Antizionism is not antisemitism/the current conflict

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the other kid or his or her parents have to do the emotional labor of explaining anti-Jewish racism to your kid (or you). The other kid is a whole kid who is entitled to their feelings and reactions. They do not need your good opinion to function and I doubt you want or need theirs. Plus, hating on Jews is super hip these days. May actually make DC more friend. I’m sure your kid has also gone up to his or Salvadoran classmates and given them an earful about death squads or his Afghani classmates about gender apartheid and child marriageable. Maybe suggest model UN?

Dp

News flash: anyone is allowed to focus on personal area(s) of concern without your approval or judgement.

As you adroitly pointed out, each is a whole person and approval or judgement is unwelcome. Now, feel free to STFU with this “unless you are certain you have covered every possible base by criticizing every possible wrong in the world, you must be anti-semitic if you criticize Israel” crusade, which is straight outta Hasbara for Dummies.

I mean using bigoted tropes like “hasbara” kind of lets your mask drop a tad, as does your rage…Throwing in the word crusade ups your “onward Christian soldier” vibe for extra credit! News flash - you are free to fixate and foam at the mouth - and we are also free to judge you for it…and if your kid comes at my kid - I’m free to explain to my kid that your kid is a racist who should be avoided. Life is too short. There are too many ignorant people and too many guns in this country, both with children and adults. And I would never tell my child they have to keep secrets from their teachers if another kid is bullying them. I would not confront you personally (see comment about life being too short) but students should always feel empowered to talk to teachers.

The overfed, overgrown racist ogre who teaches all the neighborhood kids the cool racist slurs may be just be your kid one day Your kid is simply intimidated and threatened by my child’s natural intellect, wit, and individuality along with his ability to not buy into groupthink.

[Anonymous]

At least my kid accomplishes things on his own, you’re up the school’s a$$ so far buying flowers and gift cards for teachers just to have then place your entitled overfed guy into AP courses that are clearly above his mediocre level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think the other kid or his or her parents have to do the emotional labor of explaining anti-Jewish racism to your kid (or you). The other kid is a whole kid who is entitled to their feelings and reactions. They do not need your good opinion to function and I doubt you want or need theirs. Plus, hating on Jews is super hip these days. May actually make DC more friend. I’m sure your kid has also gone up to his or Salvadoran classmates and given them an earful about death squads or his Afghani classmates about gender apartheid and child marriageable. Maybe suggest model UN?

Dp

News flash: anyone is allowed to focus on personal area(s) of concern without your approval or judgement.

As you adroitly pointed out, each is a whole person and approval or judgement is unwelcome. Now, feel free to STFU with this “unless you are certain you have covered every possible base by criticizing every possible wrong in the world, you must be anti-semitic if you criticize Israel” crusade, which is straight outta Hasbara for Dummies.

I mean using bigoted tropes like “hasbara” kind of lets your mask drop a tad, as does your rage…Throwing in the word crusade ups your “onward Christian soldier” vibe for extra credit! News flash - you are free to fixate and foam at the mouth - and we are also free to judge you for it…and if your kid comes at my kid - I’m free to explain to my kid that your kid is a racist who should be avoided. Life is too short. There are too many ignorant people and too many guns in this country, both with children and adults. And I would never tell my child they have to keep secrets from their teachers if another kid is bullying them. I would not confront you personally (see comment about life being too short) but students should always feel empowered to talk to teachers.

No objection whatsoever to a child / minor bringing an actual concern to a teacher, even if said concern is rooted in an overreaction or is simply wrong.

What I do object to is an adult indoctrinating their child into a belief system that is wholly incompatible with reasonableness, e.g., that criticisms of Israel, its leadership, the policies and actions of that leadership, and/or its citizens OR anyone else who unconditionally supports that leadership and those policies and actions is engaging in conduct that constitutes anti-semitism.

It isn’t. It never was. And no matter how hard you and radical, extremist Zionists like Greenblatt aim to lower the standard, it will never fly.

[Anonymous]

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Occasionally I read Jewish newspapers--have read some Haaretz articles but do not have a subscription, and also Times of Israel and Jerusalem post. On Haaretz site I can certainly read comments even when I can only see the headline, and can see comments for the other media as well. There are of course comments from all sides but the pro-Israel comments (I can't say how many of them are from Israelis vs other countries) are the absolute worst in referring to ANY Palestinian as an animal, subhuman, etc. New Yorker had an article about a Palestinian physician (Israel has a lot of Palestinian doctors) who volunteered to provide medical care in the field on October 7 and practices otherwise as well in Jerusalem with both Jewish and Palestinian patients. Some of her Jewish patients deeply appreciate her but she also constantly hears horrific comments about, say, a Palestinian newborn being a terrorist who should be killed.

