Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe it is. All Zionism says is Jews have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It's a central tenet of Judaism.

Anti-Zionism says they have no right to self-defense and denies the historical connection to Israel.

So when people say I'm not against Judaism, just Zionism...they make no sense. Zionism and Judaism are inseparable.

I agree. And I will add that you can be a Zionist and against Netanyahu and settlements. That’s probably the most common position in the US, and many Israelis think the same.

But if Netanyahu is the current Prime Minister of Israel and you are against him and the settlements, how are you not against Israel? Because the current policies of the state of Israel are - unfortunately - that (a) settlements are okay and (b) continuing to kill (and harm and starve) women and children in Gaza is also okay.

BTW, I am Jewish and I am not a Zionist. I believe in theory in the right of a Jewish homeland...but in practice this displaced/displaces others and that is in contraction to my personal faith of being a decent person.

Same way I hated Trump but was not against the US existing.

DP. Why is this so difficult? When I say I’m against Israel’s policies and actions, I mean it. If/when those policies and actions change, my opposition is relieved of a basis for grievance.

I assume the PP feels the same way. Opposing Israel today isn’t an existential opposition until and unless Israel cultivates sufficient opposition that it’s toppled by the parts of that opposition that seek to achieve that separate goal. But for me and most people STRONGLY opposed to what Israel stands for today, I’m seeking serious reform only.

[Anonymous]

Drawing a moral equivalence between Likud and Hamas is ridiculous. Hamas has targeted civilians since the 90s and did so on an unprecedented scale including horrific war crimes and hostage taking. Many hostages are still in captivity, not that the media appears to notice.

[Anonymous]

ummm Likud assassinated one of Israel's own prime ministers??? Thats like saying the Taliban are ok b/c lets be honest, teh majority of afghans tolerate their governance, same with the Ayatollahs in Iran. If the Religious Zionist Party is in charge in Israel (smotrich's party) how is that any different, being in government doesnt suddenly make you NOT terrorists or legitimize your stance.

I've always been a zionist and my siblings were not- I thought they were bigoted but now I can see that they are saying that I didnt see what the Zionist project actually entails- the forced displacement/ethnic cleaning of non Jews from the Levant region entirely is the goal. the current Israeli government which is ruling with the consent of the majority holds this view. I also naively thought it meant a Pakistan/india situation whereby Israel stood in for India whereas its always been that Israel is Pakistan in this scenario and always was- it was the religious state and the Palestinian state was meant to be a secular democracy that contained Christian and Muslim Arabs. It's just that Israel started out as a religious republic and Pakistan started out as a democracy and didnt become a religious republic until thirty years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ummm Likud assassinated one of Israel's own prime ministers??? Thats like saying the Taliban are ok b/c lets be honest, teh majority of afghans tolerate their governance, same with the Ayatollahs in Iran. If the Religious Zionist Party is in charge in Israel (smotrich's party) how is that any different, being in government doesnt suddenly make you NOT terrorists or legitimize your stance.

I've always been a zionist and my siblings were not- I thought they were bigoted but now I can see that they are saying that I didnt see what the Zionist project actually entails- the forced displacement/ethnic cleaning of non Jews from the Levant region entirely is the goal. the current Israeli government which is ruling with the consent of the majority holds this view. I also naively thought it meant a Pakistan/india situation whereby Israel stood in for India whereas its always been that Israel is Pakistan in this scenario and always was- it was the religious state and the Palestinian state was meant to be a secular democracy that contained Christian and Muslim Arabs. It's just that Israel started out as a religious republic and Pakistan started out as a democracy and didnt become a religious republic until thirty years later.

It's a dynamic that has been repeated around the world in all religion based states. Opposition to the ruling class is always couched in terms of not being pious enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reply to the poster who said Zionism as expressed originally is an ideology that says 1) Jews are a nation; 2) Jews cannot integrate, whether for their own reasons or widespread anti-semitism, into other societies; 3) therefore a homeland is necessary; and 4) all Jews should emigrate to that homeland. Certainly, assimilation helps Jews avoid antisemitism for a while, but eventually not so much. And Zionism does not require moving to the homeland. Zionism does require supporting the existence of that homeland so it'll be there when push comes to shove, as it inevitably does.

Fair point on emmigration. I just don't see anything unique about Judaism or anti-Semitism that makes integration impossible and discrimination inevitable. But, I'm an American and that's a very American mentality.

The Babylonians, Romans, Persians and Russians exiled lots of different people throughout history. Genocide has also sadly happened on more than one occassion. Heck, it wasn't even new for the Germans who did it to the Herero first.

For whatever reason, Jews keep getting persecuted everywhere they go. We even created a few words for it: Holocaust, pogrom, and antisemitism. We can speculate on why it keeps happening, but Jews have a long history of it. The desire to have their own land where Jews are in control is not a surprise.

