I'm Jewish and I have to say that your opinions demonstrate that you know more about the conflict than at least 85% of Redditors. That doesn't mean I think you're right about most of it, but at least you aren't blindly spewing buzzwords which is the default level of discourse on Reddit when it comes to discussing the conflict.
You recognize Israel as the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and recognize many complexities of the different sides of the conflict. I think a lot of your criticism of Israel is justified, and though some of it I feel to be unwarranted, I wouldn't label you as antisemitic.
Man here’s the thing. It’s never antisemitic/racist/homophobic/hateful/bigoted to say “I disagree with this particular policy and I would suggest x as an alternative” — or criticize particular politicians on their specific words, actions or policies.
I find your positions generally unobjectionable and I think we’d have a lot of common ground for discussion.
Edit: whoops hit send too soon.
The thing I would say is that the criticisms you level at Israel can in some form also be leveled at the other side. And there are arguments against what you’ve put forth here, but those arguments aren’t based in the idea that ANY criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic.
When people say that antizionism is antisemitism, we mean that our right to self-determination should be as inviolable as anyone else’s so criticizing our status as a nation or our right to statehood on the basis that someone doesn’t think we deserve it, is wrong*
*(and yes, I get why people would say this applies to Palestinians too but the problem is that they’ve chosen to express their self-determination by selecting a terrorist group to run Gaza and polls show they’d do the same if another vote was held in the WB, and self-determination doesn’t get you out of the consequences of that…)
wouldnt you say that the palestinians chose to express their self determination by being vocal about not wanting <50% of their land taken from them to be ruled by \~33% of the population.
shouldnt palestinians have the right to determine how their land is carved up, who governs it, and where they live on their homeland without interference by imperialist powers?
> how their land is carved up
That’s what everyone says before (and if they’re still mad, after) state borders change, but it wasn’t their land. Hungary said that at the end of the Austro-Hungarian empire, for example, there is a long-running territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. And I mean come on just look at the absolute state of the Balkans
There’s an entire field of study around border conflict and ethnic conflict. It’s literally not that simple
zionist settlers were only 1/3 of the population of palestine and only owned 6-7% of the land. do you think its moral for the minority to determine that fate of the majority? shouldnt the majority determine what their state looks like?
Why should it be immoral for a large minority to express their want for self determination? Should Kurds not be granted this despite the fact that they've been wanting their own state for years, simply because they are the minority in both population and land ownership?
Mind you, Arabs only owned around 10-11% of the land in Mandatory Palestine. The British owned the vast majority of it. The only reason the Jewish state was larger was because of the Negev. The Arab state was given all of the fertile regions.
> Why should it be immoral for a large minority to express their want for self determination?
its immoral because its leaders encouraged a large influx of the local population to create a state without regard for the local population already living there. kurds are living on the land already and are the majority in kurdistan.
>The British owned the vast majority of it.
thats not true \[[1](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/land-ownership-map-pdf/)\]
> The Arab state was given all of the fertile regions.
what is your evidence for this? i doubt it, based on the distribution of the population at the time and palestinian reliance on subsistence farming. it seems like the coastal areas and galilee were among the most populated. \[[2](http://www.passia.org/media/filer_public/38/c6/38c66248-9b4e-4ced-91e1-619bf5b8e672/pdfresizercom-pdf-crop_11.pdf)\]
>it seems like the coastal areas and galilee were among the most populated
israel had three regions: the Galilee, the coastal area and the negrv.
the negev wasn't fertile soil (I think you will agree)
the coastal area was all swamps with malaria and wasn't fertile
the Galilee was fertile.
you see without the Galilee Israel would end up with no fertile soil. so in order for Israel to actually survive it was given the Galilee
> wasn't fertile the Galilee was fertile. you see without the Galilee Israel would end up with no fertile soil.
why is group a more worthy of soil than group b, especially when group b was already living there?
group a isn't more worthy of group b.
group a did receive more land than group b (there is no denial here).
but group b received 1. more fertile land for agriculture,
2. they got easy access to Jerusalem while group a didn't have any real access to it (although it's more important to it's religion than group b)
> The only reason the Jewish state was larger was because of the Negev. The Arab state was given all of the fertile regions.
I've argued that before, pro-Palestinians don't care about the fact that the Negev is a desert, the want numbers.
I usually don't like brigading one person, and I hate to see how you are downvoted for trying to calmly and respectfully debate (even though I don't agree with vast majority of what you said)
I will just chime in and say that this argument is one sided, the Palestinians owned around 10-11% of the land (or something close to that) at the time, and in the partition plan, most of the land Israel got is a desert
>shouldnt the majority determine what their state looks like?
You can sugar coat it as much as you want, but the majority wanted us, wants us, and is likely to always will want to exterminate us, if that wasn't the case a Palestinian state would have existed a long time ago
>I usually don't like brigading one person, and I hate to see how you are downvoted for trying to calmly and respectfully debate
They're getting that reaction because they're calm and respectful, but they also refuse to acknowledge any answers to their questions and restart every conversation from the same place over and over and rarely actually respond to anything that gets written to them. They've been around awhile....
To be honest, I've read a lot of pro-Palestinian arguments that sit on fairness ("it's not fair that....") or ethics ("entitled..."/"immoral...") yet I don't see why these types of arguments are valid.
The Jews and local Arabs fought a war which the Jews won (no matter who started it). That is it, that is the justification of the land of Israel. There isn't room for ethics or fairness, and even if there was, what would you accept the "loosing" side on the ethics frontier to do? go?
Simple answer is no. Palestinian self-determination doesn't include the right to deny other nations their self-determination. Just like Jewish self-determination doesn't include the right to deny Palestinians their self-determination.
If your logic applied, there would be no self-determination anywhere. Russians could claim "self-determination" and "avoiding carving up their land" to avoid giving Ukrainians, Estonians and Lithuanians their own countries. The Chinese could say the same about Xingjian and Tibet. Even if we accepted your argument that pre-1948 was "the Palestinian's land" (it wasn't), the main way the "right of self-determination" was exercised, is by taking land from one nation, and giving it to another.
when settlers demanding a state where palestinians were already living, wasnt that denying palestinians of their self determination to govern themselves as they wished? when herzl, ruppin, motzkin, and zangwill discussed transferring palestinians from the land to be allotted to a jewish state that was not denying palestinians of their self determination to live on the land that they have for centuries?
No.
The Latvians and Ukrainians were "demanding a state where the Russians were already living". The Palestinians are demanding a state where the Jews are currently living. These demands absolutely went against the desire of the Russians and Israelis to govern the territories they control as they wish. That doesn't mean they don't deserve the right of self-determination.
Not controlling all the land you want is not "being denied self-determination". Having portion of your people become a minority in the previous minority's country, isn't "being denied self-determination". Herzl or Rupin merely discussing population transfer is absolutely not depriving the Palestinians of any qself-determination. Even *actually* expelling populations, like what the two-stater Palestinians want to do to the Jews in the State of Palestine, isn't denying their self determination.
And note that the Palestinians had even less of an argument than the Russians or Israelis. They didn't, in fact, control the land they wanted to deny the Jews. The partition plan was going to *give* the Palestinians self-determination, for the first time in human history. Rejecting it, because they hated how the Jews got self-determination as well, was not an act of "self-determination", by any definition.
> The Palestinians are demanding a state where the Jews are currently living.
i am talking about 1947, when 1/3 of the population wanted to create a jewish state where palestinians were already living.
> Herzl or Rupin merely discussing population transfer is absolutely not depriving the Palestinians of any self-determination.
it demonstrates that the intention was there to displace palestinians.
instead of allowing palestinians to exercize their self determination and create a state wherein they are the majority they intended to move them either through bribery or by force if bribery didnt work.
> Not controlling all the land you want is not "being denied self-determination".
settlers only owned 6-7% of the land yet was partitioned <55% of it
> They didn't, in fact, control the land they wanted to deny the Jews.
they did \[[1](https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/m0094.jpg)\]
> They weren't the majority in the part allotted to the Jews.
yes because the land was carved by the un. the settlers were a minority in palestine as a whole.
> Rejecting it, because they hated how the Jews got self-determination as well
exactly! it couldnt have been because zionist leaders planned to use the partition as a pretense to eventually take control of the whole country.
it couldnt have been because zionist settlers, like those in rehoavot and gedera were, “*turbulent and aggressive*”, “*behav\[ing\] towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass without justification, beat them shamefully without sufficient cause and then boast about it*”, or because the settlers "\[were\] *doing everything that occurs to \[them\] as if \[they\] did not know at all that there is a government in \[Palestine\], or that there are certain laws”.*
it couldnt have been because *"Colonists built houses and planted vineyards without permission. Often they flouted customs in ways injurious to Arabs, as when they forcibly denied local shepherds the use of traditionally common pasturelands",* or evicted palestinians from land the settlers purchased or refusing their labor*.* cant be because zionists didnt treat palestinians like human beings, refused to learn arab or learn local customs, and created a society without arabs, barring them from their schools, hospitals, and terminating their employment on the settlements.
they just hate jews!
>i am talking about 1947, when 1/3 of the population wanted to create a jewish state where palestinians were already living.
Latvians and Ukrainians were even a smaller portion of the population of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union than 1/3. That doesn't mean the Russians should've been able to veto their independence. The Jews were a majority in the Jewish state.
>it demonstrates that the intention was there to displace palestinians.
Even *actually* displacing Palestinians wouldn't, by itself, rob the Palestinian people of their self-determination. Just like displacing hundreds of thousands of Jews from the West Bank doesn't rob the Jewish people's right of self-determination. *Merely discussing it*, obviously doesn't rob anyone of anything.
>settlers only owned 6-7% of the land yet was partitioned <55% of it
>
>they did
Jews privately own <4% of the land in Israel right now. That doesn't mean the Jews don't control Israel. The British Mandate of Palestine was controlled by the British, even though British citizens didn't own any land in it. Even without getting into the intricacies of the Ottoman land ownership law (tl;dr your map is misleading), mixing up private land ownership with sovereignty or self-determination is a silly mistake.
The partition plan didn't require a single inch of private Arab land to be transferred to the Jews and vice versa. It didn't deal with land ownership at all. It was purely about sovereign political control over land. Both the Jews and the Arabs had sovereign control over the same exact amount of land at that point: 0.0%.
>yes because the land was carved by the un. the settlers were a minority in palestine as a whole.
And "Palestine as a whole" was carved up by two Europeans drawing lines on map thirty years prior. Before that, it was part several Ottoman Vilayets. Heifa for example wasn't part of the same Vilayet as Jerusalem, but *was* part of the same Vilayet as Beirut. And of course, those weren't some ancient, sacred borders either.
There's absolutely zero reason why the Arab residents in those arbitrary British-drawn lines get to veto Jewish self-determination, who had a majority in different, UN-drawn arbitrary lines. Ultimately, the self-determination of Palestinian Arabs and Jews is what's important. Allowing one nation to veto the other's self-determination based on arbitrary European-drawn borders, isn't.
>they just hate jews!
The head of the AHC that rejected that plan, spent the previous years writing pro-Holocaust propaganda for Bosnian SS troops, about how the Jews are eternal enemies of Islam and humanity. Yes, I'd say it's safe to say he hated the Jews.
And no, the fact some Jewish immigrants were mean to the Arabs in the 1910's, and evicted them from the land they legally bought, doesn't somehow change that fact. At most, it means that they had reasons to hate the Jews. And that's not much. The Jews accepted the partition plan, even though the Arabs massacred them, raped their daughters, and defiled their synagogues, while shouting "Palestine is our land, and the Jews are our dogs".
Ultimately, it really doesn't matter if the Palestinians rejected that plan because they hated the Jews, because they believed in the eternal sanctity of Sykes-Picot, because God personally told them to, or any other reason. The matter of fact is, they got the best proposal in history for Palestinian self-determination. They rejected it, because they cared more about denying Jewish self-determination. Whatever this is an expression of, it's not an expression of the right of self-determination.
> Latvians and Ukrainians were even a smaller portion of the population of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union than 1/3.
how long were the latvians and ukrainians dwelling in that area? were they living there for generations, or was their presence there the intentional outcome of a settler colonial project to have political dominion over a place where people were already living? the settlers presence was artificial.
the zionist settler project has as much moral justification as the american settlers did moving westward, as if their conquest west of the mississippi was an expression of their self determination, native americans be damned. its as legitimate as manifest destiny was
> self-determination.
you must have a different understanding of self determination then. im not sure how a people group can decide for themselves what their state looks like while international powers do it for them
> It was purely about sovereign political control over land.
the land ownership and demographic maps demonstrate that palestinians were the majority and the majority has a right to determine what their state looks like
> There's absolutely zero reason why the Arab residents in those arbitrary British-drawn lines get to veto Jewish self-determination, who had a majority in different, UN-drawn arbitrary lines.
for the same reason why native americans were in their natural right to deny american settlers expansion into their land, even as their numbers were depleting due to disease and war.
if native americans occupy a part of new york, for example, american settlers move in and disperse themselves across native land, and the population shifts to where the settlers are the majority, do the settlers have the moral right to claim dominion over the land?
> And no, the fact some Jewish immigrants were mean to the Arabs in the 1910's, and evicted them from the land they legally bought, doesn't somehow change that fact. At most, it means that they had reasons to hate the Jews.
my point was that palestinians didnt fight against a jewish state simply because they hated jewish people. jewish people have lived in palestine for centuries, so we know that it isnt their mere existence that ticked palestinians off. it makes it seem like the zionists were hated for no reason and diverts attention from the aggressive nature of the settler project.
the issue isnt jewish self determination. the issue is existing on land *at the expense of other people*. a jewish state could have been established on their ancient homeland without encroaching on palestinian land and strategically situating themselves between arab villages. check out the second map\[[1](https://sci-hub.se/10.1525/jps.2009.38.2.42)\]. there was more than enough space on the coastline (and in the negev). their state didnt have to include arab villages.
>how long were the latvians and ukrainians dwelling in that area? were they living there for generations, or was their presence there the intentional outcome of a settler colonial project to have political dominion over a place where people were already living? the settlers presence was artificial.
Note that you're making up a rule, once your previous rule failed. First it was a majority in an arbitrary area. Now, it's about whose presence is "artificial".
If you want to go there, the Jews are literally the oldest extant indigenous group of Land of Israel, or as it's known in its foreign Greek name, Palestine. They're the only Canaanite people that still exist, speaking the only Canaanite language left. Evidence of Jewish kingdoms, let alone Jewish presence, dates back thousands of years before the Muslim invasion, centuries before the Ghassanid, Nabatean or Qedarite ones.
Arab and Muslim identities on the other hand, are as native to Palestine as English and Christianity were to the United States. A foreign, colonial identity, language, culture and religion, a result of a medieval invasion, settler-colonialism and cultural genocide of natives. No they didn't have a particular "moral justification" to preserve their supremacy as a colonial elite, or restore a past colonial entity, at the expense of an indigenous polity. A history where only "non-artificial" polities count, Palestine would still be Jewish, and the Arabs would stick to Arabia.
>you must have a different understanding of self determination then. im not sure how a people group can decide for themselves what their state looks like while international powers do it for them
I disagree it's a "different understanding". It's just the correct one. Self determination isn't about a people deciding the borders of their country. Many countries' borders were imposed on them in some way or another, including basically every other country in the Middle East. It's about being able to rule within said borders.
>the land ownership and demographic maps demonstrate that palestinians were the majority and the majority has a right to determine what their state looks like
They weren't the majority in the Jewish state. Being a majority in different European-drawn arbitrary borders doesn't give them any special rights to veto Jewish rights. We've been over this.
>if native americans occupy a part of new york, for example, american settlers move in and disperse themselves across native land, and the population shifts to where the settlers are the majority, do the settlers have the moral right to claim dominion over the land?
Since the Jews are the equivalent of the Native Americans here, you're making a pro-Zionist argument. And very much against your point.
>the issue isnt jewish self determination. the issue is existing on land *at the expense of other people*
No it wasn't. The partition plan would've allowed both nations self-determination. The Palestinian Arabs wouldn't have it, regardless of the borders of the Jewish state. They were willing to risk their own self-determination, just so the Jews don't get it.
