Yes the complaints are more common than the occurrence (I think that's pretty normal, though), but the occurrence isn't uncommon. Back in my reddit days I was accused of anti-semitism merely for saying that creating Israel at that particular location was a mistake. Was that a real person? A false flag troll? Who knows.
I've also read accounts by Jewish people whose family members called them "self-hating Jews" because they criticized Israel.
But these anecdotes are not that meaningful. They do tell us the views of some extremists, but they tell us nothing about the prevalence of that extremism.
Reddit's users have always struck me as fantastically antisemitic. I think a lot of them do it for shock laughs, but the genuine article is present as well.
Saying Israel shouldn't have been born in that location isn't the same thing as saying Israel shouldn't exist, but Israel is the only country whose mere existence seems to require justification. Framing Israel's political problems as if they can be easily solved by not having an Israel certainly looks analogous to solving a Jewish problem by not having Jews. I'm absolutely not saying this is what you're saying, but this is how conversations about what should have happened instead are perceived by us Jews.
>Israel is the only country whose mere existence seems to require justification
Well, that's because most other countries weren't plopped down in the middle of an inhabited region, resulting in decades of violence and oppression that, and this part is critical, continue to this day. The US also shouldn't have been plopped down on the land inhabited by American Indians, but since the dust from that has mostly settled, it serves as a less poignant example of the dangers of nation-building. The lessons from history here should be obvious, but for reasons of nationalism and religion (by which I am referring to American Christians), those lessons are being obscured.
>Framing Israel's political problems as if they can be easily solved by not having an Israel certainly looks analogous to solving a Jewish problem by not having Jews.
I guess they look analogous? If you squint? I mean, for one thing, saying that establishing Israel was a mistake is not the same as saying that Israel should be dissolved.
For another thing, what "Jewish problem"? From context, I guess you're talking about the Nazis, but that "problem" was Hitler's accusation that the Jews were responsible for WWII. But unlike "Israel's political problems" (as you so delicately put it), that problem was a fiction.
Finally, while it clearly would not work to dissolve Israel at this stage, the problems with that plan do not significantly intersect with the problems of genocide.
I mean, I'm trying to be charitable to your analogy here, but it sounds to me like you're saying that people find "Israel shouldn't have been established there" offensive because it calls to mind an utterly false analogy.
It's counterproductive to bathe ourselves in outrage over mistakes that cannot be rectified when there are problems today that could be solved, or at least improved on, by calm diplomatic negotiation, if either side could distance themselves from their hurt feelings long enough to cool off a little and be realistic. Getting everyone riled up over the injustice of it all pushes this process into the future and benefits no one.
> I guess they look analogous? If you squint?
Feelings have a way of being irrational, but ignoring them exacerbates problems rather than solving them.
> I mean, for one thing, saying that establishing Israel was a mistake is not the same as saying that Israel should be dissolved.
No, but it doesn't bring anything to the table either, other than to make things emotionally charged and raise the stakes.
> Finally, while it clearly would not work to dissolve Israel at this stage
The idea that dissolving Israel was ever on the table is absurd. You can't just march into someone's country and dissolve it because you don't like how it was founded.
> the problems with that plan do not significantly intersect with the problems of genocide.
I'd like to know how that could possibly be true. It's quite a stretch for me to imagine that when the leadership of Israel's enemies call for "the Zionist entity" to be pushed into the sea they have something else in mind.
>It's counterproductive to bathe ourselves in outrage over mistakes that cannot be rectified when there are problems today that could be solved, or at least improved on, by calm diplomatic negotiation, if either side could distance themselves from their hurt feelings long enough to cool off a little and be realistic. Getting everyone riled up over the injustice of it all pushes this process into the future and benefits no one.
If you want to have diplomacy in the middle east, it is absolutely crucial that we first acknowledge that creating Israel there was a mistake. Not doing so is just continuing to say "fuck you" to Palestinians. We need to say "look, putting Israel here was a mistake, but it's here now and we have to deal with this."