Do you understand the problem with applying this mindset to a land where another people currently happens to live?

What are you planning to do with the natives to put and keep Jews in control?

What HAVE you done with the natives?

Israel has successfully promulgated a series of myths to explain why there are now Jews where there used to be Arabs. Including:

- they attacked us so we had to expel them

- they fled at their leaders' request to come back after the Arab victory but we won so they never came back

- little brave Israel fought and won the unwashed hateful Arab hordes so here we are.

All of this mythmaking was necessary to cover the ugly truth. Israel's downfall is that it was formed in the time where it was no longer acceptable to voice it. Here is the truth: a Jewish state must have a Jewish majority and a Jewish rule. We had to create both in a place that didn't have it originally. It doesn't matter how we created it. What matters is that it had to be created, and it was. The end.

Anyone living on US soil is guilty of the same. The land belonged to the Native Americans, and we pushed them into reservations. Along the way we broke all sorts of promises and committed all sorts of atrocities like the Trail of Tears and slaughtering most of the buffalo. Essentially, we are just as guilty as the Israelis. Probably even more so.

I don't like what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, but can you imagine what would happen if the Native Americans were responsible for 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, and a bunch of other attacks on US soil? Damn right, we would lock them down hard on the reservations. We would control everything going in and out and try to neutralize them as much as possible.

But the Native Americans would be just as justified as the Palestinians in continuing their violence. We took their lands and really destroyed their way of life. Would you be condoning continued Native American attacks on US soil? What if a number of close friends or relatives died to a series of Native American attacks. Would you grant them control of the US government? That's the pressure Israel is essentially facing.

I'm not saying Israel is innocent, but we are hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Comparing Likud to the perpetrators of 10/7 is completely false. It's 10/7 denial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reply to the poster who said Zionism as expressed originally is an ideology that says 1) Jews are a nation; 2) Jews cannot integrate, whether for their own reasons or widespread anti-semitism, into other societies; 3) therefore a homeland is necessary; and 4) all Jews should emigrate to that homeland. Certainly, assimilation helps Jews avoid antisemitism for a while, but eventually not so much. And Zionism does not require moving to the homeland. Zionism does require supporting the existence of that homeland so it'll be there when push comes to shove, as it inevitably does.

Fair point on emmigration. I just don't see anything unique about Judaism or anti-Semitism that makes integration impossible and discrimination inevitable. But, I'm an American and that's a very American mentality.

The Babylonians, Romans, Persians and Russians exiled lots of different people throughout history. Genocide has also sadly happened on more than one occassion. Heck, it wasn't even new for the Germans who did it to the Herero first.

For whatever reason, Jews keep getting persecuted everywhere they go. We even created a few words for it: Holocaust, pogrom, and antisemitism. We can speculate on why it keeps happening, but Jews have a long history of it. The desire to have their own land where Jews are in control is not a surprise.

Do you understand the problem with applying this mindset to a land where another people currently happens to live?

What are you planning to do with the natives to put and keep Jews in control?

What HAVE you done with the natives?

Israel has successfully promulgated a series of myths to explain why there are now Jews where there used to be Arabs. Including:

- they attacked us so we had to expel them

- they fled at their leaders' request to come back after the Arab victory but we won so they never came back

- little brave Israel fought and won the unwashed hateful Arab hordes so here we are.

All of this mythmaking was necessary to cover the ugly truth. Israel's downfall is that it was formed in the time where it was no longer acceptable to voice it. Here is the truth: a Jewish state must have a Jewish majority and a Jewish rule. We had to create both in a place that didn't have it originally. It doesn't matter how we created it. What matters is that it had to be created, and it was. The end.

Anyone living on US soil is guilty of the same. The land belonged to the Native Americans, and we pushed them into reservations. Along the way we broke all sorts of promises and committed all sorts of atrocities like the Trail of Tears and slaughtering most of the buffalo. Essentially, we are just as guilty as the Israelis. Probably even more so.

I don't like what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, but can you imagine what would happen if the Native Americans were responsible for 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, and a bunch of other attacks on US soil? Damn right, we would lock them down hard on the reservations. We would control everything going in and out and try to neutralize them as much as possible.

But the Native Americans would be just as justified as the Palestinians in continuing their violence. We took their lands and really destroyed their way of life. Would you be condoning continued Native American attacks on US soil? What if a number of close friends or relatives died to a series of Native American attacks. Would you grant them control of the US government? That's the pressure Israel is essentially facing.

I'm not saying Israel is innocent, but we are hypocrites.

