Anonymous wrote:Israel is only a so called success story because of the U.S. support. Without it, it would be fledgling economically like Lebanon or Jordan

Exactly !

Whether anti Zionism is anti Semitism depends.

There are also Zionists that I certainly would classify as anti Semitic , particularly Evangelicals .

Everything is a case by case thing. I’ve heard of Muslim Zionists , particularly Bedouins who serve in the IDF or Saudis, Turks, and Emiratis who support Israel’s existence due to a verse in the Quran . Palestinians is not necessarily a literalist ultra Islamic people given it also has its share of Christians. I’ve heard of Christian anti-Zionists namely Arab Christians who have a bigger issue with Israel and its actions than some Muslim Gulf Khaleejis and Bedouins do. There are also Jewish anti-Zionists who oppose Israel.

There are Democrat and Republican anti and pro Zionists for various reasons.

I think everything should be taken case by case because we don’t know everyone’s motivation

Anti Zionism is only anti semitism to the people who wants us to turn a blind eye to their violent colonialism of land (the west bank) that doesn't belong to them. So comfortable they are in their hypocrisy that they do so whilst living in a country that was born thanks to.....anti-colonial wars . If anti Zionism is anti semitism, count me in.

Anonymous wrote:The 10/7 attacks were not legitimate resistance. It's not right vs. right. It's democracy vs. Iran, its proxies, fundamentalist Islam.

What does Iran have to do with 10/7? Putin had more to do with 10/7 than Iran.

Et tu, Bibi?

Israel is only a so called success story because of the U.S. support. Without it, it would be fledgling economically like Lebanon or Jordan

It’s really a three state solution. Gaza is closer to Israel than to the West Bank.

Not sure what the purpose was of dividing Palestinians . It certainly makes Israel’s job harder to monitor two different locations. They actually made things easier for Palestinians to do a ground war on two fronts.

Neither group knows how to plan a state or lead

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

You "don't condone settler violence" but you probably deny the West Bankers any right whatsoever to resist it.

I don’t condone settler violence like you don’t condone 10/7, right? Or do you applaud that kind of “resistance?”

No, I don't applaud 10/7.

The West Bank is a different, more clear-cut case. This is occupied territory. And there is no peace or security entitlement on the occupied territory for the occupier, never. So I don't condemn any attacks out of the West Bank, and I would applaud specifically any retaliation attacks for settler violence. Unfortunately, the current discourse treats Jewish terrorism in the West Bank as "violence", and Palestinian response as "terror." Get out of the West Bank. Then you'd have cause to complain.

Anonymous 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.

You "don't condone settler violence" but you probably deny the West Bankers any right whatsoever to resist it.

I don’t condone settler violence like you don’t condone 10/7, right? Or do you applaud that kind of “resistance?”

The 10/7 attacks were not legitimate resistance. It's not right vs. right. It's democracy vs. Iran, its proxies, fundamentalist Islam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What HAVE you done with the natives?

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

- they attacked us so we had to expel them

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to mention, it's less than 150 years. For one thing, the last massacre of Native Americans was 134 years ago. The forced removal to boarding schools went on much longer, along with continued efforts to eliminate reservations (e.g. the allotment system used with many Ojibwa tribes). Citizenship was only granted 100 years ago. It's only 70 years since dam building in ND completely wiped out a strong ag and ranching economy on one of the state's reservations (there is a fairly famous photo of George Gilette, the tribal chairman, weeping during the signing of the dam agreement). Growing up in a region of the country with many reservations (which include the poorest reservations in the US) as a child I heard people express attitudes towards Native Americans exactly how Israeli settlers speak of Palestinians (although they refuse to call them Palestinians, they are all Arab savages as far as some of those settlers are concerned). Some of the attitudes still linger, although most people with them keep their mouths shut (and have more targets these days given immigration and refugees).

As for Israel;

I am one of those people who are very conflicted about all this. I have a close Palestinian friend whose family was forced out of Palestine in 1948. I have a close friend who is Orthodox Jew--also left wing and despises Netanyahu but very very worried about anti-Semitism--and as a college professor is also face to face with the conflicts on campuses. (He hopes for a Jewish leader the likes of Rabbi Froman although he does not think such a think is likely or perhaps even possible).

NYT write put it as a battle of right vs right. And that is true.