>Feelings have a way of being irrational, but ignoring them exacerbates problems rather than solving them.
If, whenever someone disagrees with you, you feel like you're talking to Hitler, you're going to find that your feelings get ignored a lot. There is simply no way to have a productive conversation without ignoring feelings like that.
>The idea that dissolving Israel was ever on the table is absurd.
Are you taking offense to my mention of dissolving Israel after you brought it up?
>I'd like to know how that could possibly be true. It's quite a stretch for me to imagine that when the leadership of Israel's enemies call for "the Zionist entity" to be pushed into the sea they have something else in mind.
Ugh. So now what you're saying is that when someone mentions that putting Israel there was a mistake, you immediately attribute to them the positions of Islamist extremists. How do you ever expect to have a rational discussion when you can't stop thinking in kneejerk feelings?
Those were unconnected threads. Did you forget that you said this?
> the problems with [dissolving Israel] do not significantly intersect with the problems of genocide.
I asked you several responses ago to explain how that could be. You dodged that question by being combative and insulting. I'm not willing to lose more of my calm debating a troll such as yourself. Discussion over.
Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. I don't think we benefit much from reductive analyses on this issue. Israelis are certainly not politically homogenous. Some people call themselves Zionist meaning they support the settlers; others support Israel but want all of the settlers pulled out, etc. You can be Zionist and not be for any particular decision of the current Israeli government, and you can be fervently religious and not a Zionist. But let's not be dense; some anti-Zionism is exactly an expression of antisemitism. It's such a polarizing issue that both sides of the debate are inclined to overreact and overreach and wind up riding roughshod over each other's perspectives, which generates more bad feelings and makes everybody more extreme.
Zionism--i.e. the settlement and defense of Israel itself--is the Jews' best hope to protect themselves from extermination. You're damn right it's suspicious to criticize that concept.
It's the expansionism, and the dispossession of Palestinians that requires, that gets all activists of my acquaintance _really_ het up. Why exactly all the settlements in the West Bank, outside the Wall? Are they "correct" according to Zionism?
Because if yes, Zionism is an ideology in favour of ethnic cleansing, which is an uncomfortable spot to sit...
> Why exactly all the settlements in the West Bank
I think it's reasonable to oppose those. Though I'm skeptical the settlements make any real difference in the situation. Removing them from the Gaza Strip didn't seem to make any difference, why would removing them from the West Bank help?
Well, it would signal seriousness about a two-state solution (how is this http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/westbank.... ever supposed to be a country? It's been almost completely Balkanized) and stop the theft of Palestinian land (it's very hard to feel ...less than ambivalent about a neighbouring country who allows its citizens steal your livelihood).
Basically, to stop this kind of conflict takes dialogue. Lots and lots of dialogue, with people who are serious about it. And not stopping the expansion of the West Bank settlements as per the Oslo Accords signaled that the Israeli government was not serious about its commitments.
(Hi, I'm Irish, I have a small idea whereof I speak, though not much.)
I never justified the settlements, I just think anti-Israeli sentiment wouldn't be improved any by removing the settlements. It almost doesn't matter if Israel does everything right or wrong anyway, because that's not the reason the world hates them.
(aside: There's a long distance between "please stop allowing or encouraging your government to treat other human beings in this terrible, terrible manner. Please think about the crimes done to them by your parents and grandparents - and by you. Please consider how you can encourage peace," and "we hate you." Or there should be, anyway; there are some very invested people.)
The bulk of the reason is antisemitism, with a good dose of groupthink on the side. In other words, it's become fashionable to hate Israel regardless of their actions.
