Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

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

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

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

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

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

It was answered here:

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

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

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

You are conflating a number of different things here. Almost none of those chanting "From the River to the Sea" are supporters of Hamas. As such, they don't care what position Hamas has towards the LGBTQ population. Those who particularly don't care are the LGBTQ protesters who don't find this sort of pink washing convincing.

Israeli sovereignty comes with Israeli laws including the Basic Law that says describes Israel "as the Nation-State of the Jewish People". As you say, protecting Israel's identity as a Jewish nation means making non-Jews second class citizens, at best. It is remarkable that you actually justify this discrimination because you don't believe that it is based on hate. Israelis are not a homogeneous group so some may actually be motivated by hate. But, more to the point, does the motivation matter?

Again, "From the River to the Sea" speaks only to freedom. I'm sure that individual protesters have a variety of ideas about the governing structure that would ensure this freedom. You are free to have your opinion, but that opinion is simply not authoritative. Palestinians speak about freedom and Israelis talk about sovereignty. This is not a question of tolerance, but rather of control. Israel clearly says who should be in control. The Palestinians do not.

Palestinians elected Hamas. Polls continue to show that Palestinians largely support Hamas. And you’re saying that because of an English slogan using the word free that it conclusively establishes that Palestinians love freedom more than Israelis? You don’t think boiling down the entire Israel-Palestine conflict into two cherry-picked slogans, then picking one of them that uses the word “free” and deciding it’s the right one is an oversimplification of one of the most complex political and religious conflicts the world has ever seen?

You’re worried about the non-Jewish minority in Israel’s right to vote? Or Arab Israelis? Or Christian Israelis? Or Palestinians who live in Israel? I’m just trying to understand because you keep referring to unjust laws in Israel, but this conflict is between Palestinians who live in Gaza and not living in Israel.


To the earlier post of whether antisemitism and anti-Zionism can be separated, I think my answer is that they can be separated intellectually. However, I’m afraid they cannot be separated in real life practice. I think anyone can criticize Israel’s policies and not be antisemitic, but questioning Israel’s right to exist at all to me is antisemitic.

I am not a Palestinian. Nor are the vast majority of those protesting and using the "From the River to the Sea" slogan. None of us elected Hamas and most of us don't support the organization. Continuing to bring up Hamas is just a diversion. The point of the discussion is the meaning of "From the River to the Sea". I pointed out that Zionist continually try to define it differently from those who use it. You are actually attempting to do exactly that.

Why do you think that you are better prepared to determine the meaning of a slogan than the people who are actually using it?

You have made clear that your position is that non-Jews should be allowed rights only insofar as they don't threaten the Jewish nature of the state. As such, at best they can only be second class citizens. It is clear that you consider the Jewish nature of Israel to be more important than the democratic nature. Hence, the privileges you are prepared to grant non-Jews will always be limited.

In your last paragraph you conflate Jews and Israel. Hence, questioning the right of a country to exist — a political issue — is, in your mind, the same as questioning the existence of a people. First, as Jews themselves are often the first to point out, Israel and Jews are not the same thing.

I would argue that Israel has no right to exist in its current circumstances in which it occupies millions of Palestinians. That opinion says nothing about Jews. Israel can extend full rights to the Palestinians that it occupies or it can separate itself and grant the Palestinians full independence. It may also find some other mutually satisfactory arrangement. But, the current occupation is not legitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

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

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

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

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

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

It was answered here:

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

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

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

You are conflating a number of different things here. Almost none of those chanting "From the River to the Sea" are supporters of Hamas. As such, they don't care what position Hamas has towards the LGBTQ population. Those who particularly don't care are the LGBTQ protesters who don't find this sort of pink washing convincing.

Israeli sovereignty comes with Israeli laws including the Basic Law that says describes Israel "as the Nation-State of the Jewish People". As you say, protecting Israel's identity as a Jewish nation means making non-Jews second class citizens, at best. It is remarkable that you actually justify this discrimination because you don't believe that it is based on hate. Israelis are not a homogeneous group so some may actually be motivated by hate. But, more to the point, does the motivation matter?

