriminate based on religion, race, ethnicity, or country of origin doesn't make it OK.

I don't think discrimination is happening in Israel. I think the govt is seeking to protect the Jewish population from harm. You don't agree with this. But that's ok. I am not required to agree with Iranian/Palestinian talking points. Even if you call me names. Even if you start to use curse words. Even if you try to call down curses on my head (doesn't work, this is superstition). Even if you demand I feel shame. I think you are wrong. And, yes, even if you play into white guilt to convince the majority of Americans to side with you by claiming Jews are "white" and Palestinians are brown, yes, it is easy to get what you want when you are willing to deceive. It's easy to get what you want when you are willing to provoke at all times then hide your hands.

I'll always remember the time I saw an Israeli and an Arab arguing with each other on TV. The looked alike and they argued alike. They could have been brothers. Only their religion separated them.

Yeah, I honestly wonder how many people arguing so vociferously here that Jews are "white oppressors" and Palestinians the "brown oppressed" have ever actually been to Israel or Palestine. I have been to both. If you plucked 50 Jews and 50 Palestinians walking down the street in Jerusalem, took all sartorial indicators of their religion away from them by dressing them in beige jumpsuits, and then told people to sort them out into their religious group, most people would have a really difficult time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Antisemitism is not just about religious belief.

Bingo. Jews are despised for being Jewish, not because they are religious.

No. We despise Zionism.

Zionism is code for Jews.

No, it's not. Zionism is the minority of American Jews who still support Israel.

Zionism is also Christians who have nothing but violence in their hearts, for the sake of their messianic mythological prophecy.

Zionism is still the majority view of most American Jews. I think you're misunderstanding what Zionism is. One can (and many do) support the existence of the State of Israel and the right of its citizens to live in peace without supporting Bibi's administration or the specifics of the way his government is handling the war in Gaza (or settlements in the West Bank). Much like how I can be a patriotic American without supporting Trump or the Republican majority's policies. This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

This is the modern liberal whitewashed version of Zionism that is really not grounded in reality.

Anybody who calls themselves a Zionist falls into one of two camps:

Evil: because they know exactly what Zionism has meant for Palestinians: displacement, massacres, occupation, apartheid. They see it, they accept it, and they justify it.

Ignorant: because they’ve bought the sanitized PR version of Zionism as “just Jewish self-determination,” without ever looking at the Nakba, the ongoing ethnic cleansing, or what “a Jewish ethnostate” on stolen land actually requires.

There’s no clean, innocent version of Zionism. Its history and its present are the same: violence and removal or elimination of Palestinians to a degree that allows Israel to exist.

This. Zionism is not merely the belief in a Jewish homeland. Nothing comes without consequences. It isn't as if Israel was some empty piece of land - people lived there. Palestinians LIVE there. Kicking them out for the sake of your "homeland" is inherently violent.

Finding and buying an empty, deserted piece of land for a homeland? Ok, sure. But Israel wasn't created without severe costs to others. If you support zionism, you inherently support violence.

Great, so what do you want to do about it going forward? This is not an argument in the 1890s or 1920s or 1940s about whether to start allowing Jews to migrate there. (Many of whom did, in fact, buy empty parcels of land, though I don't say that to deny that many others also murdered inhabitants or otherwise forced them out violently.) I don't see the point in litigating "should Israel have been founded" when it's already existed for almost 80 years.

But Zionism IS, in fact, merely the belief in a Jewish homeland, or at least, it can be. It certainly doesn't have to be the maximalist version espoused by the Israeli government and many of its allies. Why are you trying to tell me I have to choose between Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, on one hand, and people who think there shouldn't be a state of Israel at all, on the other?

Because this person is not having a discussion with you in good faith. They want Israel to cease to exists and are coming up with excuses.

While I'm sure there are some people that hold that position in the US, they seem to be few and far between.

While their path and method was a bit different (and much more sudden), the modern Jewish population in Israel are basically the descendants of colonizers who brought great harm to the existing population. And while no colonizers have done a good, or even adequate, job with this, I do think the colonizers that came out on top have an obligation to those they stepped on to clean up the mess they made. And Israel has consistently done the opposite of that.

This bold part isn’t true. Most Jewish Israelis today are descended from Middle Eastern Jews who arrived after the state was established and their families were expelled from their native countries.

Are you under the impression colonizers only include the very first group of people off the proverbial boat? Come on.

Where are you living and when did your family arrive?

I actually dig into this a lot recently hoping to find a path to citizenship in a European country...

It varies, but I was surprised to see how early many of them came. Many came from England in the 1600s, settling initially in either Virginia or Massachusetts. I would certainly call them colonizers.

A fair number came from modern day Germany and the Czech Republic in the second half of the 19th century, settling in then-sparsely-populated areas in the midwest. I'd also consider them colonizers.

Then there's a handful that came from Norway in the early 20th century.

So yes, I would certainly say I'm part of the society that has an obligation to the descendants of the native populations and slaves that certainly got the bad end of the deal and continue to face institutional challenges today.

Great, what specifically are you doing about it? What sacrifices have you made?

For one, I haven't gone out and killed 60,000 Native Americans and Black Americans. Nor have I displaced 2 million others. I also haven't built any homes for myself in areas that don't belong to me.

Of course, we both know that problems of this magnitude require institutional and political effort, even if you don't care to acknowledge that. And acknowledging it is a whole lot easier than actually doing anything about it. you haven't said a lot here, but the limited number of things you have said (e.g., your position on the withdrawal from occupied territories) would suggest you're likely moderate, maybe even a little progressive, compared to Israelis. And if you're not even willing to acknowledge such things, it doesn't speak well for the chances that the Israelis will ever do what is needed for peace.

Isn't the idea that none of this country really belongs to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But I'll add this more directly to the case of Israel: if you want to move into an area claimed as a holy land by multiple religions, you better be willing to share.

Palestinians and Muslims certainly aren't without blame, either. They were there before the modern Jewish population, and I certainly don't think the Palestine Mandate or the UN Partition Plan were remotely fair to the existing population, but in the time since they certainly haven't demonstrated a willingness to share, either.

Which religion was first in the area?

Which religion acquires area in the area and the surrounding area got land by conquest?

No one owes Muslims anything.

So, because Romans killed a bunch of Jews 2,000 years ago, their descendants were justified in killing and forcibly removing Muslims about 80 generations later?

Heck, it was the Muslim Caliphates that first allowed Jews to return to Jerusalem.

NP: Modern day people are acting in modern self-interest on all sides. In the history of humanity, no piece of land has ever permanently belonged to anyone, nor will it ever. Arguments were and will be made about who has a better claim or right and each will make that argument as passionately and publicly as they can (e.g., I was here first, a greater power gave it to me told me it was mine, I invested in and improved the land the most so its mine, I won the war so it's mine, you stole it from me through evil means and so it is still mine give it back, etc.), and who gets a disputed piece of land will always be solved by modern people with modern ideas or weapons. Let's pray that the weapons can be laid down all over the world and civilized means of solving disputes over land and resources everywhere can prevail in a way that allows everyone to thrive.

+1