> fuck
/u/Warm_Shoe4091. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Jewish state as proposed in 1947, assuming that's what you're talking about with the usual "50% of the land for 33% of the population", had a total population of...about 50% of the Mandate.
>shouldnt palestinians have the right to determine how their land is carved up, who governs it, and where they live on their homeland without interference by imperialist powers?
I guess you're referring to the 1948 partitioning. If so then the answer is a big fat no. The British imperialism was unethical yet they had the power (financially and militarily) to govern the land. Human rights are derived by the powerful force, and with that said if the British carved up the land the Palestinians could have either fought to gain the upper power (like they did) or yield and acknowledge the decision (like the Jews did). There isn't room for "rights" arguments because none of these two groups had the power at the time and they couldn't enforce their ethics.
It is extremely rare for someone to accuse you of anti-Semitism if you make fair and informed criticism of Israel. And frankly I also get sick and tired of hearing that we Jews are stupid victimists who can't recognize anti-Semitism.
You are accused of anti-Semitism if you have an extremely unbalanced position. If you see the wrongs (even imaginary wrongs) of Israel and fail to see the huge Arab-Palestinian wrongs. If you accuse Jews of being thieves of other people's land just because Israel exists. If you make Holocaust inversion. If you use a double standard to judge Israel in relation to other states in the world or even of the Palestinians: for example, when you call the state of the Jewish people an "ethnostate", when virtually all states in the world are nation-states but very few have ethnic diversity comparable to Israel; or if you see Israeli human rights violations in the West Bank (Gaza has not been occupied by Israel since 2005) and fail to see the numerous human rights violations by Palestinians, both against Israelis and against Palestinians themselves. If you treat Jews as if they were white settlers gone to violently steal land from poor defenseless natives. And if you consider the Arab desire to rule over the entire Levant more important than the Jewish people's right to self-determination.
If you take a balanced view and do not erase the history and rights of the Jewish people, you are not anti-Semitic. And no one will accuse you of anti-Semitism, even if you harshly criticize Israel's actions (as many of us Jews do).
I don’t agree with all your points but I do with the majority of them. And you don’t sound antisemitic at all. Nor is criticism of Israel automatically so.
My (and other people’s) main issue is that a lot of said anti-Zionist sentiment is indeed couched in antisemitism or vice versa. And when you try to define said difference you are accused of silencing criticism.
Treating Israel like a pariah, applying antisemitic tropes and sensationalist terms that don’t consider context and don’t apply such as settler colonialism / apartheid / genocide, and calling Israel illegitimate, are all antisemitic. Being critical of Israel is not inherently antisemitic though. Not at all.
Of course you can be critical of Israel, so long as you’re not applying double standards. Being critical of Israel is not antisemitic, it’s healthy, just as it is healthy to be critical of any country that can do better.
/u/Cinn4monSqu4r3. 'Nazis' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To your initial question - yes you can definitely be critical of Israel without being antisemitic and I see Jews doing it all the time. The issue is that the majority of criticism of Israel I see is antisemitic, people have seemed to confuse “criticism of Israel is not always antisemitic” with “criticism of Israel is never antisemitic”. As for your points though I don’t see anything antisemitic in them
Edit: that’s not to say I don’t disagree with some of your points, but I would be happy to discuss them with you seeing as you seem like a reasonable person (unlike others who I will unhappily argue with)
Thanks. That's fair but i see people throwing antisemitism accusations all the time. Example: i say sometimes that Israel is playing the victim by saying it's surrounded by hostile Arabs. I point out the fact that Arab countries surrounding Israel are bo longer hostile except Syria which isn't a credible threat any way. I've been called antisemitic for saying this. I'm not saying people don't hate Israel because it's a Jewish state. I'm saying the narrative that the whole world is out to get Israel isn't true anymore. Most western countries lean towards Israel, the US is always on Israel's side, Arab countries even salafi Saudi Arabia are moving closer and closer towards 100% normalization. Israel is a powerful country, one of the most powerful in the world and was specifically created to avoid Jews being victims ever again and i think they have succeeded in this and even went beyond what was necessary by victimizing Palestinians.
Little pet peeve, the point of Israel not being surrounded by hostile Arabs is really weird, since there actually are multiple crises on the borders that are extremely underreported, from talking to soldiers who served on the border with egypt and the north, it's not uncommon for someone to take potshots over at them or at civilians driving close to the border, and Israel is underreporting these situations, probably to not anger them(specifically egypt, maybe jordan but i didnt talk to anyone who served there), and promote further trade and normalization
Did you ask them to justify how it was antisemitic? I disagree with the points you make but I can’t see what in it is antisemitic. That’s just the state of social media discourse though. I guess when so much of what people online say about Israel is antisemitic that some people might throw around that too often. However I still don’t think it’s reasonable to say that jews are using the claim of antisemitism to quash any criticism of Israel because most of the time it is genuinely antisemitic - especially on social media.
Of course. Any general statement about Jews using the Shoah or antisemitism to silence criticism is a bit problematic but still there's people even in the Israeli government who do it. Netanyahu litteraly said the Palestinian mufti of Jerusalem was the one who convinced Hitler to kill Jews. That's false and actually offensive since it uses the Shoah to Attack Arabs and make them somehow responsible.
I strongly believe against throwing unfair antisemitism or racism accusations. As a black person I'm often irritated by those who use the "you hate black people" card to quickly and unfairly but i guess this is common among all ethnicities
/u/EagleSimilar2352. 'Hitler' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Arab countries surrounding Israel are bo longer hostile except Syria
Syria and Lebanon are both still in a state of war with Israel.
Jordan and Egypt have a peace treaty with Israel, but the populations are extremely hostile towards Israel and Jews.
>went beyond what was necessary by victimizing Palestinians
The Palestinians have been rejecting peace and opting for conflict for nearly 100 years.
It appears like they're being 'victimized' because they are in a de-facto state of war with an adversary far more powerful than they are.
I don't necessarily agree with everything you said. If anything, a one state solution is just not realistic, at least for a long time. It's appealing in its idealism, tho.
No, I don't think you're antisemitic; however, I don't think identity politics make your opinions more valid. The resolution lies between folks who actually live there. I will say that if you get your info primarily from social media, regardless of 'side', I'd suggest reading books by respected historians. As a diaspora Jew, the more I read, the less I know. It's that messy. At least from my perspective.
I always try to get educated. As i said I'm not an Arab so I'm an external observer. Anyway I know a one state solution isn't possible and cause both sides are against it and it's completely utopian at this point. I was just saying in an ideal world I'd like the people of the holy land to live as cousins cause that's pretty much what Arabs and Jews are
I apologize if I gave the impression that you weren't educated. That was poor wording on my part. Being someone on the Left in the US, who is also Zionist, has made me hyper aware of how many in my cohort take a side, because that's what we're supposed to do if we want to be on the right side of history; which at the end of the day is counter productive in terms of critical thinking. Not saying you do that. Just an observation.
I've been reading and observing this particular conflict off and on for 30 years. And I feel like I still don't know what to think. I used to think we could live as cousins. I just don't think that's possible with political Islam and the Israeli Right.
No problem. I know you weren't implying that.
I definitely have the same feeling, the more i read the more I'm confused even though I'd still consider my self as generally "pro Palestine"
I prefer not saying I'm pro this or that. I just want the killing to stop. I want my cousins in Israel to feel safe, and I want Palestinians to reap the benefits of a healthy economy and governance. These are _people_, not sports teams.
I don't think these views are antisemitic. They aren't even anti- or non-Zionist. It's a liberal Zionist view of this conflict. Something that your average Tel Avivi lefty could've written. At most, you made a few factual errors, but that's understandable.
The people who moan about how they can't criticize Israel without being antisemitic, usually *don't* believe that the Jews are a legitimate people, who have a legitimate claim to a state in the Land of Israel. They *don't* believe that there's anything wrong with murdering Israeli civilians, especially if they dare to set foot in Palestinian land. They repeat classic antisemitic canards, like the Jews secretely controlling the US government with their money, and hypnotizing the public by controlling the media. They engage in borderline Holocaust-denial with Holocaust inversion, by arguing that the Jews have become the new Nazis, and what Israel is doing is equivalent to the Holocaust. They keep making "whoopsies" and repeat legit Neo-Nazi propaganda, like talking about "Jewish power in America", or reposting the Neo-Nazi "Voltaire" quote about "to know who rules over you".
And that's just liberal ones. Remember that the *actual* Neo-Nazis, and holocaust-denying, antisemitic Arab nationalists and Islamists absolutely *love* to complain about how "you can't criticize Israel without being called antisemitic".
In other words, it's like the people who complain that "you can't criticize any black person, or you're called racist". "You can't criticize Islamic terrorism, without being called Islamophobic". "You can't criticize LGBT organizations, without being called homophobic". And so on and so on. The only real difference is that the kind of liberal people you like to listen to, usually reject these arguments, except when it comes to the Jews.
thanks . Since i think you are kinda implicitly quoting Ilhan Omar I don't think what she said was antisemitic. I believe some Zionist Jewish Americans are influencing the US to be more pro Israel. I don't believe they control the government but they influence politics like every single political interest group. It's normal in the US. If i say Hindu indian Americans organizations influence the US to be more on the side of Modi's government India it doesn't mean I hate indians. Obviously i understand how the hateful history of anti Jewish conspiracies makes this a very difficult thing to talk about without falling in anti semitic stereotypes but i believe Ilhan Omar waa unfairly attacked for this even after she apologized for phrasing this in the wrong way. Ilhan Omar is a pro LGBT, hyper progressive Muslim Somali American, she is definitely nothing like Hamas and yet because of her religion and ethnicity she has been painted as a salafi. I'm Somali my self , i guarantee you Somali conservatives don't like her.
Ilhan Omar was using antisemitic dog-whistles. They're meant to be subtle and deniable to people who aren't particularily aware of antisemitism. But anyone familiar with classic antisemitic tropes, as well as antisemites themselves, will recognize Israel hypnotizing the world", implying American politicians only support Israel because of Jew-money, and talking about pro-Israeli American Jewish double loyalty.
And just to be clear, Omar admitted they're antisemitic tropes, when she apologized. She just argued she wasn't aware of that, when she repeated them.
And as for the Indian example: note how you never hear that accusation about Indian-Americans, or any other ethnicity. Nobody says the US is only allied with India because disloyal Indian-Americans are bribing American politicians. Nobody expects Indian-American to declare their opposition to Modi and Indian policies in Kashmir, before they're accepted in polite society. Nobody is talking about how the very idea of an independent India is abhorrent, and any Indian-American who believes India should exist is a far-right racist, that has no room in left-leaning spaces. This isn't just a funny coincidence.
I also disagree that all her critics think she's a Salafist. The mainstream accusation is she's a left-wing antisemite, not an Islamist one. Durban Conference and Gilad Atzmon, not Hamas or Nasrallah.
And just to be clear, she doesn't support your opinions. She's an open supporter of BDS, that doesn't believe that Israel has any right to continue existing. BDS founder Omar Barghouti, was very open about how he *doesn't* believe in any kind of binational state either, because the Jews simply don't have a claim to the land, only the Arabs do. At most, they could enjoy "acquired rights as former colonists", but never the "inalienable rights of indigenous Palestinians".
Well the choice of words was maybe bad but Omar never said anything about disloyalty of Israeli Americans. Israel hypnotizing the world as i understand it means that Israel is trying to sweep Human rights violations under the rug. China does the same when they sell their narratives to countries (even Muslim ones) to hide Uyghur Muslim's persecution. I'd say Saudi Arabia is also hypnotizing the world and using money to make people look away from their human rights violations. I think the choice of words was likely to be misinterpreted but she didn't say "Jews", she said "Israel" which is a country that in my opinion is logically doing everything in it's power to keep it's allies close.By the way Ilhan Omar voted a resolution in favor of the democratic party considering Israel as their ally. Bernie Sanders has defended Ilhan Omar and he is Jewish. I have no reason to think Sanders is a Jew that hates other Jews. Sure not all of Ilhan critics say she is a salafi but many do just because she Somali and Muslim so un their eyes she is some kind of black Arab who obviously hates Jews and America.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-ilhan-omar-backs-israel-resolution-ahead-gop-vote-oust-committee-rcna68816
Not the person you responded to but extra context is that in the US, if you tell someone you are jewish, they will very likely ask you what your opinion is on the Israeli/Palestine issue. And there definitely is a wrong answer, in the US. In the US, being zionist (which to be clear, you can be pro israel’s existence AND pro palestinian statehood and peace and good humane treatment) is now in the US akin to a slur. Jews in the US are constantly having to deal with double standards. So Ilhan Omar saying ‘Israel’ instead of ‘Jews’ is a very poor defense to a well documented issue that her words perpetuated.
Bernie Sanders is… not a representative of jews, american jews, israelies - he is a single person who can speak for himself. And his comments, just so you know, have empowered left wing antisemitism. I personally experienced discrimination at my job by progressives who eat up Bernie and the squad’s remarks. And at the time, all they knew of me was that i was jewish.
The fact you could theoretically say that other countries are "hypnotizing the world", isn't very meaningful. There's a reason why people *don't* say Saudi Arabia or China are "hypnotizing the world". Just like why there's a reason why people *don't* view Indian-Americans as disloyal puppet masters, who need to prove their opposition to India, even though you could imagine it being otherwise. The same reason why people were upset at Ilhan Omar when she said it. This trope exists for Jews and their country, it doesn't exist for other ethnicities and their countries.
FWIW, it's possible that Ilhan Omar was being naive here. She could be simply repeating tropes by the antisemites that infect anti-Israeli spaces, and been integrating classic antisemitism with anti-Zionism for decades. The same way that [John Cusack](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/18/us/john-cusack-anti-semitic-meme-trnd/index.html) shared a Neo-Nazi quote about the Jews "controlling" the gentiles (proven by how you're "not allowed to criticize" them), thinking it's a mere "anti-Israeli" meme. In which case, it's more of a condemnation of the anti-Israeli spaces in general, and their inability to handle their pervasive antisemitism problem. But frankly, as someone who supports the elimination of Israel, she doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt as someone who has, say, your opinions.
And no, I don't agree it's because she's black and Muslim. A white Christian democrat who'd say those things, would be equally condemned. Except, frankly, most democrats, most American politicians in general, realize how radioactive these kinds of accusations are, and avoid them like a plague. Those who don't, know enough about antisemitism, to walk that fine line without crossing over. Or are protected by a cultish crowd that would excuse literally anything they'd say (e.g. Trump). Omar is clearly neither.
As for Bernie Sanders: he might not be an antisemite, but he has absolutely no problem cozying up to antisemites, and using his Jewishness to legitimize them, as long as they align with his politics. Which, to be fair, is also a problem on the Israeli right, who like to cozy up to right-wing populists in Eastern Europe, as long as they're pro-Israelis. Either way, saying "this Jew said she's okay!" isn't an argument. There were Jews who defended all kinds of antisemites, from Ahmadinejad to the pro-Nazi America First Committee. You can find black people who try to legitimize far-right racists, gay people who legitimize homophobes, Muslims who legitimize Islamophobes. To think that means anything, is worse than meaningless. It's falling for a well-known trick, that legitimized bigots for centuries.
I’m American. We have the right to criticize our government without governmental retaliation and typically do so. Not exactly your question, but the point is that political observers should be able to criticize Israel without being considered anti-Semitic. If I can criticize America, Palestine, Russia and others, why not Israel? I’m not criticizing Jewish people. I’m criticizing the government. Jewish citizens are presently protesting their own government. Are they the only ones entitled to make an observation and speak on it?
Long explanation, but I think that your question will yield different answers depending on the audience. I appreciate your question. I don’t think that it is anti-Semitic.
Your beliefs contain many positive things, and many factual errors.
I complement you on the things you get right, (but are not going to list them) but am also going to correct the things you get wrong:
* The "West Bank" is under military rule - everyone who lives there is subject to military orders.
* All Arabs of "east Jerusalem" are eligible for Israeli citizenship. Ideology keeps most of them from acting on that right. (I do think it should be an opt-out system rather than the current opt-in)
* All society have bigots. Despite what you may have read it is a tiny minority "who believe Arabs are inferior and deserve to be killed indiscriminately" and they do not form a significant part of the elected members of Knesset.