Again, "From the River to the Sea" speaks only to freedom. I'm sure that individual protesters have a variety of ideas about the governing structure that would ensure this freedom. You are free to have your opinion, but that opinion is simply not authoritative. Palestinians speak about freedom and Israelis talk about sovereignty. This is not a question of tolerance, but rather of control. Israel clearly says who should be in control. The Palestinians do not.

Palestinians elected Hamas. Polls continue to show that Palestinians largely support Hamas. And you’re saying that because of an English slogan using the word free that it conclusively establishes that Palestinians love freedom more than Israelis? You don’t think boiling down the entire Israel-Palestine conflict into two cherry-picked slogans, then picking one of them that uses the word “free” and deciding it’s the right one is an oversimplification of one of the most complex political and religious conflicts the world has ever seen?

You’re worried about the non-Jewish minority in Israel’s right to vote? Or Arab Israelis? Or Christian Israelis? Or Palestinians who live in Israel? I’m just trying to understand because you keep referring to unjust laws in Israel, but this conflict is between Palestinians who live in Gaza and not living in Israel.


To the earlier post of whether antisemitism and anti-Zionism can be separated, I think my answer is that they can be separated intellectually. However, I’m afraid they cannot be separated in real life practice. I think anyone can criticize Israel’s policies and not be antisemitic, but questioning Israel’s right to exist at all to me is antisemitic.

I believe that is the crux of everything. This whole mess is not and has never been limited to Gaza.

[Anonymous]

Salman Rushdie: If a Palestinian state were established right now, it would be a Taliban-like state governed by Hamas.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

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

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

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

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

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

It was answered here:

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

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

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

You are conflating a number of different things here. Almost none of those chanting "From the River to the Sea" are supporters of Hamas. As such, they don't care what position Hamas has towards the LGBTQ population. Those who particularly don't care are the LGBTQ protesters who don't find this sort of pink washing convincing.

Israeli sovereignty comes with Israeli laws including the Basic Law that says describes Israel "as the Nation-State of the Jewish People". As you say, protecting Israel's identity as a Jewish nation means making non-Jews second class citizens, at best. It is remarkable that you actually justify this discrimination because you don't believe that it is based on hate. Israelis are not a homogeneous group so some may actually be motivated by hate. But, more to the point, does the motivation matter?

Again, "From the River to the Sea" speaks only to freedom. I'm sure that individual protesters have a variety of ideas about the governing structure that would ensure this freedom. You are free to have your opinion, but that opinion is simply not authoritative. Palestinians speak about freedom and Israelis talk about sovereignty. This is not a question of tolerance, but rather of control. Israel clearly says who should be in control. The Palestinians do not.

Palestinians elected Hamas. Polls continue to show that Palestinians largely support Hamas. And you’re saying that because of an English slogan using the word free that it conclusively establishes that Palestinians love freedom more than Israelis? You don’t think boiling down the entire Israel-Palestine conflict into two cherry-picked slogans, then picking one of them that uses the word “free” and deciding it’s the right one is an oversimplification of one of the most complex political and religious conflicts the world has ever seen?

You’re worried about the non-Jewish minority in Israel’s right to vote? Or Arab Israelis? Or Christian Israelis? Or Palestinians who live in Israel? I’m just trying to understand because you keep referring to unjust laws in Israel, but this conflict is between Palestinians who live in Gaza and not living in Israel.


To the earlier post of whether antisemitism and anti-Zionism can be separated, I think my answer is that they can be separated intellectually. However, I’m afraid they cannot be separated in real life practice. I think anyone can criticize Israel’s policies and not be antisemitic, but questioning Israel’s right to exist at all to me is antisemitic.

I am not a Palestinian. Nor are the vast majority of those protesting and using the "From the River to the Sea" slogan. None of us elected Hamas and most of us don't support the organization. Continuing to bring up Hamas is just a diversion. The point of the discussion is the meaning of "From the River to the Sea". I pointed out that Zionist continually try to define it differently from those who use it. You are actually attempting to do exactly that.

Why do you think that you are better prepared to determine the meaning of a slogan than the people who are actually using it?

You have made clear that your position is that non-Jews should be allowed rights only insofar as they don't threaten the Jewish nature of the state. As such, at best they can only be second class citizens. It is clear that you consider the Jewish nature of Israel to be more important than the democratic nature. Hence, the privileges you are prepared to grant non-Jews will always be limited.

