Is Anti-Zionism antisemitism?

[TexasTiger 12,926]

 

Is she correct? Is anti-Zionism antisemitism? All Jews aren’t necessarily Zionists. The ADL recognizes this.

 

 

Thoughts?

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

At this time Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.  The attack over the weekend was pure evil and should be concidered as such.  Giving an excuse, no matter how small, is enabling terrorism.

The Islamist harshly criticizes any who fight over Ramadan, yet plan an invasion of Israel over a Jewish holiday where the people are refraining from any electronic media for a 24 hours period.  This blurs the boundary between religion and governance and makes it a moot point.  It is a discussion to be had when this evil is dealt with.

[TexasTiger 12,926]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

At this time Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.  The attack over the weekend was pure evil and should be concidered as such.  Giving an excuse, no matter how small, is enabling terrorism.

The Islamist harshly criticizes any who fight over Ramadan, yet plan an invasion of Israel over a Jewish holiday where the people are refraining from any electronic media for a 24 hours period.  This blurs the boundary between religion and governance and makes it a moot point.  It is a discussion to be had when this evil is dealt with.

What makes anti-Zionism antisemitism? What’s the logical argument?

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

Trying to explain the difference is like trying to explain the difference from Iran’s Islamic religion and it’s governance.  Can it be separated?  What is the difference as you see it?

[TexasTiger 12,926]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Trying to explain the difference is like trying to explain the difference from Iran’s Islamic religion and its governance.  Can it be separated?  What is the difference as you see it?

The term Zionism is now used in many different ways:  

A variety of types of Zionism have emerged, including political Zionism, liberal Zionism,  labor Zionism, revisionist Zionism, cultural Zionism, and religious Zionism. Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a persecuted people to its ancestral homeland.^[20][21][22] Critics of Zionism view it as a colonialist,^[23] racist,^[24] or exceptionalist ideology or movement.^{[25][26][27][28][29]}

 

Historically, it began as a movement to reclaim an ancestral homeland— that’s the origin of the word. Obviously, such efforts lead to conflicts with others on that land. Who has the right to what? Based on what?

Our state department defines antisemitism thusly:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The ADL defines it this way:

The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

 

 

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The term Zionism is now used in many different ways:  

A variety of types of Zionism have emerged, including political Zionism, liberal Zionism,  labor Zionism, revisionist Zionism, cultural Zionism, and religious Zionism. Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a persecuted people to its ancestral homeland.^[20][21][22] Critics of Zionism view it as a colonialist,^[23] racist,^[24] or exceptionalist ideology or movement.^{[25][26][27][28][29]}

Well this makes it clear…this seems like a catch all that liberals like to say about the US.  Really is just an excuse to not like the way Israel has governed.

17 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

 

Historically, it began as a movement to reclaim an ancestral homeland— that’s the origin of the word. Obviously, such efforts lead to conflicts with others on that land. Who has the right to what? Based on what?

This is not what is happening from Israel in decades.  The Gaza Strip has been consistent since 1949 I think.  That would indicate Israel has not been the agresssor here.

 

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Our state department defines antisemitism thusly:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This seems like what Hamas is fighting against.  If it were just because Hamas wanted more land and against a government is it justified to kill civilians, rape their women, kidnap their children and indiscriminately kill and capture American citizens all while parising their god?

[TexasTiger 12,926]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

 

Well this makes it clear…this seems like a catch all that liberals like to say about the US.  Really is just an excuse to not like the way Israel has governed.

This is not what is happening from Israel in decades.  The Gaza Strip has been consistent since 1949 I think.  That would indicate Israel has not been the agresssor here.

 

This seems like what Hamas is fighting against.  If it were just because Hamas wanted more land and against a government is it justified to kill civilians, rape their women, kidnap their children and indiscriminately kill and capture American citizens all while parising their god?

The Gaza Strip has not been consistent since 1949, but I’m not sure what you are arguing. To be clear, this thread is not about Hamas. They are on par with Isis in my view. They deserve to be eliminated in my opinion.

