Antizionism is not antisemitism/the current conflict

[Anonymous]

Opinions are open to interpretation unless you clarify the basis behind the opinion, you may be misinterpreting a statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

LOL ok. Is your position that only tangible objects can be antisemitic and personal opinions cannot be?

“People are ignorant to an extent to what statements jews may find antisemitic.” Please don’t play dumb. I don’t think it’s like, an unknowable mystery that Jews might find “Israeli = Nazi Germany” to be an antisemitic statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Opinions are open to interpretation unless you clarify the basis behind the opinion, you may be misinterpreting a statement.

Got it, so I can’t ever assume a statement is antisemitic without interviewing the person who made it and asking if they personally intended for it to be antisemitic. I have news for you, 9/10 antisemites would deny their intent.

If someone said “MLK Jr. = Hitler” I think it would be fair to assume that person is racist. I’m not going to approach that person and be like “oh do you mean because they both have mustaches?” Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions are open to interpretation unless you clarify the basis behind the opinion, you may be misinterpreting a statement.

Got it, so I can’t ever assume a statement is antisemitic without interviewing the person who made it and asking if they personally intended for it to be antisemitic. I have news for you, 9/10 antisemites would deny their intent.

If someone said “MLK Jr. = Hitler” I think it would be fair to assume that person is racist. I’m not going to approach that person and be like “oh do you mean because they both have mustaches?” Please.

I don’t agree with you. You cannot assume to just know the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Quickly calling a person antisemitic based on a statement seems hasty and defeatist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions are open to interpretation unless you clarify the basis behind the opinion, you may be misinterpreting a statement.

Got it, so I can’t ever assume a statement is antisemitic without interviewing the person who made it and asking if they personally intended for it to be antisemitic. I have news for you, 9/10 antisemites would deny their intent.

If someone said “MLK Jr. = Hitler” I think it would be fair to assume that person is racist. I’m not going to approach that person and be like “oh do you mean because they both have mustaches?” Please.

I don’t agree with you. You cannot assume to just know the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Quickly calling a person antisemitic based on a statement seems hasty and defeatist.

You absolutely can assume the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Like, what? This is an insane point of view, even apart from this whole discussion about antisemitism. You’re saying people can never judge others’ opinions because they’re not literally inside that person’s head?

You can’t just go around shouting blatantly antisemitic things and then when people challenge you, say “you’re making assumptions! That’s not what I actually meant!” Ok. What did you actually mean then? Why to comparison to Nazis and not some other group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions are open to interpretation unless you clarify the basis behind the opinion, you may be misinterpreting a statement.

Got it, so I can’t ever assume a statement is antisemitic without interviewing the person who made it and asking if they personally intended for it to be antisemitic. I have news for you, 9/10 antisemites would deny their intent.

If someone said “MLK Jr. = Hitler” I think it would be fair to assume that person is racist. I’m not going to approach that person and be like “oh do you mean because they both have mustaches?” Please.

I don’t agree with you. You cannot assume to just know the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Quickly calling a person antisemitic based on a statement seems hasty and defeatist.

You absolutely can assume the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Like, what? This is an insane point of view, even apart from this whole discussion about antisemitism. You’re saying people can never judge others’ opinions because they’re not literally inside that person’s head?

You can’t just go around shouting blatantly antisemitic things and then when people challenge you, say “you’re making assumptions! That’s not what I actually meant!” Ok. What did you actually mean then? Why to comparison to Nazis and not some other group?

Again, nuance, yes if someone is stating death to all Jews! verses the Isreali government is terroristic. These two statements mean different things to different people. One is clearly antisemitic and the other, perhaps based on nonjews ignorance, may not be seen as antisemitism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions are open to interpretation unless you clarify the basis behind the opinion, you may be misinterpreting a statement.

Got it, so I can’t ever assume a statement is antisemitic without interviewing the person who made it and asking if they personally intended for it to be antisemitic. I have news for you, 9/10 antisemites would deny their intent.

If someone said “MLK Jr. = Hitler” I think it would be fair to assume that person is racist. I’m not going to approach that person and be like “oh do you mean because they both have mustaches?” Please.

I don’t agree with you. You cannot assume to just know the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Quickly calling a person antisemitic based on a statement seems hasty and defeatist.

You absolutely can assume the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Like, what? This is an insane point of view, even apart from this whole discussion about antisemitism. You’re saying people can never judge others’ opinions because they’re not literally inside that person’s head?

You can’t just go around shouting blatantly antisemitic things and then when people challenge you, say “you’re making assumptions! That’s not what I actually meant!” Ok. What did you actually mean then? Why to comparison to Nazis and not some other group?

Again, nuance, yes if someone is stating death to all Jews! verses the Isreali government is terroristic. These two statements mean different things to different people. One is clearly antisemitic and the other, perhaps based on nonjews ignorance, may not be seen as antisemitism.

They’re not saying “the Isreali government is terroristic” though, they are saying ISRAEL = NAZI GERMANY. I don’t need any further information to conclude that is an antisemitic statement. Also, if you’re going to argue that nothing short of shouting “death to all Jews” is antisemitic, you’re not going to get anywhere with me, sorry.

“the other, perhaps based on nonjews ignorance, may not be seen as antisemitism.” Well I guess we can agree that antisemites are ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions are open to interpretation unless you clarify the basis behind the opinion, you may be misinterpreting a statement.

Got it, so I can’t ever assume a statement is antisemitic without interviewing the person who made it and asking if they personally intended for it to be antisemitic. I have news for you, 9/10 antisemites would deny their intent.