In your last paragraph you conflate Jews and Israel. Hence, questioning the right of a country to exist — a political issue — is, in your mind, the same as questioning the existence of a people. First, as Jews themselves are often the first to point out, Israel and Jews are not the same thing.

I would argue that Israel has no right to exist in its current circumstances in which it occupies millions of Palestinians. That opinion says nothing about Jews. Israel can extend full rights to the Palestinians that it occupies or it can separate itself and grant the Palestinians full independence. It may also find some other mutually satisfactory arrangement. But, the current occupation is not legitimate.

I’ll quote you precisely from your prior post: “Palestinians speak about freedom and Israelis talk about sovereignty.”

You’ve now changed your argument and say it’s not Palestinians who speak of freedom, it’s non-Palestinians who don’t support Hamas.

Palestinians want a full eradication of Israel. The slogan is based on geography and wanting the eradication of Israel. Israel has offered a two state solution and it’s been rejected by Palestinians again and again. I’d love to see a two state solution. I think it’s possible. I don’t like Netanyahu. Peace is possible in my mind.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

What country is that? Palestinian Christians don't have equal rights either.

All Israeli citizens can vote. Palestinians living outside of Israel proper are not Israeli citizens. There are over 2 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens and comprise over 20% of the country’s population.

They can vote, usually, but do not have full and equal rights.

If Judea and Samaria are not Israel proper then why is the Government building housing there? If it is not Israel then what is it?

Because the government is right wing. I’m not pro settlement. I’m generally pro-israel, consider myself a Zionist (which I do not consider a “Jewish supremacy” philosophy), and believe in Israel’s right to safely exist and defend itself, but am not aligned on settlements in the West Bank.

What do you think should happen to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? Israeli settlers have been attacking Palestinians in the West Bank. Do those Palestinians have the right to take up arms and defend themselves? Could the Palestinian Authority's police use armed force to protect Palestinians? What safety do the Palestinians deserve?

I’m personally in favor of a two state solution. I don’t condone settler violence in the West Bank. They are extremists, like MAGA extremists in the US. My hope would be that a more moderate Israeli government and a moderate Palestinian authority could mutually achieve peace at some point, but obviously the current conditions make that unrealistic. However I think many moderate people share my view.

Let's explore this further. In the event of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, what would happen to the settlements? Do support a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders or something more limited than that?

While you don't condone settler violence, you didn't address the right of Palestinians to defend themselves. Given that on the one hand there are settlers with whom you don't agree and Palestinians who you believe deserve a state, who has what rights with regard to violence? Right now the folks with whom you don't agree are free to terrorize the others. Should the Palestinians be able to resist that?

Yes in theory I support a withdrawal from the West Bank settlements. Or some kind of drawn up map that divides the territory.

In theory Palestinians should also have a right to defend themselves. But it is also my opinion that they’ve been unable to demonstrate responsible use of arms and resort to terror. While Israeli settlers are a rogue group of extremists who use violence, it’s very different from a governing entity like Hamas using terrorism as a means to an end.

There’s also a third group of people here you fail to mention- sovereign Israelis, who have a right to exist and defend themselves. They do not have a right to do what settlers are doing, but they have a right to live in peace within established borders, and that means a Jewish majority state, which I do not hold as a supremacist belief, because anything other than a Jewish majority state will lead to the annihilation of the Jews there. It also means full rights for the non Jewish minority within Israel, which is currently in practice.

I don’t see how it’s difficult to believe that in theory, Israeli and Palestinians should each have a state. But Palestinians should also be held accountable for being able to run something resembling a civilized state that doesn’t resort to extremism and terrorism, to which Gaza has so far failed.

What would an ideal Palestinian state look like to you?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

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

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

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

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

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

It was answered here:

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

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

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

You are conflating a number of different things here. Almost none of those chanting "From the River to the Sea" are supporters of Hamas. As such, they don't care what position Hamas has towards the LGBTQ population. Those who particularly don't care are the LGBTQ protesters who don't find this sort of pink washing convincing.

Israeli sovereignty comes with Israeli laws including the Basic Law that says describes Israel "as the Nation-State of the Jewish People". As you say, protecting Israel's identity as a Jewish nation means making non-Jews second class citizens, at best. It is remarkable that you actually justify this discrimination because you don't believe that it is based on hate. Israelis are not a homogeneous group so some may actually be motivated by hate. But, more to the point, does the motivation matter?

