This is, of course, one of the big complicating factors in discussions of the current war: one side calling out what they see as antisemitism and the other accusing the first side of trying to deflect legitimate criticism by crying antisemitism.
One issue is that both of these things do indeed happen. Some people care more about hurting Jews than helping Palestinians, and others do weaponize accusations of antisemitism. One difficulty I’ve had throughout this debate is trying to figure out whether and when certain arguments or beliefs really are antisemitic.
For example, the word “Zionist.” It seems to me that people often use it assuming that everyone shares their definition, which causes a lot of misunderstandings. And that’s before it gets into judgment values. Like, is believing that Israel as a nation needs to be dismantled and the land given to Palestine inherently antisemitic? Does disagreeing make you a “Zionist” who is therefore evil? How does someone who thinks “Zionist” means “supporter of the current Israeli government and their actions in Gaza” interact with that side? Who is more “right” in their definition? Is the term meaningful?
Another recent example is the Ed Sheeran / Macklemore situation, which I won’t get into here, but you can look it up. The big confounding factor for me is that Macklemore has faced criticism for dressing up like this at a concert. Does this incident reasonably imply that he’s antisemitic? Does this taint his advocacy for Palestine to any degree? Does it taint the average person’s support of him for that advocacy? Does it mean that his removal from the tour was justified (though Sheeran’s statement after doesn’t seem to make any reference to this)?
I don’t want to limit discussion to these specific issues, but they’re good examples of the complex web of emotions, history, politics, and human rights that complicates this whole thing. When does opposition to genocide become antisemitism? When does criticism of antisemitism become genocide apologia? Because I do believe that both are do happen and are problematic, but the lines get so blurry and personal that I wonder if there’s any reasonable standard or sign.
IMO, criticizing Israel’s government is fine, as is their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and their tolerating the settler movement.
When you start suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state, then you’ve crossed the line.
Wearing a costume like that certainly indicates that he’s a dumbass, but I don’t think he’s antisemitic - it’s not any more offensive than some of the costumes Sacha Baron Cohen has worn when performing incognito, which was apparently what he was doing when he wore it - it was a surprise concert at the EMP Museum (now the Museum of Pop Culture) in Seattle. Honestly, I’m surprised Ed Sheeran is getting so much blowback for making a straightforward business decision to drop him from the tour because the venues he had booked were objecting to Macklemore performing there.
It becomes anti-Semitic the moment the criticism becomes about the Jewish people themselves rather than something about Israel or Israeli policies/government.
Also, there is nothing wrong with criticizing certain practices/attitudes by certain Jewish groups. The Haredim, for instance, deserve every bit of the scorn they get for their welfare/mooching/exemption-from-IDF/delusional attitudes. But it’s not anti-Semitic since it’s a behavior they can change, as opposed to some immutable physical characteristic that’s out of their control.
How about the Israeli people? Most Israelis don’t want prosecutions for Israeli guards who rape or sodomize male prisoners. And they seem to entirely ignore the UN’s claims that rape of females is SOP for Israeli military forces during raids or detentions.
Is that the Jewish state most non-Israeli Jews want? I very much doubt it. And I don’t think it’s antisemitic to say that I don’t want my government supporting it.
Is it ever OK to hate a nationality? Can I hate the Palestinians as a whole for the actions of Hamas?
First of all, we ignore it because it’s not true. You can believe what you want - the soldiers fighting in Gaza are our children, our brothers and sisters, and our parents, and if they say they don’t rape people, we believe them. And as usual with Hamas’s useful idiots, every accusation is a confession. Hamas raped Israelis, documented it on tape, and distributed the footage. So what do their allies do? They fabricate accusations against us to deflect. It’s predictable bullshit.
The sodomy incident did happen. It was a total shitshow that reflected very poorly on our government, our legal system and parts of our society, but it was an isolated incident. The fact that such a big deal was made of it is proof of how rare it was.
My country’s founding document declares that one of the founders’ grievances against the king was that he had exposed us to the terrors of “merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions”, so I can’t claim any moral superiority on that point, but I feel like it’s a lot more productive to direct one’s anger towards the Hamasniks who are exploiting their people and convincing them that murdering teenagers at raves in the name of driving the Jews into the sea is a cause worth dying for than at the ordinary people being used as pawns by people who aren’t risking anything themselves.