These characterizations aren't even stated anonymously in mainstream comments by pro-Lost Cause racists in the US, they keep themselves (I'm sure) to the Nazi back alleys of the internet. But they seem to be broadly acceptable among some Jewish communities. The first I really became aware of the settler movement was years ago in a magazine like Time or something, where settlers spoke about Palestinians in the exact same most racist terms Americans have ever said about Native Americans (terms I actually heard on occasion growing up in a state with a substantial Native American population).

An aside to posters I noticed yesterday (can't find now) about how we don't give the US back to indigenous peoples (ignoring the fact that by the time America was approaching being a country 90% of the original inhabitants were dead). In fact, from time to time we DO give land back. A reservation my family used to drive through going to visit my grandparents on the other side became 10x larger sometime in the late 1970s, and in many other incremental ways tribes have been using the courts to regain rights they had lost a century or more ago. (Gorsuch happens to be knowledgeable in Indian law and has come down on the side of tribes in SCOTUS cases during his time on the bench)

I mean, I have no doubt there are evil racists in Israeli society, just like there are in every society. Your position seems to be that Jews/Israelis are UNIQUELY evil and racist, and that lets me know that you either have an agenda or you’re just making assumptions based off sh*t you read on the internet. The COMMENTS SECTION? Come on now.

Fun story for you: my grandma lived with us growing up and only spoke Farsi, so we got middle eastern satellite TV for her (pretty sure illegally but I digress). Anyways, we got a bunch of channels that were broadcast in the Muslim world - Al Manar (the Hezbollah channel), the Arabic version of Al Jazeera, IRIB (the official channel of the Islamic Republic of Iran), a bunch of others. If you think the comments section on Haaretz is shocking, I have news for you. It was NONSTOP, WALL-TO-WALL, HORRIFIC antisemitism. All day, every day. Israelis being portrayed as demons with horns and being set on fire. The Statue of Liberty being blown up, her face melting. Ads for video games where the targets were people with Jewish stars on their backs. Constant tearful tributes to suicide bombers. These are all specific scenes I remember seeing as a kid. And this wasn’t some randoms on the internet - these were official TV channels broadcast to huge audiences in the Middle East. Al Manar reaches 50 MILLION people.

You don’t actually believe that “what is said about the Palestinians by many people IN Israel is more loathsome than anything you see elsewhere” right? Because that’s patently absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Occasionally I read Jewish newspapers--have read some Haaretz articles but do not have a subscription, and also Times of Israel and Jerusalem post. On Haaretz site I can certainly read comments even when I can only see the headline, and can see comments for the other media as well. There are of course comments from all sides but the pro-Israel comments (I can't say how many of them are from Israelis vs other countries) are the absolute worst in referring to ANY Palestinian as an animal, subhuman, etc. New Yorker had an article about a Palestinian physician (Israel has a lot of Palestinian doctors) who volunteered to provide medical care in the field on October 7 and practices otherwise as well in Jerusalem with both Jewish and Palestinian patients. Some of her Jewish patients deeply appreciate her but she also constantly hears horrific comments about, say, a Palestinian newborn being a terrorist who should be killed.

These characterizations aren't even stated anonymously in mainstream comments by pro-Lost Cause racists in the US, they keep themselves (I'm sure) to the Nazi back alleys of the internet. But they seem to be broadly acceptable among some Jewish communities. The first I really became aware of the settler movement was years ago in a magazine like Time or something, where settlers spoke about Palestinians in the exact same most racist terms Americans have ever said about Native Americans (terms I actually heard on occasion growing up in a state with a substantial Native American population).

An aside to posters I noticed yesterday (can't find now) about how we don't give the US back to indigenous peoples (ignoring the fact that by the time America was approaching being a country 90% of the original inhabitants were dead). In fact, from time to time we DO give land back. A reservation my family used to drive through going to visit my grandparents on the other side became 10x larger sometime in the late 1970s, and in many other incremental ways tribes have been using the courts to regain rights they had lost a century or more ago. (Gorsuch happens to be knowledgeable in Indian law and has come down on the side of tribes in SCOTUS cases during his time on the bench)

Re: your second point about Native Americans, here’s what you said: “in many other incremental ways tribes have been using the courts to regain rights they had lost a century or more ago.”

Ok. If the Palestinians had tried incremental/legal channels maybe they’d have had some success too. If they had tried literally any other tactic than just unrelenting murder of Israeli civilians for decades - they might have gotten somewhere. But they keep trying terrorism over and over and over again and then wondering why no one is giving them a state. If the Cherokee kept blowing up Pizza shops and stabbing random people on buses and kidnapping babies, I’m doubting they would have gotten any land back.

[Anonymous]

Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

Setting aside that there was violence on both sides pre-1948, from just a purely pragmatic point of view: what has terrorism accomplished? I’m not even making a moral argument here.