Again, "From the River to the Sea" speaks only to freedom. I'm sure that individual protesters have a variety of ideas about the governing structure that would ensure this freedom. You are free to have your opinion, but that opinion is simply not authoritative. Palestinians speak about freedom and Israelis talk about sovereignty. This is not a question of tolerance, but rather of control. Israel clearly says who should be in control. The Palestinians do not.

Palestinians elected Hamas. Polls continue to show that Palestinians largely support Hamas. And you’re saying that because of an English slogan using the word free that it conclusively establishes that Palestinians love freedom more than Israelis? You don’t think boiling down the entire Israel-Palestine conflict into two cherry-picked slogans, then picking one of them that uses the word “free” and deciding it’s the right one is an oversimplification of one of the most complex political and religious conflicts the world has ever seen?

You’re worried about the non-Jewish minority in Israel’s right to vote? Or Arab Israelis? Or Christian Israelis? Or Palestinians who live in Israel? I’m just trying to understand because you keep referring to unjust laws in Israel, but this conflict is between Palestinians who live in Gaza and not living in Israel.


To the earlier post of whether antisemitism and anti-Zionism can be separated, I think my answer is that they can be separated intellectually. However, I’m afraid they cannot be separated in real life practice. I think anyone can criticize Israel’s policies and not be antisemitic, but questioning Israel’s right to exist at all to me is antisemitic.

I am not a Palestinian. Nor are the vast majority of those protesting and using the "From the River to the Sea" slogan. None of us elected Hamas and most of us don't support the organization. Continuing to bring up Hamas is just a diversion. The point of the discussion is the meaning of "From the River to the Sea". I pointed out that Zionist continually try to define it differently from those who use it. You are actually attempting to do exactly that.

Why do you think that you are better prepared to determine the meaning of a slogan than the people who are actually using it?

You have made clear that your position is that non-Jews should be allowed rights only insofar as they don't threaten the Jewish nature of the state. As such, at best they can only be second class citizens. It is clear that you consider the Jewish nature of Israel to be more important than the democratic nature. Hence, the privileges you are prepared to grant non-Jews will always be limited.

In your last paragraph you conflate Jews and Israel. Hence, questioning the right of a country to exist — a political issue — is, in your mind, the same as questioning the existence of a people. First, as Jews themselves are often the first to point out, Israel and Jews are not the same thing.

I would argue that Israel has no right to exist in its current circumstances in which it occupies millions of Palestinians. That opinion says nothing about Jews. Israel can extend full rights to the Palestinians that it occupies or it can separate itself and grant the Palestinians full independence. It may also find some other mutually satisfactory arrangement. But, the current occupation is not legitimate.

I’ll quote you precisely from your prior post: “Palestinians speak about freedom and Israelis talk about sovereignty.”

You’ve now changed your argument and say it’s not Palestinians who speak of freedom, it’s non-Palestinians who don’t support Hamas.

Palestinians want a full eradication of Israel. The slogan is based on geography and wanting the eradication of Israel. Israel has offered a two state solution and it’s been rejected by Palestinians again and again. I’d love to see a two state solution. I think it’s possible. I don’t like Netanyahu. Peace is possible in my mind.

Are you interested in a discussion or point scoring? If you are interested in point scoring, I am quite capable of going in that direction and, believe me, I will score a lot of points. But that is not particularly interesting. I prefer a discussion.

The slogan "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free" speaks about freedom. It does not address the topic of governance. Some who use it may envision specific types of governance, but there is no generally agreed upon governing outcome. Many, in fact, consider the issue of governance to be a completely separate topic. This slogan is purely about freedom. This is one topic.

A second topic is support for Hamas. Almost none of the demonstrators in the West support Hamas. The oppose the devastation of Gaza and, in most cases, the continued occupation of the West Bank. Your continual attempts to turn this into a discussion of Hamas is a diversionary tactic. Rather than discuss your position that Jewish rights supersede the rights of non-Jews, you want to talk about Hamas.

Some Palestinians may want the destruction of Israel. Many Israelis clearly want the destruction of Palestine. Palestinians have, in fact, accepted two-state solutions. Even Hamas has done so despite what I am sure is your unwillingness to believe it. It is the ruling Israeli party that explicitly rejects two-states, arguing for Israeli sovereignty over the entire historic Palestine.