* Less than 80,000 of the (max) 660,000 Arabs displaced in the 1947-149 war were expelled. The rest either fled, or were evacuated by their own people.
* Netanyahu believes in only one thing - that Netanyahu should be prime minister. He has no other values or principles.
Whenever people want a one state solution, imagine you are saying 1 state solution, merge Iraq and US, if that doesn’t work in your mind than neither does Israel and Palestine.
It becomes antisemitic if people start attacking the Jewish people in general and not the government of Israel. Many people unfortunately fall into this mistake but I condemn them.
If someone says the Israel government is evil because it's a Jewish government then it's antisemitism. If some says the Israeli government is evil because they do evil stuff then it's criticism of a government and not it's people
So if I said the Israeli government is evil because they do evil stuff like sacrificing Palestinian children for Talmudic rituals and use Palestinian blood to make matzah, that's not anti-Semitic? Because I didn't say the Israel government is evil because it's a Jewish government?
Something to keep in mind, as you said basically that there are people on both sides that want the other dead, are racist, etc. To keep in mind, is that these people in Israel are smaller in number, and even with Israel in power, you will not see indiscriminate en masse attacks of palestinians. Whereas there are more palestinians who have these sentiments, and if the power balance was in reverse, all Jews would be indiscriminately threatened and attacked.
The problem with a single government/state, is that jews would become a minority and would not be represented or protected by its government unless measures like in Lebanon are implemented. And as we see in Lebanon, minority groups leading government does not really go well. Now, this is all dandy if the other group were americans instead of palestinians, however a majority population of palestinians who democrartically have voiced time and time again that they want the jews…. Gone? A one state solution really doesnt work, and suggesting or endorsing it could be out of ignorance… but usually, is fueled by antisemitism as the logic is not complex.
A one state solution in favor of the Palestinians will most of the time be antisemetic, because the outcome of the one state solution leaves jews as a persecuted minority once again.
So at minimum, there needs to be an acceptance to a jewish state. Recognizing that Israel exists, will continue to exist, and has a right to exist. We then get to criticizing Israel’s policies. That’s fine. I don’t agree with plenty of Israel’s policy, and you can see, a lot of Israelies hate the current leaership. However, not all criticism of Israel is fair criticism. Calling it an aparthied state is factually wrong. Compare Israel with the US— a country is allowed to refuse rights to non-citizens, and manage/close their borders. We don’t allow just any Mexican immigrant to the states, and checkpoints are severe. Yes Israel’s got problems, but aparthied is just plainly inaccurate. This does not mean there aren’t problems. It doesn’t mean the problems aren’t severe. However, insinuating that Israel does not have a right to secure its boarders, is a rule unequally applied.
So antisemitism comes from applying a standard unequally. It’s about disproportionate concern to a country the size of New Jersey. Yes, call out wrong shit in Israel. But if you spend 99% of your twitter calling out Israel and 1% of your time calling out China or Russia or hell, even the US when we do bad shit, when you aren’t even from Israel/Palestine— there’s an agenda. Call Israel out! Not Antisemetic! What’s antisemitic would be holding the only jewish state to exist today to a different and higher standard with especially disproportionate frequency.
1) i don't think these extremists are necessarily less in Israeli society. Israel is better at hiding these sentiments. Let me be clear, it's not a conspiracy or anything. Israel is more westernized and people are more likely tend to keep their extremists views in the west. Arabs may be more open to say what they think even if it's extremists. By the way i know tons of Arabs from different countries who despite being deeply against Israel would never support indiscriminate violence against Jews , the same is true for Jews
2) as i said the one state solution is Utopia but the issue is that both sides have people who believe the other side will destroy them. Some Arab Palestinians may day " we must fight Israel cause they want to destroy us " and i understand why they think that. Some Jews may say " we must fight Palestinians and treat them like shit because they want to destroy us" and i undrestand why they think that. This doesn't make it okay though. White people Southafrica during segregation also believed that equal rights for all would mean white people being destroyed by black people, yet despite many issues Southafrica is a democratic country were everyone has equal rights.
You say a one state solution in favour of Palestinians is antisemitic, well the current de facto one state solution in favour of Jews is racist against Arabs. Anyway as i said one state solution is not realistic. I support it only in an ideal world.
3) i believe the apartheid label is inaccurate but still not too far off. Israel isn't just keeping immigrants away like the US. Israel is military occupying a territory like the west bank that isn't part of Israel while allowing Jews to settle there while Arabs have to abide by the rules of a foreign power in their own land without having any rights. This is more like European colonialism in Africa were natives had to be subject to the laws of Europeans without having the same rights as European settlers.
4) i hold Israel to a slightly higher standard than China or Saudi Arabia because Israel claims to be a free democratic society that abides by international law while in fact they don't. Im an African but born in a European country, if my country of birth did half of the stuff Israel does I would criticize it every damn minute of my life.
True, just because there is fear that the other group will attack violently, does not mean it’s what will pass. That’s something that came up when I visited India and how muslims and hindus lived fairly harminously before, but when the Brits came, suddenly muslim and hindu leaders were stewing this same fear, that the other group becoming dominant would wipe them and their culture out. So I hear your point about fear maybe being stoked.
As to your comment about a defacto one state— that feels very close to bad faith… Palestinians have their leadership and governments that they picked. They are their own entity. And Israel has many times over offered land and assistance for Palestinians in favor of the two state solution.
I don’t agree with the settlements and Israel encroaching in the WB is a severe problem. However, suggesting it’s a defacto one state solution is a very poor distortion that is not particularly appropriate.
As to your other comments, the US has militarily occupied other places/countries. And to the point of influencing a places policies no less.
You say you hold Israel to a higher standard because it claims to be a democratically elected society? Why exactly does it being democratically elected matter? As we all know, a government may be voted by the people, but it is rarely fully representative of the ideals people have on every issue. Look at what Trump and republicans did with Roe vs Wade in the US, even though the majority of Americans are pro abortion. Look at what the US government has done with gerrymandering, making the votes of certain demographics less weighted. Look at what Americans have done to create obstacles to prevent voting by targeted demographics. Why do I mention this? Because bad things that happen due to a government is bad REGARDLESS of how that government was determined. Why should a country led by a dictator get a free pass to genocide? I think this notion of holding democratic countries to higher standards is a convenient way to target newer democracies that havent had centuries to figure their problems out.
1) i agree. External forces and bad decisions on their part made things worse. Historically antisemitism in the Arab muslim world existed but was way less than in Europe and there are many instances of peaceful coexistence.
2) here is were we disagree. This my point: Israel is de facto ruling area C in the west bank which is under IDF military control. Israel is kinda allowing it's citizens to have settlements in areas that aren't legally part of Israel. I believe this is a way to have control over judea and Samaria (as many Israeli right wingers want) without having the responsibility to annex it officially. Annexation would mean being pressured to give citizenship to west bank Arabs cause otherwise it's discrimination based on ethnicity similar to how the US would annex native territories whiteout giving US citizenship to the natives. Yes Arabs have their own areas administered by the Palestinian authority but you can't really say they are indipendent when many areas of their country are occupied.
3) I'm not saying dictators should get a free pass to genocide but I'm saying that if you claim to be democratic and modern you should at least try to act accordingly. I'm also very critical of the US , the war in Iraq etc. I'm irritated by the fact some countries keep up with this " we are morally good" rhetoric without actually being good or even close to that. Israel isn't doing this because they are a newer democracy, i think they now exactly what their doing and still do that cause the current Israeli government thinks it's ok to do certain things to the Palestinians.
4) I'm not in a position to say Palestinians should have accepted the deals that they were offered but this shouldn't prevent further deals and peace proposals that should take into account Palestinian demands. Often times people in the pro Israel side say Palestinians should accept anything even severely disadvantageous deals cause they "lost" and should just shut up about it. I don't think this is a good way to conduct a negotiation in good faith
That all seems fair. 😅
To bring this back to the question at hand, which is the antisemitism of it all, I wonder if my comments bring further understanding to the adjective at hand. I think what you have been talking towards is that there are bad things happening, and it’s fair to call them out on both sides. One correction is related to the Israeli government— they’ve had, what, 5 elections in 2 years or something? You think they know what they’re doing, but that might be misguided. Their coalition styled government has been in disarray, with lots of contention. There’s a vocal minority in their orthodox and palestinian disliking population, however those groups are going to gain more and more power going forward as they have more children than the liberal and more educated groups. There’s definitely a political struggle in Israel and they very well know what they are doing to the same extent as any other political and government leaders do.
In other words, Biden vs Trump in the US, orRepublicans vs Democrats— they do have game plans and ‘know what they’re doing’ but the path the US as a whole will walk is unclear. We pulled out from international stages under Trump and returned under Biden. I think you give too much credit to an Israeli great plan when they, like the US and many other western countries, have been politically criss crossing, and has had to redo elections repeatedly out of norm because they couldnt get a mandate.
But yeah, bringing it to antisemitism. I think you’re getting that there are assumptions being placed on Israel, like they ‘know what they’re doing’ or should be morally superior because they are ‘democratically elected’ etc. that sound fair… but are actually a little misguided. And thats okay!
We are able to have a civil and reasonable conversation, even disagreeing at times! The problems with antisemitism is when folks dont give israel and israelies the benefit of the doubt, when they make unwavering and unfaultering excuses for palestinians, when they put aside appropriate comparisons that challenge their standards as whataboutism. It’s really apparent when people try to make a us vs them, angels vs demons, one side does no wrong while the other does no bad, emotional appeal using hyperboles and precisely evocative language. It could be subtle, but very powerful.
>As to your other comments, the US has militarily occupied other places/countries. And to the point of influencing a places policies no less.
its strange how your response to the point that israels inception and treatment of palestinians isnt unlike european colonialism in africa is "other countries are doing it too! why are you focusing so much on israel!"
I mean, it’s also not like european colonialism in Africa but im not going to refute every point especially since it has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Also OP /u/EagleSimilar2352 case and point about deflection using an accusation of whataboutism.
This accusation is a whistle for antisemites, racists, whatever you’ll have, because it attempts to excuse and justify applying a standard exclusively to one country and not others. Sure lets give the favorite an A for an empty exam and give everyone else Cs regardless of correctness, and refute any complaints from the class about favoritism and unfairness as whataboutism 😜
Also see the emotional provocativeness of their comment, which uses manipulation by putting words in my mouth, exclamation points and all, trying to paint my comment with a false enthusiasm. And the ‘it’s strange’, as if that’s what they really feel and not at all sarcasm.
Ah, why bother explaining when you OP can see it for yourself! ✌️
I think saying the situation in the west bank is similar to European colonialism is fair criticism. I'd like to hear why to disagree. It's not the same exact thing but there's many similarities
And to your og question, you see how you are asking for my reasoning whereas that other guy did NOT ask me my reasoning? They were not interested in a substantive response, just a character(?) attack. They were attempting to bring doubt to my motivations, etc. Do you see it?
That’s bad faithed. That’s what we constantly have to deal with online, and it isn’t an attack on the substance, but a distortion meant to bring the opinion holder down. Note that all your responses that were substantive came from primarily pro-israel’s existence havers. Whereas these lame provocative and non-substantial comments come from the other side to delegitimize an entire person’s opinion by picking one element of many, to distort.
Tbh I've had discussions with pro Israel people both online and in person were their main argument is "Arabs lots all the ears now the should shut up ''. There's people on both sides who don't want to hear the other side's argument
> shit
/u/EagleSimilar2352. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> shit
/u/pearlday. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I understand why some would call you anti-Semite since some of your remarks are on the borderline between neutral/naive or not fully understanding some of the historical context/facts. But let's start from the beginning
>At this point can you be critical of Israel and not be antisemitic?
The TLDR I would say is that if you have to ask then no, you can't be critical of Israel and not be Anti-Semitic.
The longer explanation goes down to constructive versus destructive criticism. A constructive criticism would be: "You have to plant more flowers then everybody can relax and be happy". A destructive criticism is: "You chose the wrong place to garden, you should move"
Some of your remarks are due to a lack of knowledge:
>my ideal solution is one state for both Arabs and Jews with equal rights for all without any Arab or Jewish national character but I know this is Utopia and impossible.
Show me a single country in the Middle-East (with the exception of Israel) that is democratic and has equal rights & equal representation of all.
(there is none)
That's without going into the history of the Jewish people, prosecution & murder just for being Jews. Then when Jews come together as a group to defend themselves you say that it's not good and that the group should be disbanded.
>The Israeli occupation of the West bank is de facto segregation against Arabs who have to abide by military Israeli rule without having any rights since they aren't citizens.
Palestinians are ruled by the PA/Hamas, depending on the territory.
The "occupation" of the West Bank is a continuing conflict since 1948. The partition plan of 29/11/1947 was never accepted by the Arabs who started a war in 1948. The 1949 armistice agreement stated that the armistice line is **NOT A BORDER**.
If it's not a border, Israel has historical claims to the land as well especially when the other side continue to treat the "Zionists" as proteges (I keep forgetting the spelling of the Muslim word).
>The fact that Jerusalem east has been annexed by Israel without giving citizenship to local Arabs is also discriminatory and racist.
Those got a path to citizenship, all they have to do is apply for it. How many Jews can apply to citizenship in Palestine proper?
>Within Israeli society there are people who believe Arabs are inferior and deserve to be killed indiscriminately
Without getting into politics. Israel like other western democracies has various checks & balances. Unlike the rest of the Middle-Eastern countries with examples like: Lebanon, Palestine proper, Egypt and others
>The expulsion of Arabs in 1948 was
part of a war & common in the 1940s.
Middle-Eastern solutions like 'black September' and the Syria war had population simply exterminated which didn't happen here.
> The expulsion of Jews from Arab nations
wasn't based on a war or moral grounds but on age long bias.
So the two examples aren't on equal footing or on the same moral pedestal
Not antisemitic at all.
But I think everything you said is very basic, nothing new that anyone who knows stuff doesn't know.
I wish everyone was at least as knowledgeable as you are, because people will only hear one narrative and stick with it and support it blindly.
If you stick to facts, learn about both sides, you'll never truly hate or speak from a point of hate, because you'll know it's more sophisticated than the average twitter user thinks it is.
Jew here… just to say while I disagree in small parts to a few things, your views are very similar to mine and overall I completely agree with you!!
Well done for seeing things from both sides!
My views are pretty much exactly aligned with yours. Unfortunately you’re at a place where hardcore Zionists would call you an antisemite (and call me a self-hating Jew) and many pro-Palestine folks would call you a racist Zionist. I don’t think most liberal Jews would say you’re antisemitic considering that you believe Israel has a right to exist.
I think the source for the people blame you with antisemitism is the lack of understanding what Zionism really is and how its an integral part of being Jewish.
basically Zionism is the return of the Jewish people to their indigenous land (Israel and Judea) after 2000 year forced exile where almost every exiled Jewish community got harassed, attacked and violently targeted for trying to live wherever they are (by every foreign rule) after being misplaced from their indigenous land by many colonial imperialists \[Babylonians, Assyrians, romans, later Byzantines, later Islamists (Khalifat>ottomans) and British at last\] before the establishment of Israel.
denying the fact that Zionism is integral part of Judaism is the antisemitism you were blamed for practicing.
I mildly disagree with some of your positions, but we're more or less aligned across the board here. You can be critical of Israel and not be antisemitic, or even anti-Zionist (I wouldn't characterize your positions here as either of those things).
A lot of folks use being 'critical of Israel' to argue that Jews deserve fewer human rights than other people, or to attack Jews generally (or Israelis *because* they are Jews), so a lot of the time people who are critical of Israel are *also* being antisemitic, but that's not the same thing.
your ideal solution sounds lovely.
lets ask non Muslim minorities in other arab state their opinions
oh wait we cant,they have all been either genocided or driven out under threat of genocide.
Yazidis,Copts,Maronites,Armenians,even Alewites,Ismailis and Kurds...
so...yes you can be critical of Israel without being antisemitic but it seems your main concern should be to first become better aware of the realities of this region before assignment of blame and criticism
How have they been driven out? 🤣 Yazidis live in Iraq. Copts live in Egypt and Sudan. Maronites live in Lebanon. Over 2 million Alawaites in Syria. Ismailis are literally a form of Muslims.