Israel is more powerful militarily. It doesn’t really have to make concessions. It absolutely will if the Palestinians can guarantee one thing: security. But they haven’t shown that they can do that, so why would Israel sacrifice their own interests? Because a bunch of keffiyeh-wearing sociology majors yell at them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

Setting aside that there was violence on both sides pre-1948, from just a purely pragmatic point of view: what has terrorism accomplished? I’m not even making a moral argument here.

Israel is more powerful militarily. It doesn’t really have to make concessions. It absolutely will if the Palestinians can guarantee one thing: security. But they haven’t shown that they can do that, so why would Israel sacrifice their own interests? Because a bunch of keffiyeh-wearing sociology majors yell at them?

Absolutely will?

Are you serious?

The only time Israel even pretended that it was will to exchange statehood for peace, one of the Zionist loons literally murdered the PM.

About that “absolutely will” … aside from make believe land, where else are you sourcing that theory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

DP. I don’t think anyone would really defend the conduct of the Irgun and other Jewish militias in Mandatory Palestine today, but let’s not pretend that it was only “Zionists” engaging in violence and terrorism then. There was basically a civil war within the territory for years under the British.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

DP. I don’t think anyone would really defend the conduct of the Irgun and other Jewish militias in Mandatory Palestine today, but let’s not pretend that it was only “Zionists” engaging in violence and terrorism then. There was basically a civil war within the territory for years under the British.

Sadly, you’re mistaken. There are PLENTY of people that defend it, excuse it, obfuscate the facts to dismiss criticism of what they did, and worse - I’ve personally observed posters in these threads justifying it.

To be honest, my use of the word “conduct” in lieu of what more appropriately describes what they did (committed heinous acts of terrorism) is a representative example of how badly Zionists has distorted the history.

We don’t talk about Nazi “conduct”. Why TF am I identifying what those groups did (and yes, they did far worse than their Arab contemporaries did) as mere misconduct? Because of the revisionist history that the West has been selling about Israel’s establishment for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

Setting aside that there was violence on both sides pre-1948, from just a purely pragmatic point of view: what has terrorism accomplished? I’m not even making a moral argument here.

Israel is more powerful militarily. It doesn’t really have to make concessions. It absolutely will if the Palestinians can guarantee one thing: security. But they haven’t shown that they can do that, so why would Israel sacrifice their own interests? Because a bunch of keffiyeh-wearing sociology majors yell at them?

Absolutely will?

Are you serious?

The only time Israel even pretended that it was will to exchange statehood for peace, one of the Zionist loons literally murdered the PM.

About that “absolutely will” … aside from make believe land, where else are you sourcing that theory?

You didn’t answer my questions. And they gave the entire Sinai peninsula back to Egypt in exchange for peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the decades, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued peaceful and nonviolent paths toward a just resolution with Israel — including diplomacy through the PLO’s recognition of Israel in 1988, participation in peace talks like Oslo and Camp David, grassroots nonviolent protests in places like Bil’in and Sheikh Jarrah, civil society initiatives for coexistence, and appeals to international law and the UN. Despite these efforts, continued occupation, settlement expansion, and lack of political progress have undermined peaceful strategies and fueled cycles of frustration.

Yeah see the thing about nonviolence is it kind of has to be your EXCLUSIVE approach. If “civil society initiatives” and “nonviolent protests” (both of which I wholeheartedly support) happen ALONGSIDE constant terrorism, they’re not going to have an effect. For reference, Oslo was in 1993 and Camp David was in 2000. In 1994 there were 26 terrorist attacks in Israel and in 2001 there were 118: https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html.

Thank you for dictating “the rules” …

Now, then. Please apply them to the attitudes and actual conduct of Zionists pre-1948 and report back to us.

I’m assuming we will hear from you that non-violence was the exclusive approach toward “getting what the Zionists wanted”, yeah?

That’s what I thought. Hypocrite.

DP. I don’t think anyone would really defend the conduct of the Irgun and other Jewish militias in Mandatory Palestine today, but let’s not pretend that it was only “Zionists” engaging in violence and terrorism then. There was basically a civil war within the territory for years under the British.

Sadly, you’re mistaken. There are PLENTY of people that defend it, excuse it, obfuscate the facts to dismiss criticism of what they did, and worse - I’ve personally observed posters in these threads justifying it.

To be honest, my use of the word “conduct” in lieu of what more appropriately describes what they did (committed heinous acts of terrorism) is a representative example of how badly Zionists has distorted the history.

We don’t talk about Nazi “conduct”. Why TF am I identifying what those groups did (and yes, they did far worse than their Arab contemporaries did) as mere misconduct? Because of the revisionist history that the West has been selling about Israel’s establishment for decades.

Stop comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Holocaust inversion is antisemitic and beyond that it’s just lazy.