But answer this generic question— are a people (ethnic, religious, cultural or racial) entitled to reclaim an ancestral homeland and if they are, are there time limits to their rightful claim?

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m not sure what you are arguing.

I must have misinterpreted your OP.  Why would the French Army need to protect synagogues in Paris in normal times?

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

But answer this generic question— are a people (ethnic, religious, cultural or racial) entitled to reclaim an ancestral homeland and if they are, are there time limits to their rightful claim?

No, as a general rule, groups should not expect to reclaim ancestral homeland.  I don’t see that happening in this instance, of course, I am not of the Jewish faith.

The point being the Israelis are not the agresors in this instance which is in the news.

[TexasTiger 12,926]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I must have misinterpreted your OP.  Why would the French Army need to protect synagogues in Paris in normal times?

Many, especially anti-Israel terrorists, do conflate hostility toward Israel to Jewish people and Jewish symbols elsewhere. That doesn’t mean all people who don’t support Zionism are antisemitic.

No, as a general rule, groups should not expect to reclaim ancestral homeland.  I don’t see that happening in this instance,…

It’s already happened. That’s what Zionism was founded to do.

 

 

of course, I am not of the Jewish faith.

 

The point being the Israelis are not the agresors in this instance which is in the news.

 

[auburnatl1 4,940]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

What makes anti-Zionism antisemitism? What’s the logical argument?

Zionism is a confusing term. It can meaning anything from  historic movement to reclaim Israel, to sects within Judaism, to the resistance to marrying non Jews.  And probably many more.    

[TexasTiger 12,926]

8 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Zionism is a confusing term. It can meaning anything from  historic movement to reclaim Israel, to sects within Judaism, to the resistance to marrying non Jews.  And probably many more.    

It can. At its core, I think, is believing in a right to Zion.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

22 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

t’s already happened. That’s what Zionism was founded to do.

Do you believe other cultures, ethnic groups have the right to reclaim land?

It is the difference in a Biblical/Quran believe and a secular one in this particular case.

[TexasTiger 12,926]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you believe other cultures, ethnic groups have the right to reclaim land?

It is the difference in a Biblical/Quran believe and a secular one in this particular case.

Generally not. 
 

Consider the Native American tribes in Alabama. Their land was taken only 200 years ago, but only the fringes of the far left probably think they should have it restored.

All that said, the modern Israeli state exists now and has a right to reasonably defend itself. What exactly is viewed as reasonable, though, is often colored by one’s view of Zionism, including settlements in the West Bank, etc.

[KansasTiger 3,248]

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

6 minutes ago, KansasTiger said:

Our leader in a crisis.  4 more years! 4 more years!

[PUB78 1,358]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

It can. At its core, I think, is believing in a right to Zion.

Indeed it is. God promised this land to Israel.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

An interesting discussion of history in that region:

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,926]

1 hour ago, KansasTiger said:

What an incredibly stupid thing for her to say or for folks to get worked up over.

[TexasTiger 12,926]

36 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Indeed it is. God promised this land to Israel.

I know of your theocratic orientation, but international law is secular. 

[W.E.D 11,070]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, as a general rule, groups should not expect to reclaim ancestral homeland.  I don’t see that happening in this instance, of course, I am not of the Jewish faith.

The point being the Israelis are not the agresors in this instance which is in the news.

You have absolutely zero context wrt the Israel/Palestinian conflict.  The bold is amazing

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

1 hour ago, W.E.D said:

You have absolutely zero context wrt the Israel/Palestinian conflict.  The bold is amazing

Care to share your opinion?

[W.E.D 11,070]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Care to share your opinion?

There's nearly no way to have a rational conversation about this and try to summarize a heavily complicated and contextual situation like this.  But this all boils down to land and the ability to live freely on said land. 

Neither sides leadership are good actors and both have blood on their hands.  

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

2 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

There's nearly no way to have a rational conversation about this and try to summarize a heavily complicated and contextual situation like this.  But this all boils down to land and the ability to live freely on said land. 