Except that Native Americans, today, have full rights as US citizens. It's a big freaking difference. We also did that stuff before WW2, an important human rights inflection point.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

[Anonymous]

Bari Weiss wrote a great book called “How to Fight Antisemitism” that concludes that antisemitism and anti-Zionism cannot be effectively separated. She does a deep dive into the history of antisemitism and observes that, in each period of history, Jew hatred has taken different forms and changed to fit a new narrative.

The new narrative now is that antisemitism and anti-Zionism is not the same. While the concept itself may be true, in practice, the vast majority of anti-Zionists are, in fact, also antisemites.

Jews have a right to be sensitive and even paranoid about this, given the long history of oppression and Holocaust. It’s also
worth noting that the legal definition of harassment or discrimination depends on how a reasonable person on the receiving end of a statement would feel — NOT the intent of the person dishing out the statement.

I would venture to say a reasonable Jewish person would feel discriminated against and harassed by a person decrying Zionism and shouting “from the river to the sea.” So, to me, there is only a very small portion of the time that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism in effect.

https://www.thefp.com/p/this-isnt-a-war-against-israel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bari Weiss wrote a great book called “How to Fight Antisemitism” that concludes that antisemitism and anti-Zionism cannot be effectively separated. She does a deep dive into the history of antisemitism and observes that, in each period of history, Jew hatred has taken different forms and changed to fit a new narrative.

The new narrative now is that antisemitism and anti-Zionism is not the same. While the concept itself may be true, in practice, the vast majority of anti-Zionists are, in fact, also antisemites.

Jews have a right to be sensitive and even paranoid about this, given the long history of oppression and Holocaust. It’s also
worth noting that the legal definition of harassment or discrimination depends on how a reasonable person on the receiving end of a statement would feel — NOT the intent of the person dishing out the statement.

I would venture to say a reasonable Jewish person would feel discriminated against and harassed by a person decrying Zionism and shouting “from the river to the sea.” So, to me, there is only a very small portion of the time that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism in effect.

https://www.thefp.com/p/this-isnt-a-war-against-israel

What if your were happily living in your home and invaders came And murdered your neighbors , forcing you and your family to flee, and then the invaders took over your land and said it was theirs , and then the invaders would not let you return , and forced your family to live in squalor , and then the invaders claimed no one ever lived on your land, it was free for the taking

Well I would try to do anything I could to eliminate the invaders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bari Weiss wrote a great book called “How to Fight Antisemitism” that concludes that antisemitism and anti-Zionism cannot be effectively separated. She does a deep dive into the history of antisemitism and observes that, in each period of history, Jew hatred has taken different forms and changed to fit a new narrative.

The new narrative now is that antisemitism and anti-Zionism is not the same. While the concept itself may be true, in practice, the vast majority of anti-Zionists are, in fact, also antisemites.

Jews have a right to be sensitive and even paranoid about this, given the long history of oppression and Holocaust. It’s also
worth noting that the legal definition of harassment or discrimination depends on how a reasonable person on the receiving end of a statement would feel — NOT the intent of the person dishing out the statement.

I would venture to say a reasonable Jewish person would feel discriminated against and harassed by a person decrying Zionism and shouting “from the river to the sea.” So, to me, there is only a very small portion of the time that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism in effect.

https://www.thefp.com/p/this-isnt-a-war-against-israel

https://www.972mag.com/ihra-antisemitism-israel-inversion-projection/

An interesting counterpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In reply to the poster who said Zionism as expressed originally is an ideology that says 1) Jews are a nation; 2) Jews cannot integrate, whether for their own reasons or widespread anti-semitism, into other societies; 3) therefore a homeland is necessary; and 4) all Jews should emigrate to that homeland. Certainly, assimilation helps Jews avoid antisemitism for a while, but eventually not so much. And Zionism does not require moving to the homeland. Zionism does require supporting the existence of that homeland so it'll be there when push comes to shove, as it inevitably does.

Fair point on emmigration. I just don't see anything unique about Judaism or anti-Semitism that makes integration impossible and discrimination inevitable. But, I'm an American and that's a very American mentality.

The Babylonians, Romans, Persians and Russians exiled lots of different people throughout history. Genocide has also sadly happened on more than one occassion. Heck, it wasn't even new for the Germans who did it to the Herero first.

For whatever reason, Jews keep getting persecuted everywhere they go. We even created a few words for it: Holocaust, pogrom, and antisemitism. We can speculate on why it keeps happening, but Jews have a long history of it. The desire to have their own land where Jews are in control is not a surprise.

Do you understand the problem with applying this mindset to a land where another people currently happens to live?

What are you planning to do with the natives to put and keep Jews in control?

What HAVE you done with the natives?