Roma may be the only people as an ethnic group) who have been as universally persecuted for centuries as Jews. Many people have been oppressed and persecuted, but more often within specific geographical areas. I don't consider diaspora historically have been only because of oppression, especially before the Romans, and I have a very weak grasp on the long history of the region (including Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc) especially before the Ottomans. I know that waves of political and economic assimilation (as opposed to religious and ethnic assimilation) have been followed by waves of terror. Not just Germany by any means (going back to the early 1000s with England, for example). And when not terror, things like England and the US when it came to Jews trying to flee Nazism before and during WWII. I know that Palestinians and Jews share deep ancestry and many Palestinian Muslims and Christians are descended from Jews who converted. I do not believe in the story of Moses writ large or that God gave them Israel. I do think that history does compel a need for Jews to have a country.

I also think there is a component of colonialism in Zionism, particularly religious Zionism, and not limited to apartheid. Arendt and Einstein called it out (and even referred to it as a form of fascism). If we pay attention to the historical oppression of Jews, we also have to pay attention to the Zionists from the late 1800s and early 1900s who explicitly called for Palestinians to be forced out of the Israel to be. We have to acknowledge the settlers whose attitudes parallel the absolute worst of white attitudes to native Americans (no longer as explicit as "the only Indian is a dead Indian" but often still very, very negative). And we have to require Israeli leadership to not just take our money and weapons but to abide by standards of justice. There's a viewpoint in Israel that thinks any notions we should expect standards in how they use those means is ludicrous. That is not acceptable. I want to see American Jews (who constitute nearly half the world's Jewish population) to demand those standards.


As for Israel:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe that the world owes Jews a place to live in peace. I believe in Israel. But I think that Israel has pushed the limits of this global obligation beyond reason.

Continued settlement and partitioning of WB cannot be seen as anything other than antagonistic to peace. There is no other interpretation. Settlements are their equivalent of the human shield.

Why would the US or any country beside Germany owe Jews anything? We do not.

I am one of those people who are very conflicted about all this. I have a close Palestinian friend whose family was forced out of Palestine in 1948. I have a close friend who is Orthodox Jew--also left wing and despises Netanyahu but very very worried about anti-Semitism--and as a college professor is also face to face with the conflicts on campuses. (He hopes for a Jewish leader the likes of Rabbi Froman although he does not think such a think is likely or perhaps even possible).

NYT write put it as a battle of right vs right. And that is true.

Roma may be the only people as an ethnic group) who have been as universally persecuted for centuries as Jews. Many people have been oppressed and persecuted, but more often within specific geographical areas. I don't consider diaspora historically have been only because of oppression, especially before the Romans, and I have a very weak grasp on the long history of the region (including Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc) especially before the Ottomans. I know that waves of political and economic assimilation (as opposed to religious and ethnic assimilation) have been followed by waves of terror since Roman times. Not just Germany by any means and certainly not just in the last century (during which, US actions as well as Britain, refused sanctuary to Jews fleeing Nazism). I know that Palestinians and Jews share deep ancestry and many Palestinian Muslims and Christians are descended from Jews who converted. I do not believe in the story of Moses writ large or that God gave them Israel. I do think that history does compel a need for Jews to have a country.

I also think there is a component of colonialism in Zionism, particularly religious Zionism, and not limited to apartheid. Arendt and Einstein called it out (and even referred to it as a form of fascism). If we pay attention to the historical oppression of Jews, we also have to pay attention to the Zionists from the late 1800s and early 1900s who explicitly called for Palestinians to be forced out of the Israel to be. We have to acknowledge the settlers whose attitudes parallel the absolute worst of white attitudes to native Americans (no longer as explicit as "the only Indian is a dead Indian" but often still very, very negative). And we have to require Israeli leadership to not just take our money and weapons but to abide by standards of justice. There's a viewpoint in Israel that thinks any notions we should expect standards in how they use those means is ludicrous. That is not acceptable. I want to see American Jews (who constitute nearly half the world's Jewish population) to demand those standards.

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.

You "don't condone settler violence" but you probably deny the West Bankers any right whatsoever to resist it.

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.

Also, I didn’t see the question about Palestinians in Gaza - was referring to the West Bank. Hamas has got to go in Gaza. They are not a legitimate or peaceful governing entity. Ideally Palestinians would have a state, but they have rejected a two state solution several times. So I’m not really sure what to say when Palestinians in Gaza are governed by a terrorist regime that won’t ever acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. That’s a non starter. My opinion is that Palestinians in Gaza are being held hostage by Hamas. Palestinians need a more moderate governing authority and to advocate for a TWO state solution in good faith. They will get much further with that approach than celebrating dead Israeli civilians and taking civilian hostages including children.

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.