I will ask again, do Palestinians in the West Bank who are under attack from Israeli settlers have the right to defend themselves? Clearly you believe Israelis have a right to safety and self defense. Do Palestinians have the same right?

[Anonymous]

Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, trading land for peace. Hamas got elected, murdered its Fatah rivals and collaborators-with-Israel (peace activists), diverted billions in aid from Gazan civilians to tunnels and weapons, then started the current war with brutal war crimes including kidnapping, rape and mass murder of civilians. Hamas placed its operations under schools, hospitals and mosques and also fires on aid crossings, in order to make Israel look bad while sacrificing its civilians. So, land for peace didn't work. Israel has tried it several times, and it doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

There is such a stark, pulsing line between the realistic posters who maintain a sober view of what's happening in the ME (e.g., Jeff) and those posters who are just indefatigably conditioned to persist with the Zionist propaganda. It often feels like two groups speaking different languages, which is the kind of friction that typically results in the former side just eventually giving up their position out of frustration.

The problem is that such an outcome is EXACTLY what the latter sides aims for. They know they won't convince many people to co-sign the cruel, almost unbelievably racist ideology that they espouse - but they understand quite well that they win anyway if they can just get the other side to give up and walk away.

Guess what? For the first time in decades, there's a glimmer of hope that the prospect of Israeli accountability won't fade away this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, trading land for peace. Hamas got elected, murdered its Fatah rivals and collaborators-with-Israel (peace activists), diverted billions in aid from Gazan civilians to tunnels and weapons, then started the current war with brutal war crimes including kidnapping, rape and mass murder of civilians. Hamas placed its operations under schools, hospitals and mosques and also fires on aid crossings, in order to make Israel look bad while sacrificing its civilians. So, land for peace didn't work. Israel has tried it several times, and it doesn't work.

Is that what you call what Israel is doing in the West Bank? Trading land for peace? Seems like the wrong people are getting the land in that supposed trade?

Asking because, last I checked, it seemed pretty obvious to me that the brutal land, sea and air blockade (to say nothing of the dizzying array of punitive policies that gravely affect the quality of life imposed on those in Gaza, or the unbridled terrorism inflicted on those in the West Bank by settlers, with Israeli gov't support) is the reason those past efforts to "trade land for peace" didn't work. I mean, aside from the fact that we're talking about trading land that was actually taken from them ("here's your stuff back, some of it anyway"), so it's not like Israel is some magnanimous nation generously doling out land in this fairytale.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:There’s also a third group of people here you fail to mention- sovereign Israelis, who have a right to exist and defend themselves. They do not have a right to do what settlers are doing, but they have a right to live in peace within established borders, and that means a Jewish majority state, which I do not hold as a supremacist belief, because anything other than a Jewish majority state will lead to the annihilation of the Jews there. It also means full rights for the non Jewish minority within Israel, which is currently in practice.

Your position that Israel must be a Jewish majority state is absolutely a Jewish supremacist position regardless of how you consider it. As I have said before, you will only tolerate minority rights for as long as they don't threaten Jewish power. You provide a justification for that position, but it doesn't change the facts about your position.

What would happen if as a result of demographic trends the current non-Jewish population grew significantly to the point where it rivaled the Jewish population in numbers? What would you advocate then?

As for my concept of a Palestinian state, I think it really depends on the Israeli state. Your racist assumption that Palestinians are not capable of ruling themselves ignores that the Israelis are only able to govern themselves as a result of US financial and military support. Israel would be a much different country if that support didn't exist. Under current circumstances, Palestinians have no hope of a state and their only option is resistance. The proposals for a two-state solutions have practical drawbacks that will be the continual source of problems. Therefore, I think the only solution is a single secular democratic state in which the right of return for both Jews and Palestinians is protected. The state, whatever name it ends up with, can be a sanctuary for both peoples, guaranteeing the safety and security of both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, trading land for peace. Hamas got elected, murdered its Fatah rivals and collaborators-with-Israel (peace activists), diverted billions in aid from Gazan civilians to tunnels and weapons, then started the current war with brutal war crimes including kidnapping, rape and mass murder of civilians. Hamas placed its operations under schools, hospitals and mosques and also fires on aid crossings, in order to make Israel look bad while sacrificing its civilians. So, land for peace didn't work. Israel has tried it several times, and it doesn't work.