When they make settlements it disturbs the peace process; when they unilaterally remove settlements, it also undermines the peace process. When they bomb or occupy a neighboring country it's an overreaction, but when that neighboring country is firing rockets into Israeli neighborhoods it isn't their responsibility. When a terrorist hate group takes control of Gaza and breaks away from the Palestinian Authority, they aren't disturbing the peace process, but when Israel and Egypt jointly declare a blockade on Gaza and Israel captures a "flotilla" trying to run the blockade, Israel are the oppressors--even though the supplies carried on the flotilla were merely inspected and passed through to Gaza anyway.
It's generous, and likely accurate, to say that those who hate Israel aren't thinking critically. Most people who take up intellectual fashions aren't thinking critically--that's why they take up intellectual fashions in the first place. But the more passionate ones are likely antisemitic. There are fair criticisms to be made, but there are also plenty of double standards at play as well.
When a terrorist hate group is the elected government of the Palestinian Authority, we expect you to deal with them as the elected government. Not to like it, but to do it.
Martin McGuinness, former member of the IRA army council, is Deputy Minister of Northern Ireland - a country he ran bombing campaigns to destroy (I'm not exaggerating: the explicit aim of the 30-year PIRA campaign was a reunited Ireland). Nelson Mandela is a convicted terrorist. We expect so much from you, yes. No-one expects this much from people they hate.
That tar-brush you're waving around is very, very wide.
How do you propose Israel deal with a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel?
Perhaps McGuinness is reformed (you did say former member of the IRA army council). Does he continue to call for the destruction of Great Britain? If not, you can negotiate with that. Israel has long negotiated with Palestinian factions that endorse a two-state solution, such as Fatah. Mandela accomplished the destruction of apartheid, and it was only by De Klerk's agreement to the end of apartheid that he and Mandela could deal with each other. With Hamas, only the destruction of Israel will suffice. What exactly is there to deal with?
I said he was one of the commanders of a guerilla army committed to the destruction of a country he now is Deputy Prime Minister of. If he is no longer a member of the Army Council (he denies ever being so, with as much believability as Clinton's denial that he did not inhale pot) it is because the political role he was playing became more important, and military activity was jeopardizing that work. Sinn Fein still seek a united Ireland, but are trying to accomplish it through political means.
This is the power of dialogue. You talk, you talk, you keep talking. You deal with the less extreme popular factions (analogy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDLP), but the key word in that sentence is popular: an agreement with an organization with no backing in the community is an agreement with no-one. You do NOT commit to something and then completely disregard it, because then your word becomes worthless, and no-one believes anything you say ever again.
I do not know the solution. No-one does. But attempting to push the Palestinians into the sea is not it.
He wanted to "destroy" Northern Ireland by unifying the counties inside of it with the Republic of Ireland, instead of keeping them unified with Great Britain. This is not even an unreasonable stance for a North Irish elected official, is it? It takes a lot of equivocation to equate that with what Hamas wants to do.
We can agree that Israel has made a lot of mistakes. That doesn't legitimate groups like Hamas and that doesn't provide any basis for dialogue with Hamas, either. Meanwhile, the anger and hatred towards Israel would be there with or without the mistakes. It was there before the mistakes and it will be there long afterwards.
You can't suggest that Israel is well on it's way towards complete theocracy and deeper and deeper levels of state-protected misogyny while it's also losing any semblance of functional democracy and effective long term strategies without it being suggested.
Oh, wait, you can only say that about countries like Saudi Arabia. Silly me. Because the difference between flogging women and spitting on little girls is, you know, just so insurmountably vast.
And I'm not even touching the surface of valid criticisms that people just keep quiet about rather than utter, at least in America.
The worst part of it is that these criticisms generally have nothing to do with some sort of broad notion of Judaism as a religion or as a whole, but more particularly to Israel and its domination by short-sighted zealots.
That's because fear of being labeled is a deterrent from writing anything critical. To argue that this isn't a problem, find examples of people being critical and not being labeled.