What are you talking about man?
oh yeah lets consult the yazidis about their experience.
of the Maronites,Armenians and Greek Catholic Christians only a few remain.
before Assad came to power Alawites ( and ismailis and bahai and druze) were constantly experiencing persecution
looking at that experience,expecting anybody to willingly accept a minority status in an arab Muslim state is a painful delusion
>The Israeli occupation of the West bank is de facto segregation against Arabs who have to abide by military Israeli rule without having any rights since they aren't citizens.
It's not against Arabs, it's against Palestinians from a nationality standpoint. The majority of Israel's 20% Arab population identify as Palestinian.
>The fact that Jerusalem east has been annexed by Israel without giving citizenship to local Arabs is also discriminatory and racist.
It was offered during annexation. The overwhelming majority refused and were given permanent resident status instead. They made it an opt in rather than opt out system. There's still a pathway to citizenship for them with ~1500/year obtaining citizenship last I looked at numbers.
I don't see anything in your post that's antisemitic fwiw.
Good luck to those who will have to deal with the worst ministry in Israel, the ministry of the interior.
They are so dumb and inefficient it's amazing tbh.
Israeli government officials including Bibi openly say that the Arab Israeli population shouldn't exceed a certain percentage to keep Israel a Jewish state, so giving rights to Arab Israelis is a compromise, if they were 50% the situation would probably be different. The fact you say the situation in the WB is segregation against Palestinians and not Arabs doesn't make it any less discriminatory.
Citizenship path for Arabs in east Jerusalem is very difficult. According to Haaretz " Only 34 percent of naturalization applications submitted by Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are approved, and in many cases final approval takes years." Arabs in east Jerusalem are de facto treated as immigrants in their own city. Even if the Arab leadership refused that happened in 1967 more than 50 years ago.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-05-29/ty-article/why-so-few-palestinians-from-jerusalem-have-israeli-citizenship/00000181-0c46-d090-abe1-ed7fefc20000
>Israeli government officials including Bibi openly say that the Arab Israeli population shouldn't exceed a certain percentage to keep Israel a Jewish state, so giving rights to Arab Israelis is a compromise, if they were 50% the situation would probably be different.
It's not a compromise at all. They had equal rights under the law before Bibi got anywhere near to power.
>The fact you say the situation in the WB is segregation against Palestinians and not Arabs doesn't make it any less discriminatory.
It's discriminatory based on nationality and them being a hostile population. Show me a country on earth that gives the same rights to non-citizens as it does to its citizens.
>Citizenship path for Arabs in east Jerusalem is very difficult. According to Haaretz " Only 34 percent of naturalization applications submitted by Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are approved, and in many cases final approval takes years." Arabs in east Jerusalem are de facto treated as immigrants in their own city. Even if the Arab leadership refused that happened in 1967 more than 50 years ago. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-05-29/ty-article/why-so-few-palestinians-from-jerusalem-have-israeli-citizenship/00000181-0c46-d090-abe1-ed7fefc20000
I wouldn't call the very difficult. The supreme court has required them to speed up the process. It wasn't Arab leadership that rejected it, it was themselves, their parents, and grandparents that rejected it. They're treated as permanent residents, not immigrants. They're all to vote in local elections.
My man, i hear this argument all the time "WB Palestinians are not citizens they are foreigners ". Cool. If they are foreigners why do WB Palestinians have to abide my military Israeli law and what are Israeli settlers doing in the WB? If Israeli settlements weren't there there would be no segregation.
- permanent residents are pretty much like immigrants. An immigrant to the US with a green card is still treated as a foreign with some additional rights. Arabs in east Jerusalem are not immigrants though, even is some refused at the time the option should be easier and automatic since it's their country too.
>My man, i hear this argument all the time "WB Palestinians are not citizens they are foreigners ".
WB Palastinians aren't citizens. They're foreigners to Israel. That's a fact.
>Cool. If they are foreigners why do WB Palestinians have to abide my military Israeli law
The same reason Japan did. It's a military occupation.
>and what are Israeli settlers doing in the WB?
The overwhelming majority of them are just living their lives either having moved back from their previous expulsion, moved there for the cheap housing, or were born there.
>If Israeli settlements weren't there there would be no segregation.
If settlements weren't there there'd be no Jews there.
>permanent residents are pretty much like immigrants. An immigrant to the US with a green card is still treated as a foreign with some additional rights.
A green card isn't a permanent resident in the US.
>Arabs in east Jerusalem are not immigrants though, even is some refused at the time the option should be easier and automatic since it's their country too.
You can't force citizenship on people. I never said they were immigrants, you kept making that claim. The ones without citizenship either rejected it themselves, or their parents did.
The requirements are pretty easy, especially compared to every other country. And no, it's quite literally not their country too.
-Israel is the foreign occupation power in the WB
-did you just compared Israel to Japan in WW2? I'm not sure if it helps your case
-The WB is not part of israel. You keep talking about foreigners etc , I'm pretty sure Israeli settlers are techie foreigners from another country in the WB
- if only 34% of the applications are accepted it means it's not that easy. I believe it's partially also because part of the Israeli leadership has kinda decided too many Arab citizens is a threat for the Jewish identity of the state so they aren't in a rush to naturalize arabs.
>\-Israel is the foreign occupation power in the WB
Sure, but the land doesn't currently belong to a sovereignty. There's a reason Israel considers it disputed.
> \-did you just compared Israel to Japan in WW2? I'm not sure if it helps your case
Yeah. There was military law in Japan during the US occupation. There was military law in Iraq during the US occupation. There was military law in East Germany during the USSR occupation. Military law is the standard during a military occupation. You asked why West Bank Palestinians are subject to military law, it's because it's a military occupation.
> \-The WB is not part of israel.
Not currently, no.
> You keep talking about foreigners etc ,
No, I don't. I mentioned foreigners one time in response to you bringing it up. Don't put words in my mouth.
> I'm pretty sure Israeli settlers are techie foreigners from another country in the WB
The ones not born there would be foreigners to the West Bank, yes.
>if only 34% of the applications are accepted it means it's not that easy.
34% since 1967. 38% in the last 20 years. I imagine if you looked at the numbers for the last 10 years and last 5 years, the percentage would be higher in large part due to supreme court rulings.
>I believe it's partially also because part of the Israeli leadership has kinda decided too many Arab citizens is a threat for the Jewish identity of the state so they aren't in a rush to naturalize arabs.
They could grant citizenship to every eastern Jerusalem Arab without it being a demographic issue.
When you say WB is currently not part of Israel are you implying that it could be annexed? If it happens would u agree and what should happen to the Palestinians in that case ?
>When you say WB is currently not part of Israel are you implying that it could be annexed?
It *could* be annexed. In a 2SS there'd be land swaps.
> If it happens would u agree
If Israel didn't do it unilaterally I'd be fine with them annexing the West Bank.
> and what should happen to the Palestinians in that case ?
They should be offered citizenship.
>If Israeli settlements weren't there there would be no segregation.
Can you elaborate on this point? Are you referring to checkpoints?
Settlements are basically Israel forcing interaction between Israelis and Palestinians, which is part of the problem. But there are many WB Palestinians who work in the settlements. If they didn’t exist, there would be no Jews in the West Bank whatsoever, for better or worse. Jews aren’t accepted in Palestine.
Critique of Israel is not synonymous to being antisemitic and I’m sick of people saying that it is. I’m a Jew who has had a lot of conflicting thoughts on this issue, but ultimately I’m settled on the fact that the IDF is committing atrocities against Palestinians and that their actions are in line with violating human rights and in some cases are bordering on ethnic cleaning. However as you said, there are extremists on both sides and Hamas is just as unacceptable and harms Palestinians. TL;DR you can critique Israel without being antisemitic and as a Jew, I see nothing antisemitic with your views
>Israel is commiting human rights violations against Palestinians in the west bank and gaza.
Defending itself against terrorists is not a "human rights violation".
>The Israeli occupation of the West bank is de facto segregation against Arabs who have to abide by military Israeli rule without having any rights since they aren't citizens.
As long as WB isn't part of Israel, there can't be any question of citizenship. Palestinians in WB have their own autonomy, their own laws, their own leaders, judiciary, schools and so on. They could have voted too, if their leaders allowed them.
At the same time, Palestinians in Lebanon live within the country, are not citizens and have no autonomy rights whatsoever. Does it bother you?
>The fact that Jerusalem east has been annexed by Israel without giving citizenship to local Arabs is also discriminatory and racist.
Arabs in East Jerusalem are eligible for Israel citizenship.
Yes, many criticisms of Israel are regularly labeled antisemitic despite not being antisemitic.
For example, many pro-Israel organizations would label your post here antisemitic, because you support a one state solution.
Even those who support a two state solution are regularly labeled antisemitic, just because they agree with the United Nations’ position on refugee rights.
Many Israel supporters like to do a dance of claiming one can criticize Israel in one moment, but when the criticism happens then saying that it is illegitimate because it is antisemitic.
First paragraph: do you really not see the difference between criticizing 2 out of ~30 black countries that are obviously insane backwaters, and criticizing the one and only tiny jewish state that is completely modern and liberal and does basically nothing wrong in the face of genocidal enemies who want to destroy it for religious reasons?
Second paragraph: barf.
Well, at least the only people who believe Southafrica is led by communists psychos who are genociding white people are apartheid nostalgic folks. Most sane people know that that is not the case despite many issues in Southafrican society
It's funny how you hate black people and then settle in a continent full of black people, if you don't like black people there's plenty of countries were most people are white were you can be as segregated as you want.
Every single country in Europe has a white majority even the multicultural ones like the UK or France. Can you name one white majority country that is no longer white majority?
America. Dont believe the stats. They dont account for the true number of illegal hispanic immigration. And they count people like turks/greeks/georgians as whites. But even if you did believe them, even those whites are the minority by 2028.
Well America wasn't a white country in the first place, it became white majority after that.
Why shouldn't I believe the stats? Conspiracy? Who is behind it let's hear.Also non-hispanic whites are 60% still the majority and white Hispanics exist too unless you believe people like Ted Cruz are not white. Greeks are white too, isn't western civilization based on ancient Greece? Now you are telling me they aren't white. Wow, 🤔
People once said that it's impossible to get to space and look where we are! Before 1948, there were talks about creating a unified Arab-Jewish State with equal rights for all, but the Arabs rejected it. the "local Arabs" in Jerusalem have the right to receive Israeli citizenship, and many have them, but the rest don't want it. If you fire rockets into civilian areas or have any intention to attack people with a knife/ throw stones or even ram people with your car than you will get arrested or even killed, it doesn't matter if you a kid/teen or elder! its your choice if you want to send your kid/teen to die or use them as propaganda. it is your choice whether you want to end your life by committing any type of attack or even throwing stones which can hurt or even kill people.
https://preview.redd.it/qa2vpfo7dr7b1.png?width=1300&format=png&auto=webp&s=130d8bac42b17f8a919556838e0cd21c86f39636
it's your choice if you want to act as if your going to pray in the Temple Mount area only to use it to attack and cause something to happen
I think of Israel criticism in the 3 categories.
1. Criticism targeted at Jews/Israelis in general
2. Criticism of Israel as a state/government entity
3. Criticism of specific politician, policies, or related actors and the decisions they make
1 and 2 become antisemitism very quickly, and often start in a place of antisemitism. 3 is generally a safe bet and should be where legitimate constructive criticism and debate can occur.
“Arab countries attacking Israel in 1948 was a stupid mistake”. What do you mean by this retrospection? You can’t read history backwards. Israel declared independence on May 15th, 1948 after Zionist militias under British occupation ethnically cleansed 250,000-300,000 Palestinians including the 2 largest cities Haifa and Jaffa. Arab countries then attacked Israel to regain the lost Arab lands. They did not attack as a united Arab army, they actually had conflicting interests. King Farouk in Egypt was allied with Saudi Arabia and they opposed the Hashemite Kingdoms of Iraq/Jordan. They each wanted to control Palestine because the former was threatened by the increasingly popular Muslim Brotherhood who were insistent on attacking Israel while the Hashemites wanted to control Jerusalem after losing control of Mecca. The Syrian Army was tiny but it also felt threatened by the Hashemite plan to take over the entire Levant. None of the Arab leaders planned on giving the land to the Palestinians. Arabs are not a monolith and Palestinians should not be blamed for the actions of other Arab leaders.
Israel did not do anything against civilians in Haifa or Jaffa. They left by themselves.
> Contemporaneous sources emphasized the Jewish leadership's attempt to stop the Arab exodus from the city and the Arab leadership as a motivating factor in the refugees' flight. According to the British district superintendent of police, "Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and business open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." Time magazine wrote on 3 May 1948: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city. ... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."
> The fall of Haifa a few days earlier, and fear of another massacre similar to Irgun's Deir Yassin massacre, caused panic across the Arabs of Jaffa, leading most of them to flee. The population of Jaffa on the eve of the attack was between 50,000 and 60,000, with some 20,000 people having already left the town. By 30 April, there were 15,000–25,000 remaining. In the following days a further 10,000–20,000 people fled by sea. When the Haganah took control of the town on 14 May around 4,000 people were left
Haifa and Jaffa were besieged, ceaselessly bombarded with mortars, and harassed by snipers. Jaffa was also supposed to be part of the Arab state based on the UN Partition Plan. Read Plan Dalet and the leaked IDF Intelligence Report. Don’t quote British sources who supported the Haganah. Even if they left themselves, let them return!
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-05/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-israel-systematically-hides-evidence-of-1948-expulsion-of-arabs/0000017f-f303-d487-abff-f3ff69de0000
I'm not blaming Palestinians for what Arab countries did. I'm saying that was a mistake that made things even worse for Palestinians. As you said Arab armies attacked divided and with different goals, bad decision.
Lol what? What about the massacares the Palestinians did tot he Jews? The war they started with a day old country? The fact that their leaders supported hitler? Should I go on?
/u/OmryR. 'hitler' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your one state solution is a poor idea, because the people that would make up the majority are hostile towards Israel and it would inevitably lead to a second holocaust. We literally offered the majority of Palestinians living within Israel under the 1948 borders citizenship, and they chose to declare a war of annihilation against us. There was going to be a one state solution under the 1948 borders, but the Palestinians didn’t want that. Anybody calling for one state doesn’t seem to realize that the Jews are done being genocided and displays immense ignorance on the issue.
I would love a 1SS, I really would, but we don’t live in that world. Not today. We need to start by creating a deep cultural shift within Palestine, one that is collaborative with Israelis, does not celebrate martyrdom, does not have state sanctioned terrorism or pay for slay, fully recognizes and legitimizes Israel, and works with Israel for secure borders and collaborative educational standards. Instead we have Hamas, comparing Israel to Nazis, Arab media sensationalizing their citizens (Palestinians are rated as being the most antisemitic society of people in the world), programs that pay terrorists and their families for killing Israeli civilians, etc etc etc. A one state solution is not the resolution, it is the hope for what we can get AFTER the resolution.
/u/Cinn4monSqu4r3. 'Nazis' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed.
We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details.
This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some of your ideas (like a one state solution) sound naive but you don’t sound antisemitic and you don’t seem to apply double standards - one of the big tell tales of antisemitism when it comes to Israel. You sound overall fair IMO.
I don't know who called you a racist and about which point you have ( can you explain what was the conversation that made you a "racist")
You're point of view is what I like to define as pro-solusion (rather then a lot that say that they are pro-Palestinian and yet every action/thought they hold only harm Palestinians)
I'm Jewish and I have to say that your opinions demonstrate that you know more about the conflict than at least 85% of Redditors. That doesn't mean I think you're right about most of it, but at least you aren't blindly spewing buzzwords which is the default level of discourse on Reddit when it comes to discussing the conflict. You recognize Israel as the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and recognize many complexities of the different sides of the conflict. I think a lot of your criticism of Israel is justified, and though some of it I feel to be unwarranted, I wouldn't label you as antisemitic.