It was a rhetorical question - of course hating a nationality is wrong. The problem is, after a while NOT hating someone can really, really hard. I don’t blame the Palestinians for hating us, just as I don’t blame Israelis for hating Palestinians - there’s been too much blood, too much pain, too much fear for either of us to be dispassionate about the subject, although that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
The people I do blame, however, are the foreigners - Americans, Europeans, others - who think that someone else’s pain gives them the right to hate us. You want to help? Help, but do so from the place of logic and reason those of us with skin in the game sometimes have a hard time finding.
We don’t and probably can’t know whether, and how often, this kind of thing might have happened in other cases with no video evidence. Like seeing a single bug means there’s a good chance you have an infestation, this single incident being discovered may mean there are many others that remain undiscovered.
I cannot speak for anyone, but if, say, the U.S. military announces that the sky is blue, that requires multiple independent investigations to confirm. Not because you do not believe them, or do not believe that the sky is blue, but because of a quis custodiet… situation. I would assume that applies everywhere. That does not really have anything to do with Israel.
That applies quadruply to anything announced by or accusations leveled by Hamas (as opposed to a disinterested or credible source or whistleblower) where you can pretty much assume they are lying. In fact, there is so much documented/official material concerning actual military procedure in Gaza (e.g., blowing up civilian structures, just to pick one controversial yet documented urban-warfare topic) to occupy historians and military scientists in debates for a while, and paying attention to spurious accusations does not help at all.
IMO recent history has demonstrated that Netanyahu’s government (and Trump’s, for that matter) is just as fast and loose with the truth as Hamas. These are all the lyingest of the liars, and I don’t trust a single thing any of them say without independent confirmation.
I saw an argument the other day that stated the Zioinists (political operatives) -and- the citizens of Israel are predominantly Ashkenazi, and that the Palestinians are the historical/genetic Semites. It confused the heck out of me. Is this true?
Any cites that can set me straight would be greatly appreciated.
The only way a one-state solution could work is if it were something along the Belgian/Lebanese model, where the Jewish and Arab regions were fully autonomous and the national government was constitutionally guaranteed to be a neutral union of representatives from both regions. Otherwise it’s just a pogrom with extra steps.
It is for sure bullshit, starting from the fact that a minority of Jews, let alone citizens, in Israel are “Ashkenazi”, whatever that is interpreted to mean. As for talking about who is a True Semite, let alone bringing genetics into it, that is some racist [dare we say anti-semitic?] stuff to distract from important issues.
If you want a link to a publication, this one, based on some surveys, finds that Ashkenazi Jews constitute 31.8% of the Jewish sub-groups in their sample (in 2018), though you really have to read the introduction carefully in order to interpret the results.
I like the confederation idea - similar to the EU. Two states, two peoples, two governments, complete freedom of movement within those two states. Palestinians are free to “return” and live under the laws of the Israeli state. Settlers can stay (there may be some exceptions for recent theft and violence and such), though they’ll be under the laws of the Palestinian state, and will have Palestinian neighbors whose rights they will be bound by Palestinian law and authority to respect.
Obviously a pipe dream right now. Any sort of peace is a pipe dream right now, with this Israeli government. But we can dream.
Though your average Haredi Jew would counter that the so-called welfare/mooching/exemption-from-IDF part is unavoidable given their religious beliefs and related practices: raising large families so as to “be fruitful and multiply,” abstaining from military service to “study Torah day and night.” All of which is theoretically “behavior they can change”…
Anyone’s religious beliefs are “something they can change”, but complaining about someone’s religion is not cool. However, if someone’s religious, or other, beliefs, become someone else’s problem, one can complain about that.
I compare it to “playing the race card” in Black and white discussions. I’ve discovered that, when one side runs out of legitimate points of discussion, they play the race card. On the other hand, race is definitely the key factor in other issues. When it gets to that point, you have to decide whether race is definitely a legitimate point to raise, or whether it is an act of desperation designed to save a losing argument.