If someone said “MLK Jr. = Hitler” I think it would be fair to assume that person is racist. I’m not going to approach that person and be like “oh do you mean because they both have mustaches?” Please.

I don’t agree with you. You cannot assume to just know the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Quickly calling a person antisemitic based on a statement seems hasty and defeatist.

You absolutely can assume the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Like, what? This is an insane point of view, even apart from this whole discussion about antisemitism. You’re saying people can never judge others’ opinions because they’re not literally inside that person’s head?

You can’t just go around shouting blatantly antisemitic things and then when people challenge you, say “you’re making assumptions! That’s not what I actually meant!” Ok. What did you actually mean then? Why to comparison to Nazis and not some other group?

Again, nuance, yes if someone is stating death to all Jews! verses the Isreali government is terroristic. These two statements mean different things to different people. One is clearly antisemitic and the other, perhaps based on nonjews ignorance, may not be seen as antisemitism.

They’re not saying “the Isreali government is terroristic” though, they are saying ISRAEL = NAZI GERMANY. I don’t need any further information to conclude that is an antisemitic statement. Also, if you’re going to argue that nothing short of shouting “death to all Jews” is antisemitic, you’re not going to get anywhere with me, sorry.

“the other, perhaps based on nonjews ignorance, may not be seen as antisemitism.” Well I guess we can agree that antisemites are ignorant.

My point is that different statements can be interpreted differently by different people, including statements that jewish people find to be antisemitic. All jewish people find exactly the same statements to be antisemitic? Is there a book or list of such statements?

[Anonymous]

This is one of many articles our there showing how Israel is replicating the actions of the Nazis. So much more needs to said and written on the parallels once we can get over these nonsense antisemitism accusations.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-how-israel-replicating-nazi-starvation-tactics

[Anonymous]

The IDF is still bombing Gaza. They did so again today and killed their 186th journalist and more woman and children. Enough.

https://metro.co.uk/2025/06/30/idf-kills-women-children-gaza-beachfront-cafe-bombing-23543840/

[Anonymous]

Antisemitism is different from basic racism against African American, Asian American, etc. in that antisemitism not only involves a ‘race’ of white appearing people, but also a religion and a nation. It’s much more involved than racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Opinions are open to interpretation unless you clarify the basis behind the opinion, you may be misinterpreting a statement.

Got it, so I can’t ever assume a statement is antisemitic without interviewing the person who made it and asking if they personally intended for it to be antisemitic. I have news for you, 9/10 antisemites would deny their intent.

If someone said “MLK Jr. = Hitler” I think it would be fair to assume that person is racist. I’m not going to approach that person and be like “oh do you mean because they both have mustaches?” Please.

I don’t agree with you. You cannot assume to just know the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Quickly calling a person antisemitic based on a statement seems hasty and defeatist.

You absolutely can assume the intent behind a statement/opinion that’s not your own. Like, what? This is an insane point of view, even apart from this whole discussion about antisemitism. You’re saying people can never judge others’ opinions because they’re not literally inside that person’s head?

You can’t just go around shouting blatantly antisemitic things and then when people challenge you, say “you’re making assumptions! That’s not what I actually meant!” Ok. What did you actually mean then? Why to comparison to Nazis and not some other group?

Again, nuance, yes if someone is stating death to all Jews! verses the Isreali government is terroristic. These two statements mean different things to different people. One is clearly antisemitic and the other, perhaps based on nonjews ignorance, may not be seen as antisemitism.

They’re not saying “the Isreali government is terroristic” though, they are saying ISRAEL = NAZI GERMANY. I don’t need any further information to conclude that is an antisemitic statement. Also, if you’re going to argue that nothing short of shouting “death to all Jews” is antisemitic, you’re not going to get anywhere with me, sorry.

“the other, perhaps based on nonjews ignorance, may not be seen as antisemitism.” Well I guess we can agree that antisemites are ignorant.

My point is that different statements can be interpreted differently by different people, including statements that jewish people find to be antisemitic. All jewish people find exactly the same statements to be antisemitic? Is there a book or list of such statements?

Ok. I can see now that you’re not even PLAYING dumb. Do all Black people need to fine a statement racist for it to be considered racist? The ADL, AJC, WJC, and basically every other mainstream Jewish group have called Holocaust inversion antisemitic. And FWIW, yes there is a “list of such statements.” The Working Definition of Antisemitism – adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the U.S. Department of State, and other organizations – offers several examples to help determine when criticism of Israel may be antisemitic, including "drawing comparison of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis"

And even setting all that aside - common sense would dictate that comparing a group to their oppressors who murdered six million of them would be seen by that group as bigoted and offensive. Unless you’re an antisemite, in which case your common sense is probably impaired.

[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.

No, the comparison is used because it best captures how awful the policies and actions of Israel truly are. As bad as Stalin and Pol Pot and others have been throughout history, I recognize the unique evil in what the Nazi regime did - and I see startling parallels in what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for decades. Trying to twist it into some kind of attempt at psychic harm is missing the mark entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is one of many articles our there showing how Israel is replicating the actions of the Nazis. So much more needs to said and written on the parallels once we can get over these nonsense antisemitism accusations.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-how-israel-replicating-nazi-starvation-tactics

Oh wow, an article from Middle East eye dot net by Soumaya Ghannoushi, writer for Al Quds (which famously declared the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be legitimate). I’m sure that’s super reliable reporting and not at all biased.

[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).

Your comparison is repulsive.

BLM protests : lynch mobs against the backdrop of slavery in this country = Israeli atrocities : Nazi atrocities?

Are you f^cking serious?