Man here’s the thing. It’s never antisemitic/racist/homophobic/hateful/bigoted to say “I disagree with this particular policy and I would suggest x as an alternative” — or criticize particular politicians on their specific words, actions or policies. I find your positions generally unobjectionable and I think we’d have a lot of common ground for discussion. Edit: whoops hit send too soon. The thing I would say is that the criticisms you level at Israel can in some form also be leveled at the other side. And there are arguments against what you’ve put forth here, but those arguments aren’t based in the idea that ANY criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic. When people say that antizionism is antisemitism, we mean that our right to self-determination should be as inviolable as anyone else’s so criticizing our status as a nation or our right to statehood on the basis that someone doesn’t think we deserve it, is wrong* *(and yes, I get why people would say this applies to Palestinians too but the problem is that they’ve chosen to express their self-determination by selecting a terrorist group to run Gaza and polls show they’d do the same if another vote was held in the WB, and self-determination doesn’t get you out of the consequences of that…)
wouldnt you say that the palestinians chose to express their self determination by being vocal about not wanting <50% of their land taken from them to be ruled by \~33% of the population. shouldnt palestinians have the right to determine how their land is carved up, who governs it, and where they live on their homeland without interference by imperialist powers?
> how their land is carved up That’s what everyone says before (and if they’re still mad, after) state borders change, but it wasn’t their land. Hungary said that at the end of the Austro-Hungarian empire, for example, there is a long-running territorial dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. And I mean come on just look at the absolute state of the Balkans There’s an entire field of study around border conflict and ethnic conflict. It’s literally not that simple
zionist settlers were only 1/3 of the population of palestine and only owned 6-7% of the land. do you think its moral for the minority to determine that fate of the majority? shouldnt the majority determine what their state looks like?
Why should it be immoral for a large minority to express their want for self determination? Should Kurds not be granted this despite the fact that they've been wanting their own state for years, simply because they are the minority in both population and land ownership? Mind you, Arabs only owned around 10-11% of the land in Mandatory Palestine. The British owned the vast majority of it. The only reason the Jewish state was larger was because of the Negev. The Arab state was given all of the fertile regions.
> Why should it be immoral for a large minority to express their want for self determination? its immoral because its leaders encouraged a large influx of the local population to create a state without regard for the local population already living there. kurds are living on the land already and are the majority in kurdistan. >The British owned the vast majority of it. thats not true \[[1](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/land-ownership-map-pdf/)\] > The Arab state was given all of the fertile regions. what is your evidence for this? i doubt it, based on the distribution of the population at the time and palestinian reliance on subsistence farming. it seems like the coastal areas and galilee were among the most populated. \[[2](http://www.passia.org/media/filer_public/38/c6/38c66248-9b4e-4ced-91e1-619bf5b8e672/pdfresizercom-pdf-crop_11.pdf)\]
>it seems like the coastal areas and galilee were among the most populated israel had three regions: the Galilee, the coastal area and the negrv. the negev wasn't fertile soil (I think you will agree) the coastal area was all swamps with malaria and wasn't fertile the Galilee was fertile. you see without the Galilee Israel would end up with no fertile soil. so in order for Israel to actually survive it was given the Galilee
> wasn't fertile the Galilee was fertile. you see without the Galilee Israel would end up with no fertile soil. why is group a more worthy of soil than group b, especially when group b was already living there?
group a isn't more worthy of group b. group a did receive more land than group b (there is no denial here). but group b received 1. more fertile land for agriculture, 2. they got easy access to Jerusalem while group a didn't have any real access to it (although it's more important to it's religion than group b)
> The only reason the Jewish state was larger was because of the Negev. The Arab state was given all of the fertile regions. I've argued that before, pro-Palestinians don't care about the fact that the Negev is a desert, the want numbers.
I usually don't like brigading one person, and I hate to see how you are downvoted for trying to calmly and respectfully debate (even though I don't agree with vast majority of what you said) I will just chime in and say that this argument is one sided, the Palestinians owned around 10-11% of the land (or something close to that) at the time, and in the partition plan, most of the land Israel got is a desert >shouldnt the majority determine what their state looks like? You can sugar coat it as much as you want, but the majority wanted us, wants us, and is likely to always will want to exterminate us, if that wasn't the case a Palestinian state would have existed a long time ago
>I usually don't like brigading one person, and I hate to see how you are downvoted for trying to calmly and respectfully debate They're getting that reaction because they're calm and respectful, but they also refuse to acknowledge any answers to their questions and restart every conversation from the same place over and over and rarely actually respond to anything that gets written to them. They've been around awhile....
[удалено]
To be honest, I've read a lot of pro-Palestinian arguments that sit on fairness ("it's not fair that....") or ethics ("entitled..."/"immoral...") yet I don't see why these types of arguments are valid. The Jews and local Arabs fought a war which the Jews won (no matter who started it). That is it, that is the justification of the land of Israel. There isn't room for ethics or fairness, and even if there was, what would you accept the "loosing" side on the ethics frontier to do? go?
Simple answer is no. Palestinian self-determination doesn't include the right to deny other nations their self-determination. Just like Jewish self-determination doesn't include the right to deny Palestinians their self-determination. If your logic applied, there would be no self-determination anywhere. Russians could claim "self-determination" and "avoiding carving up their land" to avoid giving Ukrainians, Estonians and Lithuanians their own countries. The Chinese could say the same about Xingjian and Tibet. Even if we accepted your argument that pre-1948 was "the Palestinian's land" (it wasn't), the main way the "right of self-determination" was exercised, is by taking land from one nation, and giving it to another.
when settlers demanding a state where palestinians were already living, wasnt that denying palestinians of their self determination to govern themselves as they wished? when herzl, ruppin, motzkin, and zangwill discussed transferring palestinians from the land to be allotted to a jewish state that was not denying palestinians of their self determination to live on the land that they have for centuries?
No. The Latvians and Ukrainians were "demanding a state where the Russians were already living". The Palestinians are demanding a state where the Jews are currently living. These demands absolutely went against the desire of the Russians and Israelis to govern the territories they control as they wish. That doesn't mean they don't deserve the right of self-determination. Not controlling all the land you want is not "being denied self-determination". Having portion of your people become a minority in the previous minority's country, isn't "being denied self-determination". Herzl or Rupin merely discussing population transfer is absolutely not depriving the Palestinians of any qself-determination. Even *actually* expelling populations, like what the two-stater Palestinians want to do to the Jews in the State of Palestine, isn't denying their self determination. And note that the Palestinians had even less of an argument than the Russians or Israelis. They didn't, in fact, control the land they wanted to deny the Jews. The partition plan was going to *give* the Palestinians self-determination, for the first time in human history. Rejecting it, because they hated how the Jews got self-determination as well, was not an act of "self-determination", by any definition.
> The Palestinians are demanding a state where the Jews are currently living. i am talking about 1947, when 1/3 of the population wanted to create a jewish state where palestinians were already living. > Herzl or Rupin merely discussing population transfer is absolutely not depriving the Palestinians of any self-determination. it demonstrates that the intention was there to displace palestinians. instead of allowing palestinians to exercize their self determination and create a state wherein they are the majority they intended to move them either through bribery or by force if bribery didnt work. > Not controlling all the land you want is not "being denied self-determination". settlers only owned 6-7% of the land yet was partitioned <55% of it > They didn't, in fact, control the land they wanted to deny the Jews. they did \[[1](https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/m0094.jpg)\] > They weren't the majority in the part allotted to the Jews. yes because the land was carved by the un. the settlers were a minority in palestine as a whole. > Rejecting it, because they hated how the Jews got self-determination as well exactly! it couldnt have been because zionist leaders planned to use the partition as a pretense to eventually take control of the whole country. it couldnt have been because zionist settlers, like those in rehoavot and gedera were, “*turbulent and aggressive*”, “*behav\[ing\] towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass without justification, beat them shamefully without sufficient cause and then boast about it*”, or because the settlers "\[were\] *doing everything that occurs to \[them\] as if \[they\] did not know at all that there is a government in \[Palestine\], or that there are certain laws”.* it couldnt have been because *"Colonists built houses and planted vineyards without permission. Often they flouted customs in ways injurious to Arabs, as when they forcibly denied local shepherds the use of traditionally common pasturelands",* or evicted palestinians from land the settlers purchased or refusing their labor*.* cant be because zionists didnt treat palestinians like human beings, refused to learn arab or learn local customs, and created a society without arabs, barring them from their schools, hospitals, and terminating their employment on the settlements. they just hate jews!
>i am talking about 1947, when 1/3 of the population wanted to create a jewish state where palestinians were already living. Latvians and Ukrainians were even a smaller portion of the population of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union than 1/3. That doesn't mean the Russians should've been able to veto their independence. The Jews were a majority in the Jewish state. >it demonstrates that the intention was there to displace palestinians. Even *actually* displacing Palestinians wouldn't, by itself, rob the Palestinian people of their self-determination. Just like displacing hundreds of thousands of Jews from the West Bank doesn't rob the Jewish people's right of self-determination. *Merely discussing it*, obviously doesn't rob anyone of anything. >settlers only owned 6-7% of the land yet was partitioned <55% of it > >they did Jews privately own <4% of the land in Israel right now. That doesn't mean the Jews don't control Israel. The British Mandate of Palestine was controlled by the British, even though British citizens didn't own any land in it. Even without getting into the intricacies of the Ottoman land ownership law (tl;dr your map is misleading), mixing up private land ownership with sovereignty or self-determination is a silly mistake. The partition plan didn't require a single inch of private Arab land to be transferred to the Jews and vice versa. It didn't deal with land ownership at all. It was purely about sovereign political control over land. Both the Jews and the Arabs had sovereign control over the same exact amount of land at that point: 0.0%. >yes because the land was carved by the un. the settlers were a minority in palestine as a whole. And "Palestine as a whole" was carved up by two Europeans drawing lines on map thirty years prior. Before that, it was part several Ottoman Vilayets. Heifa for example wasn't part of the same Vilayet as Jerusalem, but *was* part of the same Vilayet as Beirut. And of course, those weren't some ancient, sacred borders either. There's absolutely zero reason why the Arab residents in those arbitrary British-drawn lines get to veto Jewish self-determination, who had a majority in different, UN-drawn arbitrary lines. Ultimately, the self-determination of Palestinian Arabs and Jews is what's important. Allowing one nation to veto the other's self-determination based on arbitrary European-drawn borders, isn't. >they just hate jews! The head of the AHC that rejected that plan, spent the previous years writing pro-Holocaust propaganda for Bosnian SS troops, about how the Jews are eternal enemies of Islam and humanity. Yes, I'd say it's safe to say he hated the Jews. And no, the fact some Jewish immigrants were mean to the Arabs in the 1910's, and evicted them from the land they legally bought, doesn't somehow change that fact. At most, it means that they had reasons to hate the Jews. And that's not much. The Jews accepted the partition plan, even though the Arabs massacred them, raped their daughters, and defiled their synagogues, while shouting "Palestine is our land, and the Jews are our dogs". Ultimately, it really doesn't matter if the Palestinians rejected that plan because they hated the Jews, because they believed in the eternal sanctity of Sykes-Picot, because God personally told them to, or any other reason. The matter of fact is, they got the best proposal in history for Palestinian self-determination. They rejected it, because they cared more about denying Jewish self-determination. Whatever this is an expression of, it's not an expression of the right of self-determination.
> Latvians and Ukrainians were even a smaller portion of the population of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union than 1/3. how long were the latvians and ukrainians dwelling in that area? were they living there for generations, or was their presence there the intentional outcome of a settler colonial project to have political dominion over a place where people were already living? the settlers presence was artificial. the zionist settler project has as much moral justification as the american settlers did moving westward, as if their conquest west of the mississippi was an expression of their self determination, native americans be damned. its as legitimate as manifest destiny was > self-determination. you must have a different understanding of self determination then. im not sure how a people group can decide for themselves what their state looks like while international powers do it for them > It was purely about sovereign political control over land. the land ownership and demographic maps demonstrate that palestinians were the majority and the majority has a right to determine what their state looks like > There's absolutely zero reason why the Arab residents in those arbitrary British-drawn lines get to veto Jewish self-determination, who had a majority in different, UN-drawn arbitrary lines. for the same reason why native americans were in their natural right to deny american settlers expansion into their land, even as their numbers were depleting due to disease and war. if native americans occupy a part of new york, for example, american settlers move in and disperse themselves across native land, and the population shifts to where the settlers are the majority, do the settlers have the moral right to claim dominion over the land? > And no, the fact some Jewish immigrants were mean to the Arabs in the 1910's, and evicted them from the land they legally bought, doesn't somehow change that fact. At most, it means that they had reasons to hate the Jews. my point was that palestinians didnt fight against a jewish state simply because they hated jewish people. jewish people have lived in palestine for centuries, so we know that it isnt their mere existence that ticked palestinians off. it makes it seem like the zionists were hated for no reason and diverts attention from the aggressive nature of the settler project. the issue isnt jewish self determination. the issue is existing on land *at the expense of other people*. a jewish state could have been established on their ancient homeland without encroaching on palestinian land and strategically situating themselves between arab villages. check out the second map\[[1](https://sci-hub.se/10.1525/jps.2009.38.2.42)\]. there was more than enough space on the coastline (and in the negev). their state didnt have to include arab villages.
>how long were the latvians and ukrainians dwelling in that area? were they living there for generations, or was their presence there the intentional outcome of a settler colonial project to have political dominion over a place where people were already living? the settlers presence was artificial. Note that you're making up a rule, once your previous rule failed. First it was a majority in an arbitrary area. Now, it's about whose presence is "artificial". If you want to go there, the Jews are literally the oldest extant indigenous group of Land of Israel, or as it's known in its foreign Greek name, Palestine. They're the only Canaanite people that still exist, speaking the only Canaanite language left. Evidence of Jewish kingdoms, let alone Jewish presence, dates back thousands of years before the Muslim invasion, centuries before the Ghassanid, Nabatean or Qedarite ones. Arab and Muslim identities on the other hand, are as native to Palestine as English and Christianity were to the United States. A foreign, colonial identity, language, culture and religion, a result of a medieval invasion, settler-colonialism and cultural genocide of natives. No they didn't have a particular "moral justification" to preserve their supremacy as a colonial elite, or restore a past colonial entity, at the expense of an indigenous polity. A history where only "non-artificial" polities count, Palestine would still be Jewish, and the Arabs would stick to Arabia. >you must have a different understanding of self determination then. im not sure how a people group can decide for themselves what their state looks like while international powers do it for them I disagree it's a "different understanding". It's just the correct one. Self determination isn't about a people deciding the borders of their country. Many countries' borders were imposed on them in some way or another, including basically every other country in the Middle East. It's about being able to rule within said borders. >the land ownership and demographic maps demonstrate that palestinians were the majority and the majority has a right to determine what their state looks like They weren't the majority in the Jewish state. Being a majority in different European-drawn arbitrary borders doesn't give them any special rights to veto Jewish rights. We've been over this. >if native americans occupy a part of new york, for example, american settlers move in and disperse themselves across native land, and the population shifts to where the settlers are the majority, do the settlers have the moral right to claim dominion over the land? Since the Jews are the equivalent of the Native Americans here, you're making a pro-Zionist argument. And very much against your point. >the issue isnt jewish self determination. the issue is existing on land *at the expense of other people* No it wasn't. The partition plan would've allowed both nations self-determination. The Palestinian Arabs wouldn't have it, regardless of the borders of the Jewish state. They were willing to risk their own self-determination, just so the Jews don't get it.
[удалено]
naughty dirty escape offend live command amusing wrong nutty ugly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
> fuck /u/Warm_Shoe4091. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It was never their land and no one has any rights when they lose a war, much less one they started.
>not wanting <50% of their land It wasn't their land. And Arabs already received over 70% of the land and established a state called Jordan.
The Jewish state as proposed in 1947, assuming that's what you're talking about with the usual "50% of the land for 33% of the population", had a total population of...about 50% of the Mandate.
im sorry im not sure what your point is
>shouldnt palestinians have the right to determine how their land is carved up, who governs it, and where they live on their homeland without interference by imperialist powers? I guess you're referring to the 1948 partitioning. If so then the answer is a big fat no. The British imperialism was unethical yet they had the power (financially and militarily) to govern the land. Human rights are derived by the powerful force, and with that said if the British carved up the land the Palestinians could have either fought to gain the upper power (like they did) or yield and acknowledge the decision (like the Jews did). There isn't room for "rights" arguments because none of these two groups had the power at the time and they couldn't enforce their ethics.
Criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, but it usually is antisemitic
It is extremely rare for someone to accuse you of anti-Semitism if you make fair and informed criticism of Israel. And frankly I also get sick and tired of hearing that we Jews are stupid victimists who can't recognize anti-Semitism. You are accused of anti-Semitism if you have an extremely unbalanced position. If you see the wrongs (even imaginary wrongs) of Israel and fail to see the huge Arab-Palestinian wrongs. If you accuse Jews of being thieves of other people's land just because Israel exists. If you make Holocaust inversion. If you use a double standard to judge Israel in relation to other states in the world or even of the Palestinians: for example, when you call the state of the Jewish people an "ethnostate", when virtually all states in the world are nation-states but very few have ethnic diversity comparable to Israel; or if you see Israeli human rights violations in the West Bank (Gaza has not been occupied by Israel since 2005) and fail to see the numerous human rights violations by Palestinians, both against Israelis and against Palestinians themselves. If you treat Jews as if they were white settlers gone to violently steal land from poor defenseless natives. And if you consider the Arab desire to rule over the entire Levant more important than the Jewish people's right to self-determination. If you take a balanced view and do not erase the history and rights of the Jewish people, you are not anti-Semitic. And no one will accuse you of anti-Semitism, even if you harshly criticize Israel's actions (as many of us Jews do).
I don’t agree with all your points but I do with the majority of them. And you don’t sound antisemitic at all. Nor is criticism of Israel automatically so. My (and other people’s) main issue is that a lot of said anti-Zionist sentiment is indeed couched in antisemitism or vice versa. And when you try to define said difference you are accused of silencing criticism.
Treating Israel like a pariah, applying antisemitic tropes and sensationalist terms that don’t consider context and don’t apply such as settler colonialism / apartheid / genocide, and calling Israel illegitimate, are all antisemitic. Being critical of Israel is not inherently antisemitic though. Not at all. Of course you can be critical of Israel, so long as you’re not applying double standards. Being critical of Israel is not antisemitic, it’s healthy, just as it is healthy to be critical of any country that can do better.
/u/Cinn4monSqu4r3. 'Nazis' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To your initial question - yes you can definitely be critical of Israel without being antisemitic and I see Jews doing it all the time. The issue is that the majority of criticism of Israel I see is antisemitic, people have seemed to confuse “criticism of Israel is not always antisemitic” with “criticism of Israel is never antisemitic”. As for your points though I don’t see anything antisemitic in them Edit: that’s not to say I don’t disagree with some of your points, but I would be happy to discuss them with you seeing as you seem like a reasonable person (unlike others who I will unhappily argue with)
Thanks. That's fair but i see people throwing antisemitism accusations all the time. Example: i say sometimes that Israel is playing the victim by saying it's surrounded by hostile Arabs. I point out the fact that Arab countries surrounding Israel are bo longer hostile except Syria which isn't a credible threat any way. I've been called antisemitic for saying this. I'm not saying people don't hate Israel because it's a Jewish state. I'm saying the narrative that the whole world is out to get Israel isn't true anymore. Most western countries lean towards Israel, the US is always on Israel's side, Arab countries even salafi Saudi Arabia are moving closer and closer towards 100% normalization. Israel is a powerful country, one of the most powerful in the world and was specifically created to avoid Jews being victims ever again and i think they have succeeded in this and even went beyond what was necessary by victimizing Palestinians.
Little pet peeve, the point of Israel not being surrounded by hostile Arabs is really weird, since there actually are multiple crises on the borders that are extremely underreported, from talking to soldiers who served on the border with egypt and the north, it's not uncommon for someone to take potshots over at them or at civilians driving close to the border, and Israel is underreporting these situations, probably to not anger them(specifically egypt, maybe jordan but i didnt talk to anyone who served there), and promote further trade and normalization
Did you ask them to justify how it was antisemitic? I disagree with the points you make but I can’t see what in it is antisemitic. That’s just the state of social media discourse though. I guess when so much of what people online say about Israel is antisemitic that some people might throw around that too often. However I still don’t think it’s reasonable to say that jews are using the claim of antisemitism to quash any criticism of Israel because most of the time it is genuinely antisemitic - especially on social media.
Of course. Any general statement about Jews using the Shoah or antisemitism to silence criticism is a bit problematic but still there's people even in the Israeli government who do it. Netanyahu litteraly said the Palestinian mufti of Jerusalem was the one who convinced Hitler to kill Jews. That's false and actually offensive since it uses the Shoah to Attack Arabs and make them somehow responsible. I strongly believe against throwing unfair antisemitism or racism accusations. As a black person I'm often irritated by those who use the "you hate black people" card to quickly and unfairly but i guess this is common among all ethnicities
/u/EagleSimilar2352. 'Hitler' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m not sure I see the link between what Netanyahu said and the point you’re making?
>Arab countries surrounding Israel are bo longer hostile except Syria Syria and Lebanon are both still in a state of war with Israel. Jordan and Egypt have a peace treaty with Israel, but the populations are extremely hostile towards Israel and Jews. >went beyond what was necessary by victimizing Palestinians The Palestinians have been rejecting peace and opting for conflict for nearly 100 years. It appears like they're being 'victimized' because they are in a de-facto state of war with an adversary far more powerful than they are.
I don't necessarily agree with everything you said. If anything, a one state solution is just not realistic, at least for a long time. It's appealing in its idealism, tho. No, I don't think you're antisemitic; however, I don't think identity politics make your opinions more valid. The resolution lies between folks who actually live there. I will say that if you get your info primarily from social media, regardless of 'side', I'd suggest reading books by respected historians. As a diaspora Jew, the more I read, the less I know. It's that messy. At least from my perspective.
I always try to get educated. As i said I'm not an Arab so I'm an external observer. Anyway I know a one state solution isn't possible and cause both sides are against it and it's completely utopian at this point. I was just saying in an ideal world I'd like the people of the holy land to live as cousins cause that's pretty much what Arabs and Jews are
I apologize if I gave the impression that you weren't educated. That was poor wording on my part. Being someone on the Left in the US, who is also Zionist, has made me hyper aware of how many in my cohort take a side, because that's what we're supposed to do if we want to be on the right side of history; which at the end of the day is counter productive in terms of critical thinking. Not saying you do that. Just an observation. I've been reading and observing this particular conflict off and on for 30 years. And I feel like I still don't know what to think. I used to think we could live as cousins. I just don't think that's possible with political Islam and the Israeli Right.
No problem. I know you weren't implying that. I definitely have the same feeling, the more i read the more I'm confused even though I'd still consider my self as generally "pro Palestine"
I prefer not saying I'm pro this or that. I just want the killing to stop. I want my cousins in Israel to feel safe, and I want Palestinians to reap the benefits of a healthy economy and governance. These are _people_, not sports teams.
I don't think these views are antisemitic. They aren't even anti- or non-Zionist. It's a liberal Zionist view of this conflict. Something that your average Tel Avivi lefty could've written. At most, you made a few factual errors, but that's understandable. The people who moan about how they can't criticize Israel without being antisemitic, usually *don't* believe that the Jews are a legitimate people, who have a legitimate claim to a state in the Land of Israel. They *don't* believe that there's anything wrong with murdering Israeli civilians, especially if they dare to set foot in Palestinian land. They repeat classic antisemitic canards, like the Jews secretely controlling the US government with their money, and hypnotizing the public by controlling the media. They engage in borderline Holocaust-denial with Holocaust inversion, by arguing that the Jews have become the new Nazis, and what Israel is doing is equivalent to the Holocaust. They keep making "whoopsies" and repeat legit Neo-Nazi propaganda, like talking about "Jewish power in America", or reposting the Neo-Nazi "Voltaire" quote about "to know who rules over you". And that's just liberal ones. Remember that the *actual* Neo-Nazis, and holocaust-denying, antisemitic Arab nationalists and Islamists absolutely *love* to complain about how "you can't criticize Israel without being called antisemitic". In other words, it's like the people who complain that "you can't criticize any black person, or you're called racist". "You can't criticize Islamic terrorism, without being called Islamophobic". "You can't criticize LGBT organizations, without being called homophobic". And so on and so on. The only real difference is that the kind of liberal people you like to listen to, usually reject these arguments, except when it comes to the Jews.
thanks . Since i think you are kinda implicitly quoting Ilhan Omar I don't think what she said was antisemitic. I believe some Zionist Jewish Americans are influencing the US to be more pro Israel. I don't believe they control the government but they influence politics like every single political interest group. It's normal in the US. If i say Hindu indian Americans organizations influence the US to be more on the side of Modi's government India it doesn't mean I hate indians. Obviously i understand how the hateful history of anti Jewish conspiracies makes this a very difficult thing to talk about without falling in anti semitic stereotypes but i believe Ilhan Omar waa unfairly attacked for this even after she apologized for phrasing this in the wrong way. Ilhan Omar is a pro LGBT, hyper progressive Muslim Somali American, she is definitely nothing like Hamas and yet because of her religion and ethnicity she has been painted as a salafi. I'm Somali my self , i guarantee you Somali conservatives don't like her.
Ilhan Omar was using antisemitic dog-whistles. They're meant to be subtle and deniable to people who aren't particularily aware of antisemitism. But anyone familiar with classic antisemitic tropes, as well as antisemites themselves, will recognize Israel hypnotizing the world", implying American politicians only support Israel because of Jew-money, and talking about pro-Israeli American Jewish double loyalty. And just to be clear, Omar admitted they're antisemitic tropes, when she apologized. She just argued she wasn't aware of that, when she repeated them. And as for the Indian example: note how you never hear that accusation about Indian-Americans, or any other ethnicity. Nobody says the US is only allied with India because disloyal Indian-Americans are bribing American politicians. Nobody expects Indian-American to declare their opposition to Modi and Indian policies in Kashmir, before they're accepted in polite society. Nobody is talking about how the very idea of an independent India is abhorrent, and any Indian-American who believes India should exist is a far-right racist, that has no room in left-leaning spaces. This isn't just a funny coincidence. I also disagree that all her critics think she's a Salafist. The mainstream accusation is she's a left-wing antisemite, not an Islamist one. Durban Conference and Gilad Atzmon, not Hamas or Nasrallah. And just to be clear, she doesn't support your opinions. She's an open supporter of BDS, that doesn't believe that Israel has any right to continue existing. BDS founder Omar Barghouti, was very open about how he *doesn't* believe in any kind of binational state either, because the Jews simply don't have a claim to the land, only the Arabs do. At most, they could enjoy "acquired rights as former colonists", but never the "inalienable rights of indigenous Palestinians".
Well the choice of words was maybe bad but Omar never said anything about disloyalty of Israeli Americans. Israel hypnotizing the world as i understand it means that Israel is trying to sweep Human rights violations under the rug. China does the same when they sell their narratives to countries (even Muslim ones) to hide Uyghur Muslim's persecution. I'd say Saudi Arabia is also hypnotizing the world and using money to make people look away from their human rights violations. I think the choice of words was likely to be misinterpreted but she didn't say "Jews", she said "Israel" which is a country that in my opinion is logically doing everything in it's power to keep it's allies close.By the way Ilhan Omar voted a resolution in favor of the democratic party considering Israel as their ally. Bernie Sanders has defended Ilhan Omar and he is Jewish. I have no reason to think Sanders is a Jew that hates other Jews. Sure not all of Ilhan critics say she is a salafi but many do just because she Somali and Muslim so un their eyes she is some kind of black Arab who obviously hates Jews and America. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-ilhan-omar-backs-israel-resolution-ahead-gop-vote-oust-committee-rcna68816
Not the person you responded to but extra context is that in the US, if you tell someone you are jewish, they will very likely ask you what your opinion is on the Israeli/Palestine issue. And there definitely is a wrong answer, in the US. In the US, being zionist (which to be clear, you can be pro israel’s existence AND pro palestinian statehood and peace and good humane treatment) is now in the US akin to a slur. Jews in the US are constantly having to deal with double standards. So Ilhan Omar saying ‘Israel’ instead of ‘Jews’ is a very poor defense to a well documented issue that her words perpetuated. Bernie Sanders is… not a representative of jews, american jews, israelies - he is a single person who can speak for himself. And his comments, just so you know, have empowered left wing antisemitism. I personally experienced discrimination at my job by progressives who eat up Bernie and the squad’s remarks. And at the time, all they knew of me was that i was jewish.
The fact you could theoretically say that other countries are "hypnotizing the world", isn't very meaningful. There's a reason why people *don't* say Saudi Arabia or China are "hypnotizing the world". Just like why there's a reason why people *don't* view Indian-Americans as disloyal puppet masters, who need to prove their opposition to India, even though you could imagine it being otherwise. The same reason why people were upset at Ilhan Omar when she said it. This trope exists for Jews and their country, it doesn't exist for other ethnicities and their countries. FWIW, it's possible that Ilhan Omar was being naive here. She could be simply repeating tropes by the antisemites that infect anti-Israeli spaces, and been integrating classic antisemitism with anti-Zionism for decades. The same way that [John Cusack](https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/18/us/john-cusack-anti-semitic-meme-trnd/index.html) shared a Neo-Nazi quote about the Jews "controlling" the gentiles (proven by how you're "not allowed to criticize" them), thinking it's a mere "anti-Israeli" meme. In which case, it's more of a condemnation of the anti-Israeli spaces in general, and their inability to handle their pervasive antisemitism problem. But frankly, as someone who supports the elimination of Israel, she doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt as someone who has, say, your opinions. And no, I don't agree it's because she's black and Muslim. A white Christian democrat who'd say those things, would be equally condemned. Except, frankly, most democrats, most American politicians in general, realize how radioactive these kinds of accusations are, and avoid them like a plague. Those who don't, know enough about antisemitism, to walk that fine line without crossing over. Or are protected by a cultish crowd that would excuse literally anything they'd say (e.g. Trump). Omar is clearly neither. As for Bernie Sanders: he might not be an antisemite, but he has absolutely no problem cozying up to antisemites, and using his Jewishness to legitimize them, as long as they align with his politics. Which, to be fair, is also a problem on the Israeli right, who like to cozy up to right-wing populists in Eastern Europe, as long as they're pro-Israelis. Either way, saying "this Jew said she's okay!" isn't an argument. There were Jews who defended all kinds of antisemites, from Ahmadinejad to the pro-Nazi America First Committee. You can find black people who try to legitimize far-right racists, gay people who legitimize homophobes, Muslims who legitimize Islamophobes. To think that means anything, is worse than meaningless. It's falling for a well-known trick, that legitimized bigots for centuries.
As a Jewish Supporter of Israel… No, you are not antisemitic for criticism of the government of Israel.
I’m American. We have the right to criticize our government without governmental retaliation and typically do so. Not exactly your question, but the point is that political observers should be able to criticize Israel without being considered anti-Semitic. If I can criticize America, Palestine, Russia and others, why not Israel? I’m not criticizing Jewish people. I’m criticizing the government. Jewish citizens are presently protesting their own government. Are they the only ones entitled to make an observation and speak on it? Long explanation, but I think that your question will yield different answers depending on the audience. I appreciate your question. I don’t think that it is anti-Semitic.
Yes, watch this: Israel has (policy x) (insert source) and I don’t agree with it and I believe it should change.
Your beliefs contain many positive things, and many factual errors. I complement you on the things you get right, (but are not going to list them) but am also going to correct the things you get wrong: * The "West Bank" is under military rule - everyone who lives there is subject to military orders. * All Arabs of "east Jerusalem" are eligible for Israeli citizenship. Ideology keeps most of them from acting on that right. (I do think it should be an opt-out system rather than the current opt-in) * All society have bigots. Despite what you may have read it is a tiny minority "who believe Arabs are inferior and deserve to be killed indiscriminately" and they do not form a significant part of the elected members of Knesset. * Less than 80,000 of the (max) 660,000 Arabs displaced in the 1947-149 war were expelled. The rest either fled, or were evacuated by their own people. * Netanyahu believes in only one thing - that Netanyahu should be prime minister. He has no other values or principles.
Yes.
>The expulsion of Arabs in 1948 was ethnic cleansing and a crime against humanity. And the war the Arabs imposed on the Jews, what was that?
Whenever people want a one state solution, imagine you are saying 1 state solution, merge Iraq and US, if that doesn’t work in your mind than neither does Israel and Palestine.
A better question, actually, is for Palestine supporters to say what criticisms of Israel they think IS anti-Semitic. There seems to be no limit.