Neither sides leadership are good actors and both have blood on their hands.  

Are you saying Hamas is justified in terrorizing Israel?  I agree that this conflict has been going on for a long time and nobody in America can truly understand the nuances, but this action is not the way to proceed.

[W.E.D 11,070]

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Are you saying Hamas is justified in terrorizing Israel?

No, where did I even come close to saying this.  But your comment about "justified terrorism" is interesting.  What do you think the Civilian death toll is of Palestinians vs Jewish Israels since the start of the recent occupation?  ~6500 to 300.  Who lives in an apartheid state under military control and imprisonment?  Who consistently has their water, electricity, and food blocked from entering their city? 

Who is terrorizing who?  It's not one sided as many people think.  Back to my earlier point, both sides have blood on their hand.  Neither are good actors.

--“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” [Netanyahu] told a meeting of his Likud party’s Knesset members in March 2019. “This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

Those are the words and plans of someone that wants peace.

21 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

this action is not the way to proceed.

correct.  It isn't.  Attacks on civilians are bad.  Is the response to kill 20 fold the number of Palestinian civilians the correct way to proceed?

Edited October 10, 2023 by W.E.D

[DKW 86 7,425]

Please do not think I do not see all the various issues for the Palectinians in this but, let's start with getting the history correct. Those Dastardly Jews didnt just rush in claim land that belonged to others. The Brits governed the land and had been trying to create a Jewish Nation since 1917 when they won control of Palestine from the Ottoman Turks in WWI. There was always a remnant of Jews in Palestine. ALWAYS. 

Please note that there is really no mention of a Palestinian State or Govt. None existed at the time and no one even had a clear notion of what the word Palestinian even meant. There was no citizenship, etc at the time. Please note that other Arab Govts in the region also dont acknowledge a Palestinian People either. Palestinian Refugees are not allowed to own land, acquire work permits, get passports, etc. The Arab States do not recognize a Palestinian State to this day.  When the Balfour Declaration come out, most European Jews walked away and did not take it serious. It was only after the Holocaust that Jews Worldwide saw the absolute need for a homeland. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.

Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine; within two months a memorandum was circulated to the Cabinet by a Zionist Cabinet member, Herbert Samuel, proposing the support of Zionist ambitions in order to enlist the support of Jews in the wider war. A committee was established in April 1915 by British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith to determine their policy towards the Ottoman Empire including Palestine. Asquith, who had favoured post-war reform of the Ottoman Empire, resigned in December 1916; his replacement David Lloyd George favoured partition of the Empire. The first negotiations between the British and the Zionists took place at a conference on 7 February 1917 that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. Subsequent discussions led to Balfour's request, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration. Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet during September and October, with input from Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews but with no representation from the local population in Palestine.

https://mfa.gov.il/Jubilee-years/Pages/1947-UN-General-Assembly-Resolution-181-The-international-community-says-Yes-to-the-establishment-of-the-State-of-Israel.aspx

On 29 November, 1947, a 2000-year-old dream became reality: A Jewish State was born anew in its ancient homeland.

On that day the UN General Assembly voted on Resolution 181, adopting a plan to partition the British Mandate into two states, one Jewish, one Arab.

Having ruled the area since 1917, Great Britain announced in February 1947 its decision to terminate its Mandate. The Special Committee appointed by the General Assembly recommended the establishment of two separate states, a Jewish State and an Arab State, to be joined by economic union, with the Jerusalem-Bethlehem region as an enclave under international administration.

The borders of the proposed state were far from what the Jewish side had hoped for and left the Jewish population without access to key areas of national historic and religious significance. Nevertheless, the Jewish leadership responded positively to the international proposal, cognizant of the historic opportunity: this was the first time after 2000 years that the Jewish people had the chance to restore its sovereignty in its historical homeland. The Jewish leadership was also hopeful that the UN plan would help achieve a peaceful solution with the Arab world.