Israel has successfully promulgated a series of myths to explain why there are now Jews where there used to be Arabs. Including:

- they attacked us so we had to expel them

- they fled at their leaders' request to come back after the Arab victory but we won so they never came back

- little brave Israel fought and won the unwashed hateful Arab hordes so here we are.

All of this mythmaking was necessary to cover the ugly truth. Israel's downfall is that it was formed in the time where it was no longer acceptable to voice it. Here is the truth: a Jewish state must have a Jewish majority and a Jewish rule. We had to create both in a place that didn't have it originally. It doesn't matter how we created it. What matters is that it had to be created, and it was. The end.

Anyone living on US soil is guilty of the same. The land belonged to the Native Americans, and we pushed them into reservations. Along the way we broke all sorts of promises and committed all sorts of atrocities like the Trail of Tears and slaughtering most of the buffalo. Essentially, we are just as guilty as the Israelis. Probably even more so.

I don't like what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, but can you imagine what would happen if the Native Americans were responsible for 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, and a bunch of other attacks on US soil? Damn right, we would lock them down hard on the reservations. We would control everything going in and out and try to neutralize them as much as possible.

But the Native Americans would be just as justified as the Palestinians in continuing their violence. We took their lands and really destroyed their way of life. Would you be condoning continued Native American attacks on US soil? What if a number of close friends or relatives died to a series of Native American attacks. Would you grant them control of the US government? That's the pressure Israel is essentially facing.

I'm not saying Israel is innocent, but we are hypocrites.

What a pile of horseshit. Every descendent of the native population alive today and living within America's current borders has full citizenship rights like everyone else in the 336M population of America (along with some services and perks that non-native populations DON"T have access to). Moreover, the U.S. government could gift 75 acres tomorrow to EACH and EVERY descendent of the native groups tomorrow, from the current inventory of federal land, and still leave the BLM with around 200,000,000 acres. And that would be separate from the massive reservation properties that have been established, and the distinct, favorable tax rules, etc.

We can't resurrect the millions of natives who died before their time, the vast, vast majority of whom actually died of inadvertent transference of disease. They weren't indiscriminately cut down my F35 aircraft and other assorted armaments provided by Uncle Sam. And yet we still made efforts to atone for our sins. Maybe insufficient efforts, but something.

So cut the shit. The sins of slavery and the treatment of native populations here in the U.S. are awful enough, but none of that history has been deemed acceptable for at least the past 150 years. Trying to equate Israel's actions today to sins committed in the past is frankly disgusting, and a prime example of why Zionists are reviled so often by others. It's not Jesus killer nonsense. It's not paranoia. It's not scapegoating or jealousy or any of the fantasies you've concocted to explain why others have despised you at points throughout history.

It's the transparent narcissism and indefatigable defense of your own actions that callously harm others. That's why there's resentment. That's what angers people. And that's why we need to see serious reform in Israel. And it's coming, one way or another. Otherwise, this train is chugging down a path that is highly unlikely to result in an outcome that keeps those in the region, including and perhaps especially the Jewish population, safe and secure.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

The 2017 Charter which superseded the original 1988 Charter says:

Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.

Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, antisemitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...

If self-professed Zionists say they believe in a, but anti-Zionists say Zionists don't believe in a but instead believe in b, why would we take the word of anti-Zionists over that of Zionists?

That can go both ways. Zionists are very quick to explain what critics of Israel "really mean". When protesters say, "From the River to the Sea", who should be the authoritative source for what they mean? The folks saying it or the ADL? What is more important, how something is meant or how it is interpreted?

But, by all means, self-professed Zionists should explain exactly what they believe. I for one will take them at their word. But what they believe may well differ from what other Zionists believe.

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

Crickets.... what's the alternate explanation for "from the river to the sea" please?

It was answered here:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1208658.page#27623410

I agree with that post. "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks to freedom, not control. In contrast, the Likud charter says that "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty". Netanyahu recently reiterated this statement. Whereas Palestinians want "freedom", Netanyahu and his ruling party want "sovereignty". The Palestinian slogan doesn't describe the auspices under which they will have freedom, but just the desire for freedom.

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

In the 2017 Statement, Hamas states, in articles16 and 17:

“16. Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.

17. Hamas rejects the persecution of any human being or the undermining of his or her rights on nationalist, religious or sectarian grounds. Hamas is of the view that the Jewish problem, anti-Semitism and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settlement occupation which has already disappeared from much of the world and must disappear from Palestine.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drawing a moral equivalence between Likud and Hamas is ridiculous. Hamas has targeted civilians since the 90s and did so on an unprecedented scale including horrific war crimes and hostage taking. Many hostages are still in captivity, not that the media appears to notice.

Likud has targeted Palestinian civilians since it was founded and has killed Palestinian civilians on a scale that Hamas could only dream of