Antizionism is not antisemitism/the current conflict

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Gave it back” … after initiating a war where they acquired that land forcibly, in contravention of international law.

Hilarious. Never change, Zionist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Calling it anti-Semitic is just a technique to silence valid criticism. Even around the creation of Israel, comparisons to Nazis were being made by other Jews themselves. And now in the past two years, the similarities are even more numerous. I hope in the future, someone writes a book about all the parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany if it hasn't already been done so.

[Anonymous]

IDF soldier "I felt like, like, like a Nazi ... it looked exactly like we were actually the Nazis and they were the Jews."

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-12-23/ty-article-opinion/.premium/when-you-enter-gaza-you-are-god-inside-the-minds-of-idf-soldiers-who-commit-war-crimes/00000193-f2a4-dc18-a3db-fee62b540000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Gave it back” … after initiating a war where they acquired that land forcibly, in contravention of international law.

Hilarious. Never change, Zionist.

Try to focus please. You asked whether Israel has ever demonstrated a willingness to exchange land for peace. Whether or not you think the Sinai was ill-gotten (it wasn’t), Israel controlled that land. They did not have to give it back. They did, in exchange for peace.

If you’re going to ask questions, you’re going to have to contend with the actual answers. You can’t just scream “z1on1$t!!” and hope no one notices there’s nothing backing up your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

It’s presumptuous to tell a Jew they can’t recognize antisemitism when it’s plainly staring them in the face. Regardless of this person’s individual intent, I am telling you comparisons to the Nazis are antisemitic.

If you compared Black Lives Matter activists to southern white lynch mobs, I’m pretty sure people would accurately call you out as racist, even if there are very, very broadly speaking similarities between the two (they have both been involved in violence).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

It’s presumptuous to tell a Jew they can’t recognize antisemitism when it’s plainly staring them in the face. Regardless of this person’s individual intent, I am telling you comparisons to the Nazis are antisemitic.

If you compared Black Lives Matter activists to southern white lynch mobs, I’m pretty sure people would accurately call you out as racist, even if there are very, very broadly speaking similarities between the two (they have both been involved in violence).

It may be antisemitism by your definition but who are you to determine the intent and purpose behind another person’s statements?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

It’s presumptuous to tell a Jew they can’t recognize antisemitism when it’s plainly staring them in the face. Regardless of this person’s individual intent, I am telling you comparisons to the Nazis are antisemitic.

If you compared Black Lives Matter activists to southern white lynch mobs, I’m pretty sure people would accurately call you out as racist, even if there are very, very broadly speaking similarities between the two (they have both been involved in violence).

It may be antisemitism by your definition but who are you to determine the intent and purpose behind another person’s statements?

I think intent can fairly be surmised when someone compares Israel to Nazi Germany. You don’t have to be inside a person’s head to understand that, when they wave an Israeli flag with a swastika replacing the Jewish star, they are probably an antisemite.

And from the perspective of a Jew - for my own personal safety, if you do sh*t like that, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re an antisemite, not ask you a bunch of questions about what you REALLY mean. That would be suicidal.

[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: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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

It’s presumptuous to tell a Jew they can’t recognize antisemitism when it’s plainly staring them in the face. Regardless of this person’s individual intent, I am telling you comparisons to the Nazis are antisemitic.

If you compared Black Lives Matter activists to southern white lynch mobs, I’m pretty sure people would accurately call you out as racist, even if there are very, very broadly speaking similarities between the two (they have both been involved in violence).

It may be antisemitism by your definition but who are you to determine the intent and purpose behind another person’s statements?

I think intent can fairly be surmised when someone compares Israel to Nazi Germany. You don’t have to be inside a person’s head to understand that, when they wave an Israeli flag with a swastika replacing the Jewish star, they are probably an antisemite.

And from the perspective of a Jew - for my own personal safety, if you do sh*t like that, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re an antisemite, not ask you a bunch of questions about what you REALLY mean. That would be suicidal.

That’s two completely separate things though. Waving a flag with a swastika verses interpreting someone else’s statements.

[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: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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

It’s presumptuous to tell a Jew they can’t recognize antisemitism when it’s plainly staring them in the face. Regardless of this person’s individual intent, I am telling you comparisons to the Nazis are antisemitic.

If you compared Black Lives Matter activists to southern white lynch mobs, I’m pretty sure people would accurately call you out as racist, even if there are very, very broadly speaking similarities between the two (they have both been involved in violence).

It may be antisemitism by your definition but who are you to determine the intent and purpose behind another person’s statements?

I think intent can fairly be surmised when someone compares Israel to Nazi Germany. You don’t have to be inside a person’s head to understand that, when they wave an Israeli flag with a swastika replacing the Jewish star, they are probably an antisemite.

And from the perspective of a Jew - for my own personal safety, if you do sh*t like that, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re an antisemite, not ask you a bunch of questions about what you REALLY mean. That would be suicidal.

That’s two completely separate things though. Waving a flag with a swastika verses interpreting someone else’s statements.

It’s really not. How is it different? PP is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. That is what replacing the Jewish star on the Israeli flag with a swastika is meant to communicate. Same with depicting Netanyahu as Hitler. Same with posters proclaiming “Israel are the new Nazis.” I’m not even extrapolating, that’s LITERALLY what this poster is saying.

[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: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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

It’s presumptuous to tell a Jew they can’t recognize antisemitism when it’s plainly staring them in the face. Regardless of this person’s individual intent, I am telling you comparisons to the Nazis are antisemitic.

If you compared Black Lives Matter activists to southern white lynch mobs, I’m pretty sure people would accurately call you out as racist, even if there are very, very broadly speaking similarities between the two (they have both been involved in violence).

It may be antisemitism by your definition but who are you to determine the intent and purpose behind another person’s statements?