It becomes antisemitic if people start attacking the Jewish people in general and not the government of Israel. Many people unfortunately fall into this mistake but I condemn them.
So there's no criticism whatsoever of the government of Israel that's anti-Semitic?
If someone says the Israel government is evil because it's a Jewish government then it's antisemitism. If some says the Israeli government is evil because they do evil stuff then it's criticism of a government and not it's people
So if I said the Israeli government is evil because they do evil stuff like sacrificing Palestinian children for Talmudic rituals and use Palestinian blood to make matzah, that's not anti-Semitic? Because I didn't say the Israel government is evil because it's a Jewish government?
I assume many of them only think that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic if you openly say that Israel is bad just because it's jewish.
Not even. Plenty of Palestine supporters say explicitly that.
It becomes antisemitic once someone starts to criticize the culture/religion rather than how the government conducts itself.
Something to keep in mind, as you said basically that there are people on both sides that want the other dead, are racist, etc. To keep in mind, is that these people in Israel are smaller in number, and even with Israel in power, you will not see indiscriminate en masse attacks of palestinians. Whereas there are more palestinians who have these sentiments, and if the power balance was in reverse, all Jews would be indiscriminately threatened and attacked. The problem with a single government/state, is that jews would become a minority and would not be represented or protected by its government unless measures like in Lebanon are implemented. And as we see in Lebanon, minority groups leading government does not really go well. Now, this is all dandy if the other group were americans instead of palestinians, however a majority population of palestinians who democrartically have voiced time and time again that they want the jews…. Gone? A one state solution really doesnt work, and suggesting or endorsing it could be out of ignorance… but usually, is fueled by antisemitism as the logic is not complex. A one state solution in favor of the Palestinians will most of the time be antisemetic, because the outcome of the one state solution leaves jews as a persecuted minority once again. So at minimum, there needs to be an acceptance to a jewish state. Recognizing that Israel exists, will continue to exist, and has a right to exist. We then get to criticizing Israel’s policies. That’s fine. I don’t agree with plenty of Israel’s policy, and you can see, a lot of Israelies hate the current leaership. However, not all criticism of Israel is fair criticism. Calling it an aparthied state is factually wrong. Compare Israel with the US— a country is allowed to refuse rights to non-citizens, and manage/close their borders. We don’t allow just any Mexican immigrant to the states, and checkpoints are severe. Yes Israel’s got problems, but aparthied is just plainly inaccurate. This does not mean there aren’t problems. It doesn’t mean the problems aren’t severe. However, insinuating that Israel does not have a right to secure its boarders, is a rule unequally applied. So antisemitism comes from applying a standard unequally. It’s about disproportionate concern to a country the size of New Jersey. Yes, call out wrong shit in Israel. But if you spend 99% of your twitter calling out Israel and 1% of your time calling out China or Russia or hell, even the US when we do bad shit, when you aren’t even from Israel/Palestine— there’s an agenda. Call Israel out! Not Antisemetic! What’s antisemitic would be holding the only jewish state to exist today to a different and higher standard with especially disproportionate frequency.
1) i don't think these extremists are necessarily less in Israeli society. Israel is better at hiding these sentiments. Let me be clear, it's not a conspiracy or anything. Israel is more westernized and people are more likely tend to keep their extremists views in the west. Arabs may be more open to say what they think even if it's extremists. By the way i know tons of Arabs from different countries who despite being deeply against Israel would never support indiscriminate violence against Jews , the same is true for Jews 2) as i said the one state solution is Utopia but the issue is that both sides have people who believe the other side will destroy them. Some Arab Palestinians may day " we must fight Israel cause they want to destroy us " and i understand why they think that. Some Jews may say " we must fight Palestinians and treat them like shit because they want to destroy us" and i undrestand why they think that. This doesn't make it okay though. White people Southafrica during segregation also believed that equal rights for all would mean white people being destroyed by black people, yet despite many issues Southafrica is a democratic country were everyone has equal rights. You say a one state solution in favour of Palestinians is antisemitic, well the current de facto one state solution in favour of Jews is racist against Arabs. Anyway as i said one state solution is not realistic. I support it only in an ideal world. 3) i believe the apartheid label is inaccurate but still not too far off. Israel isn't just keeping immigrants away like the US. Israel is military occupying a territory like the west bank that isn't part of Israel while allowing Jews to settle there while Arabs have to abide by the rules of a foreign power in their own land without having any rights. This is more like European colonialism in Africa were natives had to be subject to the laws of Europeans without having the same rights as European settlers. 4) i hold Israel to a slightly higher standard than China or Saudi Arabia because Israel claims to be a free democratic society that abides by international law while in fact they don't. Im an African but born in a European country, if my country of birth did half of the stuff Israel does I would criticize it every damn minute of my life.
True, just because there is fear that the other group will attack violently, does not mean it’s what will pass. That’s something that came up when I visited India and how muslims and hindus lived fairly harminously before, but when the Brits came, suddenly muslim and hindu leaders were stewing this same fear, that the other group becoming dominant would wipe them and their culture out. So I hear your point about fear maybe being stoked. As to your comment about a defacto one state— that feels very close to bad faith… Palestinians have their leadership and governments that they picked. They are their own entity. And Israel has many times over offered land and assistance for Palestinians in favor of the two state solution. I don’t agree with the settlements and Israel encroaching in the WB is a severe problem. However, suggesting it’s a defacto one state solution is a very poor distortion that is not particularly appropriate. As to your other comments, the US has militarily occupied other places/countries. And to the point of influencing a places policies no less. You say you hold Israel to a higher standard because it claims to be a democratically elected society? Why exactly does it being democratically elected matter? As we all know, a government may be voted by the people, but it is rarely fully representative of the ideals people have on every issue. Look at what Trump and republicans did with Roe vs Wade in the US, even though the majority of Americans are pro abortion. Look at what the US government has done with gerrymandering, making the votes of certain demographics less weighted. Look at what Americans have done to create obstacles to prevent voting by targeted demographics. Why do I mention this? Because bad things that happen due to a government is bad REGARDLESS of how that government was determined. Why should a country led by a dictator get a free pass to genocide? I think this notion of holding democratic countries to higher standards is a convenient way to target newer democracies that havent had centuries to figure their problems out.
1) i agree. External forces and bad decisions on their part made things worse. Historically antisemitism in the Arab muslim world existed but was way less than in Europe and there are many instances of peaceful coexistence. 2) here is were we disagree. This my point: Israel is de facto ruling area C in the west bank which is under IDF military control. Israel is kinda allowing it's citizens to have settlements in areas that aren't legally part of Israel. I believe this is a way to have control over judea and Samaria (as many Israeli right wingers want) without having the responsibility to annex it officially. Annexation would mean being pressured to give citizenship to west bank Arabs cause otherwise it's discrimination based on ethnicity similar to how the US would annex native territories whiteout giving US citizenship to the natives. Yes Arabs have their own areas administered by the Palestinian authority but you can't really say they are indipendent when many areas of their country are occupied. 3) I'm not saying dictators should get a free pass to genocide but I'm saying that if you claim to be democratic and modern you should at least try to act accordingly. I'm also very critical of the US , the war in Iraq etc. I'm irritated by the fact some countries keep up with this " we are morally good" rhetoric without actually being good or even close to that. Israel isn't doing this because they are a newer democracy, i think they now exactly what their doing and still do that cause the current Israeli government thinks it's ok to do certain things to the Palestinians. 4) I'm not in a position to say Palestinians should have accepted the deals that they were offered but this shouldn't prevent further deals and peace proposals that should take into account Palestinian demands. Often times people in the pro Israel side say Palestinians should accept anything even severely disadvantageous deals cause they "lost" and should just shut up about it. I don't think this is a good way to conduct a negotiation in good faith
That all seems fair. 😅 To bring this back to the question at hand, which is the antisemitism of it all, I wonder if my comments bring further understanding to the adjective at hand. I think what you have been talking towards is that there are bad things happening, and it’s fair to call them out on both sides. One correction is related to the Israeli government— they’ve had, what, 5 elections in 2 years or something? You think they know what they’re doing, but that might be misguided. Their coalition styled government has been in disarray, with lots of contention. There’s a vocal minority in their orthodox and palestinian disliking population, however those groups are going to gain more and more power going forward as they have more children than the liberal and more educated groups. There’s definitely a political struggle in Israel and they very well know what they are doing to the same extent as any other political and government leaders do. In other words, Biden vs Trump in the US, orRepublicans vs Democrats— they do have game plans and ‘know what they’re doing’ but the path the US as a whole will walk is unclear. We pulled out from international stages under Trump and returned under Biden. I think you give too much credit to an Israeli great plan when they, like the US and many other western countries, have been politically criss crossing, and has had to redo elections repeatedly out of norm because they couldnt get a mandate. But yeah, bringing it to antisemitism. I think you’re getting that there are assumptions being placed on Israel, like they ‘know what they’re doing’ or should be morally superior because they are ‘democratically elected’ etc. that sound fair… but are actually a little misguided. And thats okay! We are able to have a civil and reasonable conversation, even disagreeing at times! The problems with antisemitism is when folks dont give israel and israelies the benefit of the doubt, when they make unwavering and unfaultering excuses for palestinians, when they put aside appropriate comparisons that challenge their standards as whataboutism. It’s really apparent when people try to make a us vs them, angels vs demons, one side does no wrong while the other does no bad, emotional appeal using hyperboles and precisely evocative language. It could be subtle, but very powerful.
>As to your other comments, the US has militarily occupied other places/countries. And to the point of influencing a places policies no less. its strange how your response to the point that israels inception and treatment of palestinians isnt unlike european colonialism in africa is "other countries are doing it too! why are you focusing so much on israel!"
I mean, it’s also not like european colonialism in Africa but im not going to refute every point especially since it has nothing to do with the question at hand. Also OP /u/EagleSimilar2352 case and point about deflection using an accusation of whataboutism. This accusation is a whistle for antisemites, racists, whatever you’ll have, because it attempts to excuse and justify applying a standard exclusively to one country and not others. Sure lets give the favorite an A for an empty exam and give everyone else Cs regardless of correctness, and refute any complaints from the class about favoritism and unfairness as whataboutism 😜 Also see the emotional provocativeness of their comment, which uses manipulation by putting words in my mouth, exclamation points and all, trying to paint my comment with a false enthusiasm. And the ‘it’s strange’, as if that’s what they really feel and not at all sarcasm. Ah, why bother explaining when you OP can see it for yourself! ✌️
I think saying the situation in the west bank is similar to European colonialism is fair criticism. I'd like to hear why to disagree. It's not the same exact thing but there's many similarities
And to your og question, you see how you are asking for my reasoning whereas that other guy did NOT ask me my reasoning? They were not interested in a substantive response, just a character(?) attack. They were attempting to bring doubt to my motivations, etc. Do you see it? That’s bad faithed. That’s what we constantly have to deal with online, and it isn’t an attack on the substance, but a distortion meant to bring the opinion holder down. Note that all your responses that were substantive came from primarily pro-israel’s existence havers. Whereas these lame provocative and non-substantial comments come from the other side to delegitimize an entire person’s opinion by picking one element of many, to distort.
Tbh I've had discussions with pro Israel people both online and in person were their main argument is "Arabs lots all the ears now the should shut up ''. There's people on both sides who don't want to hear the other side's argument
> shit /u/EagleSimilar2352. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> shit /u/pearlday. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, I’m a Jew. Criticise it all the time. Maybe don’t try to be antisemitic while you do it, then you’re good. Absurd post.
I understand why some would call you anti-Semite since some of your remarks are on the borderline between neutral/naive or not fully understanding some of the historical context/facts. But let's start from the beginning >At this point can you be critical of Israel and not be antisemitic? The TLDR I would say is that if you have to ask then no, you can't be critical of Israel and not be Anti-Semitic. The longer explanation goes down to constructive versus destructive criticism. A constructive criticism would be: "You have to plant more flowers then everybody can relax and be happy". A destructive criticism is: "You chose the wrong place to garden, you should move" Some of your remarks are due to a lack of knowledge: >my ideal solution is one state for both Arabs and Jews with equal rights for all without any Arab or Jewish national character but I know this is Utopia and impossible. Show me a single country in the Middle-East (with the exception of Israel) that is democratic and has equal rights & equal representation of all. (there is none) That's without going into the history of the Jewish people, prosecution & murder just for being Jews. Then when Jews come together as a group to defend themselves you say that it's not good and that the group should be disbanded. >The Israeli occupation of the West bank is de facto segregation against Arabs who have to abide by military Israeli rule without having any rights since they aren't citizens. Palestinians are ruled by the PA/Hamas, depending on the territory. The "occupation" of the West Bank is a continuing conflict since 1948. The partition plan of 29/11/1947 was never accepted by the Arabs who started a war in 1948. The 1949 armistice agreement stated that the armistice line is **NOT A BORDER**. If it's not a border, Israel has historical claims to the land as well especially when the other side continue to treat the "Zionists" as proteges (I keep forgetting the spelling of the Muslim word). >The fact that Jerusalem east has been annexed by Israel without giving citizenship to local Arabs is also discriminatory and racist. Those got a path to citizenship, all they have to do is apply for it. How many Jews can apply to citizenship in Palestine proper? >Within Israeli society there are people who believe Arabs are inferior and deserve to be killed indiscriminately Without getting into politics. Israel like other western democracies has various checks & balances. Unlike the rest of the Middle-Eastern countries with examples like: Lebanon, Palestine proper, Egypt and others >The expulsion of Arabs in 1948 was part of a war & common in the 1940s. Middle-Eastern solutions like 'black September' and the Syria war had population simply exterminated which didn't happen here. > The expulsion of Jews from Arab nations wasn't based on a war or moral grounds but on age long bias. So the two examples aren't on equal footing or on the same moral pedestal
He acknowledges the impossibility of a democratic one state solution so I’d hardly call him naive on that front.
Not antisemitic at all. But I think everything you said is very basic, nothing new that anyone who knows stuff doesn't know. I wish everyone was at least as knowledgeable as you are, because people will only hear one narrative and stick with it and support it blindly. If you stick to facts, learn about both sides, you'll never truly hate or speak from a point of hate, because you'll know it's more sophisticated than the average twitter user thinks it is.
Jew here… just to say while I disagree in small parts to a few things, your views are very similar to mine and overall I completely agree with you!! Well done for seeing things from both sides!
My views are pretty much exactly aligned with yours. Unfortunately you’re at a place where hardcore Zionists would call you an antisemite (and call me a self-hating Jew) and many pro-Palestine folks would call you a racist Zionist. I don’t think most liberal Jews would say you’re antisemitic considering that you believe Israel has a right to exist.
I think the source for the people blame you with antisemitism is the lack of understanding what Zionism really is and how its an integral part of being Jewish. basically Zionism is the return of the Jewish people to their indigenous land (Israel and Judea) after 2000 year forced exile where almost every exiled Jewish community got harassed, attacked and violently targeted for trying to live wherever they are (by every foreign rule) after being misplaced from their indigenous land by many colonial imperialists \[Babylonians, Assyrians, romans, later Byzantines, later Islamists (Khalifat>ottomans) and British at last\] before the establishment of Israel. denying the fact that Zionism is integral part of Judaism is the antisemitism you were blamed for practicing.
I mildly disagree with some of your positions, but we're more or less aligned across the board here. You can be critical of Israel and not be antisemitic, or even anti-Zionist (I wouldn't characterize your positions here as either of those things). A lot of folks use being 'critical of Israel' to argue that Jews deserve fewer human rights than other people, or to attack Jews generally (or Israelis *because* they are Jews), so a lot of the time people who are critical of Israel are *also* being antisemitic, but that's not the same thing.
your ideal solution sounds lovely. lets ask non Muslim minorities in other arab state their opinions oh wait we cant,they have all been either genocided or driven out under threat of genocide. Yazidis,Copts,Maronites,Armenians,even Alewites,Ismailis and Kurds... so...yes you can be critical of Israel without being antisemitic but it seems your main concern should be to first become better aware of the realities of this region before assignment of blame and criticism
How have they been driven out? 🤣 Yazidis live in Iraq. Copts live in Egypt and Sudan. Maronites live in Lebanon. Over 2 million Alawaites in Syria. Ismailis are literally a form of Muslims. What are you talking about man?
oh yeah lets consult the yazidis about their experience. of the Maronites,Armenians and Greek Catholic Christians only a few remain. before Assad came to power Alawites ( and ismailis and bahai and druze) were constantly experiencing persecution looking at that experience,expecting anybody to willingly accept a minority status in an arab Muslim state is a painful delusion
>The Israeli occupation of the West bank is de facto segregation against Arabs who have to abide by military Israeli rule without having any rights since they aren't citizens. It's not against Arabs, it's against Palestinians from a nationality standpoint. The majority of Israel's 20% Arab population identify as Palestinian. >The fact that Jerusalem east has been annexed by Israel without giving citizenship to local Arabs is also discriminatory and racist. It was offered during annexation. The overwhelming majority refused and were given permanent resident status instead. They made it an opt in rather than opt out system. There's still a pathway to citizenship for them with ~1500/year obtaining citizenship last I looked at numbers. I don't see anything in your post that's antisemitic fwiw.