The Gaza withdrawal was Sharon's attempt to unilaterally trade Gaza for the West Bank.

Bibi then propped up Hamas in order to discredit the PA and politically divide Gaza and the West Bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

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

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

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

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

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

It was answered here:

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

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

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

who cares? so what if LGBTQ have more rights.. rights which are being quickly eroded by the current government. Wanting to have religious/ethnic hegemony is WRONG, prioritizing the majority at the expense of minorities is ILLIBERAL and goes against all of the Enlightenment statecraft that the 'civilized' world depends upon. You absolutely cannot say that Israel is a state that subscribes to western values and then say it is state that has a jewish majority predicated on the subversion of rights for Non jews b/c that is the main benefit of western civilization. All the rest of it is relative garbage. If you dont have that you have nothing. So then the charge remains that the only thing 'western; about Israel is that the majority of the ruling class has some european ethnic heritage. the only kind of ethnic or religious hegemony that is compatible with western values is a naturally occurring one that also safeguards those who are either a minority or wish to opt out of the majority belief. It dense matter why you discriminate- its still wrong.

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting and informative discussion. I am learning a lot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your version of Zionism is Jewish supremacy. According to you, Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security.

I support the right of Jews to have a homeland as long as the rights of Jews are equal to the rights of others with whom they cohabitate.

I do not accept the idea that Jews have greater rights than non-Jews.

Opposing your version of Zionism is clearly not anti-Semitic. To the contrary, opposing the Jewish supremacy that you promote is simply statement of support for equal rights.

Opposing the idea that Jews simply deserve the same rights and security as anyone else is, obviously, anti-Semitic.

OP did not say "Jews have a right to a homeland that supersedes the rights of anyone else who might be living in that same place. Jewish rights to security are more important than the right of anyone else to security." And that is not required under Zionism. For example, 1948 lines shared land and even today Israel does not hold the full Levant. But even if that is what OP said, it is a common feature of nations that they seek the right to define those who can be citizens and residents of the land they occupy as a country--and the right to defend that land. Israel was granted statehood. So if you accept that act, why should the only Jewish country (among many nations where there is an official or de facto religion and/or cultural identity) in the world be different?

I only point this out because your first statement fits within a very antisemitic narrative that Jews view themselves as superior. As a jew, my experience is most jews are motivated by a fear of extinction.

Well, this is just confusing. Either Zionism doesn't bestow superiority to Jews and suggesting that it does is anti-Semitic. Or, Zionism does bestow superiority but pointing that out is anti-Semitic because every other country does the same thing. So, it appears either position is anti-Semitic.

But, what is your concept of Zionism? Does it, in your view, allow equal rights for non-Jews and equal security for non-Jews? Or is it your second version in which Jews call all the shots?

Zionism is a majority Jewish state with equal rights for everyone. Just like the Jewish state that currently exists where Arabs Christians and Jews live side by side peacefully and all have full voting rights, sit on supreme courts and elected government etc.

Saying that you support jewish right to self determination in a Jewish minority state is pretty much just saying f-you to Jews, who have faced persecution nearly everywhere where they are minority population.

What country is that? Palestinian Christians don't have equal rights either.

All Israeli citizens can vote. Palestinians living outside of Israel proper are not Israeli citizens. There are over 2 million Arabs who are Israeli citizens and comprise over 20% of the country’s population.

They can vote, usually, but do not have full and equal rights.

If Judea and Samaria are not Israel proper then why is the Government building housing there? If it is not Israel then what is it?

Because the government is right wing. I’m not pro settlement. I’m generally pro-israel, consider myself a Zionist (which I do not consider a “Jewish supremacy” philosophy), and believe in Israel’s right to safely exist and defend itself, but am not aligned on settlements in the West Bank.

What do you think should happen to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? Israeli settlers have been attacking Palestinians in the West Bank. Do those Palestinians have the right to take up arms and defend themselves? Could the Palestinian Authority's police use armed force to protect Palestinians? What safety do the Palestinians deserve?