I think intent can fairly be surmised when someone compares Israel to Nazi Germany. You don’t have to be inside a person’s head to understand that, when they wave an Israeli flag with a swastika replacing the Jewish star, they are probably an antisemite.

And from the perspective of a Jew - for my own personal safety, if you do sh*t like that, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re an antisemite, not ask you a bunch of questions about what you REALLY mean. That would be suicidal.

That’s two completely separate things though. Waving a flag with a swastika verses interpreting someone else’s statements.

It’s really not. How is it different? PP is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. That is what replacing the Jewish star on the Israeli flag with a swastika is meant to communicate. Same with depicting Netanyahu as Hitler. Same with posters proclaiming “Israel are the new Nazis.” I’m not even extrapolating, that’s LITERALLY what this poster is saying.

To the person saying something you find offensive it is though. It is completely separate to them.

[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: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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

It’s presumptuous to tell a Jew they can’t recognize antisemitism when it’s plainly staring them in the face. Regardless of this person’s individual intent, I am telling you comparisons to the Nazis are antisemitic.

If you compared Black Lives Matter activists to southern white lynch mobs, I’m pretty sure people would accurately call you out as racist, even if there are very, very broadly speaking similarities between the two (they have both been involved in violence).

It may be antisemitism by your definition but who are you to determine the intent and purpose behind another person’s statements?

I think intent can fairly be surmised when someone compares Israel to Nazi Germany. You don’t have to be inside a person’s head to understand that, when they wave an Israeli flag with a swastika replacing the Jewish star, they are probably an antisemite.

And from the perspective of a Jew - for my own personal safety, if you do sh*t like that, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re an antisemite, not ask you a bunch of questions about what you REALLY mean. That would be suicidal.

That’s two completely separate things though. Waving a flag with a swastika verses interpreting someone else’s statements.

It’s really not. How is it different? PP is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. That is what replacing the Jewish star on the Israeli flag with a swastika is meant to communicate. Same with depicting Netanyahu as Hitler. Same with posters proclaiming “Israel are the new Nazis.” I’m not even extrapolating, that’s LITERALLY what this poster is saying.

To the person saying something you find offensive it is though. It is completely separate to them.

What does this even mean? What? I don’t care whether the person posting thinks it is antisemitic and to what degree. I am telling you that, as a Jew, I experience it as antisemitic, for the reasons stated. If you compare Israel to Nazi Germany, I will assume you are an antisemite for my own safety.

You can be pro-Palestine and make whatever point you are trying to make without invoking the Nazis and the Holocaust. Keep the memory of six million Jews murdered by the Nazis out of this please.

[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: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.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, you are not the authority to dictate what is and what isn’t a suitable comparison.

I know you think you can control what can and what cannot be said by smearing others as anti-semitic, but that ship has sailed, kemosabe.

I mean, I do think Jews get to define what antisemitism is actually. Do you think white people should define anti-black racism? Should men get to define misogyny? People who consider themselves progressive generally hold that those who do not experience racism need to listen, to learn, to accept and not challenge, when others speak about their experiences. Except where Jews are involved. Non-Jews are still very happy to tell Jews whether or not things said about them are antisemitic.

Holocaust inversion is antisemitic, full stop. There is a reason you’re invoking the Nazis and not, say, Stalin or Pol Pot or George W. Bush. And it’s not because the Holocaust is most analogous to the situation in Gaza (it is so, so, so not - as Deborah Lipstadt has said, comparisons to the Nazis “elevate by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessen by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did”). It’s because you know invoking Nazis will inflict the greatest amount of psychic harm on Jews. That’s WHY you do it. That’s why use Jews’ own tragic history as a weapon to beat them with.

It’s presumptuous to try to tell someone what they mean and believe. Perhaps allow the person to explain the meaning behind what they are saying before jumping to malicious conclusions.

It’s presumptuous to tell a Jew they can’t recognize antisemitism when it’s plainly staring them in the face. Regardless of this person’s individual intent, I am telling you comparisons to the Nazis are antisemitic.

If you compared Black Lives Matter activists to southern white lynch mobs, I’m pretty sure people would accurately call you out as racist, even if there are very, very broadly speaking similarities between the two (they have both been involved in violence).

It may be antisemitism by your definition but who are you to determine the intent and purpose behind another person’s statements?

I think intent can fairly be surmised when someone compares Israel to Nazi Germany. You don’t have to be inside a person’s head to understand that, when they wave an Israeli flag with a swastika replacing the Jewish star, they are probably an antisemite.

And from the perspective of a Jew - for my own personal safety, if you do sh*t like that, I’m going to go ahead and assume you’re an antisemite, not ask you a bunch of questions about what you REALLY mean. That would be suicidal.

That’s two completely separate things though. Waving a flag with a swastika verses interpreting someone else’s statements.

It’s really not. How is it different? PP is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. That is what replacing the Jewish star on the Israeli flag with a swastika is meant to communicate. Same with depicting Netanyahu as Hitler. Same with posters proclaiming “Israel are the new Nazis.” I’m not even extrapolating, that’s LITERALLY what this poster is saying.

To the person saying something you find offensive it is though. It is completely separate to them.

What does this even mean? What? I don’t care whether the person posting thinks it is antisemitic and to what degree. I am telling you that, as a Jew, I experience it as antisemitic, for the reasons stated. If you compare Israel to Nazi Germany, I will assume you are an antisemite for my own safety.

You can be pro-Palestine and make whatever point you are trying to make without invoking the Nazis and the Holocaust. Keep the memory of six million Jews murdered by the Nazis out of this please.

People are ignorant to an extent to what statements jews may find antisemitic. One example above, a flag with a swastika is an obvious, tangible offensive object where the other is simply a personal opinion.