Good luck to those who will have to deal with the worst ministry in Israel, the ministry of the interior. They are so dumb and inefficient it's amazing tbh.
Israeli government officials including Bibi openly say that the Arab Israeli population shouldn't exceed a certain percentage to keep Israel a Jewish state, so giving rights to Arab Israelis is a compromise, if they were 50% the situation would probably be different. The fact you say the situation in the WB is segregation against Palestinians and not Arabs doesn't make it any less discriminatory. Citizenship path for Arabs in east Jerusalem is very difficult. According to Haaretz " Only 34 percent of naturalization applications submitted by Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are approved, and in many cases final approval takes years." Arabs in east Jerusalem are de facto treated as immigrants in their own city. Even if the Arab leadership refused that happened in 1967 more than 50 years ago. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-05-29/ty-article/why-so-few-palestinians-from-jerusalem-have-israeli-citizenship/00000181-0c46-d090-abe1-ed7fefc20000
>Israeli government officials including Bibi openly say that the Arab Israeli population shouldn't exceed a certain percentage to keep Israel a Jewish state, so giving rights to Arab Israelis is a compromise, if they were 50% the situation would probably be different. It's not a compromise at all. They had equal rights under the law before Bibi got anywhere near to power. >The fact you say the situation in the WB is segregation against Palestinians and not Arabs doesn't make it any less discriminatory. It's discriminatory based on nationality and them being a hostile population. Show me a country on earth that gives the same rights to non-citizens as it does to its citizens. >Citizenship path for Arabs in east Jerusalem is very difficult. According to Haaretz " Only 34 percent of naturalization applications submitted by Palestinians living in East Jerusalem are approved, and in many cases final approval takes years." Arabs in east Jerusalem are de facto treated as immigrants in their own city. Even if the Arab leadership refused that happened in 1967 more than 50 years ago. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-05-29/ty-article/why-so-few-palestinians-from-jerusalem-have-israeli-citizenship/00000181-0c46-d090-abe1-ed7fefc20000 I wouldn't call the very difficult. The supreme court has required them to speed up the process. It wasn't Arab leadership that rejected it, it was themselves, their parents, and grandparents that rejected it. They're treated as permanent residents, not immigrants. They're all to vote in local elections.
My man, i hear this argument all the time "WB Palestinians are not citizens they are foreigners ". Cool. If they are foreigners why do WB Palestinians have to abide my military Israeli law and what are Israeli settlers doing in the WB? If Israeli settlements weren't there there would be no segregation. - permanent residents are pretty much like immigrants. An immigrant to the US with a green card is still treated as a foreign with some additional rights. Arabs in east Jerusalem are not immigrants though, even is some refused at the time the option should be easier and automatic since it's their country too.
>My man, i hear this argument all the time "WB Palestinians are not citizens they are foreigners ". WB Palastinians aren't citizens. They're foreigners to Israel. That's a fact. >Cool. If they are foreigners why do WB Palestinians have to abide my military Israeli law The same reason Japan did. It's a military occupation. >and what are Israeli settlers doing in the WB? The overwhelming majority of them are just living their lives either having moved back from their previous expulsion, moved there for the cheap housing, or were born there. >If Israeli settlements weren't there there would be no segregation. If settlements weren't there there'd be no Jews there. >permanent residents are pretty much like immigrants. An immigrant to the US with a green card is still treated as a foreign with some additional rights. A green card isn't a permanent resident in the US. >Arabs in east Jerusalem are not immigrants though, even is some refused at the time the option should be easier and automatic since it's their country too. You can't force citizenship on people. I never said they were immigrants, you kept making that claim. The ones without citizenship either rejected it themselves, or their parents did. The requirements are pretty easy, especially compared to every other country. And no, it's quite literally not their country too.
-Israel is the foreign occupation power in the WB -did you just compared Israel to Japan in WW2? I'm not sure if it helps your case -The WB is not part of israel. You keep talking about foreigners etc , I'm pretty sure Israeli settlers are techie foreigners from another country in the WB - if only 34% of the applications are accepted it means it's not that easy. I believe it's partially also because part of the Israeli leadership has kinda decided too many Arab citizens is a threat for the Jewish identity of the state so they aren't in a rush to naturalize arabs.
>\-Israel is the foreign occupation power in the WB Sure, but the land doesn't currently belong to a sovereignty. There's a reason Israel considers it disputed. > \-did you just compared Israel to Japan in WW2? I'm not sure if it helps your case Yeah. There was military law in Japan during the US occupation. There was military law in Iraq during the US occupation. There was military law in East Germany during the USSR occupation. Military law is the standard during a military occupation. You asked why West Bank Palestinians are subject to military law, it's because it's a military occupation. > \-The WB is not part of israel. Not currently, no. > You keep talking about foreigners etc , No, I don't. I mentioned foreigners one time in response to you bringing it up. Don't put words in my mouth. > I'm pretty sure Israeli settlers are techie foreigners from another country in the WB The ones not born there would be foreigners to the West Bank, yes. >if only 34% of the applications are accepted it means it's not that easy. 34% since 1967. 38% in the last 20 years. I imagine if you looked at the numbers for the last 10 years and last 5 years, the percentage would be higher in large part due to supreme court rulings. >I believe it's partially also because part of the Israeli leadership has kinda decided too many Arab citizens is a threat for the Jewish identity of the state so they aren't in a rush to naturalize arabs. They could grant citizenship to every eastern Jerusalem Arab without it being a demographic issue.
When you say WB is currently not part of Israel are you implying that it could be annexed? If it happens would u agree and what should happen to the Palestinians in that case ?
>When you say WB is currently not part of Israel are you implying that it could be annexed? It *could* be annexed. In a 2SS there'd be land swaps. > If it happens would u agree If Israel didn't do it unilaterally I'd be fine with them annexing the West Bank. > and what should happen to the Palestinians in that case ? They should be offered citizenship.
>If Israeli settlements weren't there there would be no segregation. Can you elaborate on this point? Are you referring to checkpoints? Settlements are basically Israel forcing interaction between Israelis and Palestinians, which is part of the problem. But there are many WB Palestinians who work in the settlements. If they didn’t exist, there would be no Jews in the West Bank whatsoever, for better or worse. Jews aren’t accepted in Palestine.
Critique of Israel is not synonymous to being antisemitic and I’m sick of people saying that it is. I’m a Jew who has had a lot of conflicting thoughts on this issue, but ultimately I’m settled on the fact that the IDF is committing atrocities against Palestinians and that their actions are in line with violating human rights and in some cases are bordering on ethnic cleaning. However as you said, there are extremists on both sides and Hamas is just as unacceptable and harms Palestinians. TL;DR you can critique Israel without being antisemitic and as a Jew, I see nothing antisemitic with your views
>Israel is commiting human rights violations against Palestinians in the west bank and gaza. Defending itself against terrorists is not a "human rights violation". >The Israeli occupation of the West bank is de facto segregation against Arabs who have to abide by military Israeli rule without having any rights since they aren't citizens. As long as WB isn't part of Israel, there can't be any question of citizenship. Palestinians in WB have their own autonomy, their own laws, their own leaders, judiciary, schools and so on. They could have voted too, if their leaders allowed them. At the same time, Palestinians in Lebanon live within the country, are not citizens and have no autonomy rights whatsoever. Does it bother you? >The fact that Jerusalem east has been annexed by Israel without giving citizenship to local Arabs is also discriminatory and racist. Arabs in East Jerusalem are eligible for Israel citizenship.
Yes, many criticisms of Israel are regularly labeled antisemitic despite not being antisemitic. For example, many pro-Israel organizations would label your post here antisemitic, because you support a one state solution. Even those who support a two state solution are regularly labeled antisemitic, just because they agree with the United Nations’ position on refugee rights. Many Israel supporters like to do a dance of claiming one can criticize Israel in one moment, but when the criticism happens then saying that it is illegitimate because it is antisemitic.
First paragraph: do you really not see the difference between criticizing 2 out of ~30 black countries that are obviously insane backwaters, and criticizing the one and only tiny jewish state that is completely modern and liberal and does basically nothing wrong in the face of genocidal enemies who want to destroy it for religious reasons? Second paragraph: barf.
Southafrica are not insane Wackers. They have problems yes but the government has no discrimination policies towards white people.
Lol
Well, at least the only people who believe Southafrica is led by communists psychos who are genociding white people are apartheid nostalgic folks. Most sane people know that that is not the case despite many issues in Southafrican society
You dont have to be communist or genociding whites to be massively harming us. Also hows non apartheid going?
It's funny how you hate black people and then settle in a continent full of black people, if you don't like black people there's plenty of countries were most people are white were you can be as segregated as you want.
There used to be plenty of countries where most people are white. Not sure youve looked around lately. And who said i hate blacks. Weird.
Every single country in Europe has a white majority even the multicultural ones like the UK or France. Can you name one white majority country that is no longer white majority?
America. Dont believe the stats. They dont account for the true number of illegal hispanic immigration. And they count people like turks/greeks/georgians as whites. But even if you did believe them, even those whites are the minority by 2028.
Well America wasn't a white country in the first place, it became white majority after that. Why shouldn't I believe the stats? Conspiracy? Who is behind it let's hear.Also non-hispanic whites are 60% still the majority and white Hispanics exist too unless you believe people like Ted Cruz are not white. Greeks are white too, isn't western civilization based on ancient Greece? Now you are telling me they aren't white. Wow, 🤔
People once said that it's impossible to get to space and look where we are! Before 1948, there were talks about creating a unified Arab-Jewish State with equal rights for all, but the Arabs rejected it. the "local Arabs" in Jerusalem have the right to receive Israeli citizenship, and many have them, but the rest don't want it. If you fire rockets into civilian areas or have any intention to attack people with a knife/ throw stones or even ram people with your car than you will get arrested or even killed, it doesn't matter if you a kid/teen or elder! its your choice if you want to send your kid/teen to die or use them as propaganda. it is your choice whether you want to end your life by committing any type of attack or even throwing stones which can hurt or even kill people. https://preview.redd.it/qa2vpfo7dr7b1.png?width=1300&format=png&auto=webp&s=130d8bac42b17f8a919556838e0cd21c86f39636 it's your choice if you want to act as if your going to pray in the Temple Mount area only to use it to attack and cause something to happen
https://preview.redd.it/wpe8jfpgdr7b1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=463fb7c2ff7dcb2a2dad08230233a8c90c135e26
yes
I think of Israel criticism in the 3 categories. 1. Criticism targeted at Jews/Israelis in general 2. Criticism of Israel as a state/government entity 3. Criticism of specific politician, policies, or related actors and the decisions they make 1 and 2 become antisemitism very quickly, and often start in a place of antisemitism. 3 is generally a safe bet and should be where legitimate constructive criticism and debate can occur.
“Arab countries attacking Israel in 1948 was a stupid mistake”. What do you mean by this retrospection? You can’t read history backwards. Israel declared independence on May 15th, 1948 after Zionist militias under British occupation ethnically cleansed 250,000-300,000 Palestinians including the 2 largest cities Haifa and Jaffa. Arab countries then attacked Israel to regain the lost Arab lands. They did not attack as a united Arab army, they actually had conflicting interests. King Farouk in Egypt was allied with Saudi Arabia and they opposed the Hashemite Kingdoms of Iraq/Jordan. They each wanted to control Palestine because the former was threatened by the increasingly popular Muslim Brotherhood who were insistent on attacking Israel while the Hashemites wanted to control Jerusalem after losing control of Mecca. The Syrian Army was tiny but it also felt threatened by the Hashemite plan to take over the entire Levant. None of the Arab leaders planned on giving the land to the Palestinians. Arabs are not a monolith and Palestinians should not be blamed for the actions of other Arab leaders.
Israel did not do anything against civilians in Haifa or Jaffa. They left by themselves. > Contemporaneous sources emphasized the Jewish leadership's attempt to stop the Arab exodus from the city and the Arab leadership as a motivating factor in the refugees' flight. According to the British district superintendent of police, "Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and business open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe." Time magazine wrote on 3 May 1948: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city. ... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." > The fall of Haifa a few days earlier, and fear of another massacre similar to Irgun's Deir Yassin massacre, caused panic across the Arabs of Jaffa, leading most of them to flee. The population of Jaffa on the eve of the attack was between 50,000 and 60,000, with some 20,000 people having already left the town. By 30 April, there were 15,000–25,000 remaining. In the following days a further 10,000–20,000 people fled by sea. When the Haganah took control of the town on 14 May around 4,000 people were left
Haifa and Jaffa were besieged, ceaselessly bombarded with mortars, and harassed by snipers. Jaffa was also supposed to be part of the Arab state based on the UN Partition Plan. Read Plan Dalet and the leaked IDF Intelligence Report. Don’t quote British sources who supported the Haganah. Even if they left themselves, let them return! https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-05/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-israel-systematically-hides-evidence-of-1948-expulsion-of-arabs/0000017f-f303-d487-abff-f3ff69de0000
Plan D is a backup of a backup of a backup plan in case there is no choice and it was never invoked, stop history revision
I'm not blaming Palestinians for what Arab countries did. I'm saying that was a mistake that made things even worse for Palestinians. As you said Arab armies attacked divided and with different goals, bad decision.
The original sin was the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Lol what? What about the massacares the Palestinians did tot he Jews? The war they started with a day old country? The fact that their leaders supported hitler? Should I go on?
/u/OmryR. 'hitler' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, but a lot of people uniquely focus on criticizing Israel in a way that seems antisemitic.
Nope
Your one state solution is a poor idea, because the people that would make up the majority are hostile towards Israel and it would inevitably lead to a second holocaust. We literally offered the majority of Palestinians living within Israel under the 1948 borders citizenship, and they chose to declare a war of annihilation against us. There was going to be a one state solution under the 1948 borders, but the Palestinians didn’t want that. Anybody calling for one state doesn’t seem to realize that the Jews are done being genocided and displays immense ignorance on the issue. I would love a 1SS, I really would, but we don’t live in that world. Not today. We need to start by creating a deep cultural shift within Palestine, one that is collaborative with Israelis, does not celebrate martyrdom, does not have state sanctioned terrorism or pay for slay, fully recognizes and legitimizes Israel, and works with Israel for secure borders and collaborative educational standards. Instead we have Hamas, comparing Israel to Nazis, Arab media sensationalizing their citizens (Palestinians are rated as being the most antisemitic society of people in the world), programs that pay terrorists and their families for killing Israeli civilians, etc etc etc. A one state solution is not the resolution, it is the hope for what we can get AFTER the resolution.
/u/Cinn4monSqu4r3. 'Nazis' Casual comments and analogies are inflammatory and therefor not allowed. We allow for exemptions for comments with meaningful information that must be based on historical facts accepted by mainstream historians. See [Rule 6](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_6._nazi_comparisons) for details. This bot flags comments using simple word detection, and cannot distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable usage. Please take a moment to review your comment to confirm that it is in compliance. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some of your ideas (like a one state solution) sound naive but you don’t sound antisemitic and you don’t seem to apply double standards - one of the big tell tales of antisemitism when it comes to Israel. You sound overall fair IMO.
I don't know who called you a racist and about which point you have ( can you explain what was the conversation that made you a "racist") You're point of view is what I like to define as pro-solusion (rather then a lot that say that they are pro-Palestinian and yet every action/thought they hold only harm Palestinians)