Israel, Palestinians, context, history, chicken and egg

[metis]

The new state of Israel was attacked on Independence Day, so the idea that somehow Israel is culpable and deserves condemnation is simply anti-Semitism at its "finest". Yes, Israel has made moves that I can and do condemn, such as building settlements in the West Bank for one, but the reality is even if they didn't do as such this would not placate many of their Arab neighbors.

The reality that anti-Semites will never likely admit is that no matter what Israel did or didn't do, they would be considered the enemy by millions in that region and elsewhere. But then we would see some here who clearly are anti-Semitic even if we didn't have this discussion on Gaza, and some of the bigotry we've recently read deals in the condemnation of Judaism, such as a recent statement by someone here who says the Judaism theologically allows one to do whatever he or she wants. That is a patently bogus statement.

 

[Orbit]

The new state of Israel was attacked on Independence Day, so the idea that somehow Israel is culpable and deserves condemnation is simply anti-Semitism at its "finest". Yes, Israel has made moves that I can and do condemn, such as building settlements in the West Bank for one, but the reality is even if they didn't do as such this would not placate many of their Arab neighbors.

The reality that anti-Semites will never likely admit is that no matter what Israel did or didn't do, they would be considered the enemy by millions in that region and elsewhere. But then we would see some here who clearly are anti-Semitic even if we didn't have this discussion on Gaza, and some of the bigotry we've recently read deals in the condemnation of Judaism, such as a recent statement by someone here who says the Judaism theologically allows one to do whatever he or she wants. That is a patently bogus statement.

It's really sloppy thinking to equate criticisms of the actions of a nation-state with the hatred of members of a religious group for no other reason than they belong to that group. They are two separate things, and the first one is not anti-semitism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's really sloppy thinking to equate criticisms of the actions of a nation-state with the hatred of members of a religious group for no other reason than they belong to that group. They are two separate things, and the first one is not anti-semitism.

That is true. It is also true that criticism of a nation-state can be driven by antisemitism. Therefore?

(Parenthetically, I have no reason to think of you as antisemitic.)

 

[Revoltingest]

The new state of Israel was attacked on Independence Day, so the idea that somehow Israel is culpable and deserves condemnation is simply anti-Semitism at its "finest".

Oh, you Israel apologists....blind to what Israel
does to Palestinians. You ignore apartheid,
prison without a trial, collective punishment,
torture, land theft, murder, maiming, war crimes,
& allowing Jewish settlers to attack with impunity.
Israel is its own worst enemy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Though I was not the one asked, I certainly acknowledge it. I also believe that the first statement is awkwardly simplistic and borders on ugly victim-blaming.

I think that depends on context, but I also think it's victim blaming - using the exact same logic - to blame Palestinians for their own historic oppression on the basis of the actions of Hamas.

Now, let me ask you a question. Do you see a meaningful difference between the following two claims?

1. "Hamas is a result of Israel's oppression of Palestinians."
2. "The continued success of Hamas is, in part, a result of Israel's treatment of Palestinians."

Yes, I do. One is more broad and referring to the consequences of historical events, the other more specific and dealing with potential future solutions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think it's a distinction without a difference.

Then you're very obviously wrong.

"The Nazi rise to power was a consequence of Germany's disenchantment and dis-empowerment following world war 1" is the not the same statement as "The Nazis were justified".

I have no idea how you can fail to understand this.

Do you acknowledge that both of those statements imply a context?

Do you acknowledge that they are two different statements?

 

[metis]

It's really sloppy thinking to equate criticisms of the actions of a nation-state with the hatred of members of a religious group for no other reason than they belong to that group. They are two separate things, and the first one is not anti-semitism.

My comment did not state nor imply that all those who question Israeli military policy are anti-Semitic, so you're barking up the wrong tree. If what you say were to be true, then I would have to be considered an "anti-Semite" as I do question and/or oppose some Israeli military and political practices, which I have stated in some of my previous posts.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no idea how you can fail to understand this.

People tend to actively avoid understanding
things that challenge their beliefs. How else
can we explain how even progressives now
support apartheid & war crimes?