Criticizing the actions of any government is what it is, but many critics of Israel go so far as to say there should be no Jewish state, which in effect means the Jews should be a people without a homeland, forever vulnerable to extermination by the Gentiles they are forced to live amongst as an eternal minority. That alone is suspicious as it carries the shadow of antisemitism, but once you throw in explicit support for groups like Hamas, the picture becomes clearer.
Except for a brief moment of shame after World War II, the general attitude of the West has always been antisemitic. Those seeking to criticize the actions of the Israeli government should have to work harder to distinguish themselves from the antisemites who merely disguise their attitudes as criticism of Israel.
> Those seeking to criticize the actions of the Israeli government should have to work harder to distinguish themselves from the antisemites who merely disguise their attitudes as criticism of Israel.
This is the opposite of "no true Scotsman" - "always true antisemite"?
Not at all. It's a recognition that if racists run around using code words to thinly veil their hatred, it behooves the rest of us to make sure we don't get confused with the racists.
I disagree, the Israeli government should be working harder to distinguish itself as a well-governed state, especially when looked at from the U.S. as there is a large sum of foreign aid and military aid going from our tax dollars to the state.
Criticizing the entire idea of a theocracy, and that a religion should (of course) have a homeland to dominate, does not make you an antisemite, nor covered with antisemitism "shadow." More an antisemitism smear.
Now, I am suspicious of the people who are irate about Israel as a Jewish state, but are all about the Dalai Lama. I don't see how that makes sense unless you have something against Jewish people.
The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line. So Israel is not a homeland for a religion, it is a homeland for a nationality.
Sure, a convert to Judaism is also a Jew. But Judaism is explicitly not a religion for everyone, it is only a religion for the Jews. So if you believe in Judaism but have no desire to be a Jew yourself, you can just follow the Noahide laws. Actually becoming a Jew entails an extra step beyond that, namely the intention to join the Jewish nation. So not even in the case of conversion can the Jewish nation be equivalent to Judaism.
In practice, Israel is also just as secular as any Western country. No theocracy to be found there. This is more than you can say for, say, England, which has a state-established church with the monarch at its head.
>The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line.
So it's just racist? I prefer to think of it as a theocracy that preserves a culture that has been historically very endangered. That, I don't feel as bad about.
>it is a homeland for a nationality.
If you, by law, make being a member of a religion a sufficient qualification for citizenship in a nation, this is self-fulfilling.
A theocracy is a government that governs based upon the dictates of religious doctrine. The Israeli government does not do this in any way, shape, or form. It is as secular as most Western countries.
Most nationalities are passed down by descent. If this constitutes racism, then so does the citizenship law of every nation that grants the right of citizenship to the children of a citizen. Nearly every country does this, so there is no reason to single out Israel unless you are trying to enforce a double standard.
Some nationalities allow outside individuals to join, and the Jewish nation is one of these. Like any nation, the Jewish nation has steep requirements of cultural belief and assimilation in order to join, namely conversion to the Jewish religion. But this is not merely a matter of belief. A Gentile who merely believes in Judaism is still not a Jew until they formally convert (i.e. joins the nation), just as an otherwise qualified foreigner who can pass the US citizenship exam is still not an American until they take the test and swear the oath to become a naturalized citizen.
There are many nationalities and ethnic groups that no longer have their own sovereign nation. Are they all "vulnerable to extermination by the Gentiles"?
That depends. Do we have a long history of trying to exterminate those other nations? We have a very long history of trying to exterminate the Jews, or oppressing them regardless.
The Romani have been historically oppressed, and were the victims of genocide along with Jews in the Holocaust. Where should their sovereign state be located?
I hope I'm not being a jerk, but there were lots of Jews in the first half of the 20th century that were opposed to Zionism. I assume you wouldn't accuse them all of being antisemitic.
Obviously not. But it's not up to Gentiles to decide the best strategy for the Jews to defend themselves from us, either. Likewise, what the Romani do to protect their nation is up to them.