I’m personally in favor of a two state solution. I don’t condone settler violence in the West Bank. They are extremists, like MAGA extremists in the US. My hope would be that a more moderate Israeli government and a moderate Palestinian authority could mutually achieve peace at some point, but obviously the current conditions make that unrealistic. However I think many moderate people share my view.

Let's explore this further. In the event of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, what would happen to the settlements? Do support a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders or something more limited than that?

While you don't condone settler violence, you didn't address the right of Palestinians to defend themselves. Given that on the one hand there are settlers with whom you don't agree and Palestinians who you believe deserve a state, who has what rights with regard to violence? Right now the folks with whom you don't agree are free to terrorize the others. Should the Palestinians be able to resist that?

Yes in theory I support a withdrawal from the West Bank settlements. Or some kind of drawn up map that divides the territory.

In theory Palestinians should also have a right to defend themselves. But it is also my opinion that they’ve been unable to demonstrate responsible use of arms and resort to terror. [b]While Israeli settlers are a rogue group of extremists who use violence, it’s very different from a governing entity like Hamas using terrorism as a means to an end.

[/b]

What? I'm just not going to let this hypocrisy stand.

Israeli settlers are a rogue group of extremists who use violence for kicks and giggles but Hamas uses terrorism as means to an end?

So, you believe, don't you, that settlers are "rogue" and their violence has no point other than to be violent, that they do not pursue a goal of seizing and controlling land, of displacing, by violent means, Palestinians who currently live there, that they have no articulable philosophy or aims? Okay. Furthermore, you believe, don't you, that settlers are a "rogue" group, despite demonstrable evidence that they conduct their activities under the protection and with the presence of IDF, and that the government supports them with laws and budget allocations, and that the government facilitates the land grab by legitimizing heretofore illegal outposts, building Jewish-only access roads, connecting them to the power grid and (stolen) water lines? Okay.

Furthermore, you believe that while you "disagree with the settlers", it is the West Bankers who were not able to demonstrate "responsible use of" whatever, despite the fact that a West Banker has much more to fear from an Israeli than vice versa, despite the fact that violence against West Bankers can be practiced virtually with zero consequences but violence against Israelis is met with the harshest punishment available in a different justice system?

Okay.

One of us is blind. It's not me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

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

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

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

Alternate explanation for bolded phrase please?

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

It was answered here:

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

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

What is Hamas’ charter re: Jews?

Jeff, got to disagree here. “From the River to the sea” boils down to a lot more about freedom. It boils down to geography. They want all the land back. They want Palestine to replace Israel and thereby be “free.” But what does Hamas mean by “free”? It’s an oppressive terrorist state, no democracy, no civil rights. We all sympathize with the suffering of the innocent Palestinians. But instead of playing around with words, can we acknowledge what is really intended here?

Netanyahu wanting “sovereignty” speaks to wanting an Israeli state. Nothing particularly oppressive or surprising about they coming from an Israeli politician.

Finally, any lack of equality for non-Jews in Israel is rooted in the need to keep it as a Jewish majority state. It’s not discriminatory out of hate for others or lack of tolerance. Tel Aviv has the largest and most celebrated LGBTQ population in all the Middle East, while homosexuality isn’t tolerated by Hamas. Are we really implying that Israel is less tolerant than Hamas?

who cares? so what if LGBTQ have more rights.. rights which are being quickly eroded by the current government. Wanting to have religious/ethnic hegemony is WRONG, prioritizing the majority at the expense of minorities is ILLIBERAL and goes against all of the Enlightenment statecraft that the 'civilized' world depends upon. You absolutely cannot say that Israel is a state that subscribes to western values and then say it is state that has a jewish majority predicated on the subversion of rights for Non jews b/c that is the main benefit of western civilization. All the rest of it is relative garbage. If you dont have that you have nothing. So then the charge remains that the only thing 'western; about Israel is that the majority of the ruling class has some european ethnic heritage. the only kind of ethnic or religious hegemony that is compatible with western values is a naturally occurring one that also safeguards those who are either a minority or wish to opt out of the majority belief. It dense matter why you discriminate- its still wrong.

+1

Israel isn't guided by Western values at all. That lie was forged as a convenient cover for the real reason the U.S. is reviled in the ME - that's right, they hate us because of our blind, unconditional support for Israel, our other geopolitical blunders in the region, and literally no other reason.