And one can also note that the historical trend seems to have been for Zionism to look less and less like Babale and more and more like Smotrich over time without being antisemitic. And if one believes that this was not just an unfortunate historical development, but a predictable result of Zionist ideology, it would be perfectly appropriate to “hate Zionism”.
Yes it is. It is the equal of black face and nothing Sacha Baron Cohen has done has been in that ballpark. It is horribly offensive.
Double standard can be tricky. First no two situations are actually the same and it is therefore impossible to really apply without a biased filter. Second is it can easily slip into whataboutism. Third sometimes we are concerned more about what is in our face, and innocently care less about what we don’t know too much about or see. Lastly is that the Western eye may apply standards more stringently to another perceived Western group and give a more different group a pass. That is unfair and a negative view of the not Western group maybe, in this case some Arabs and Muslims, but not antisemitism.
Long term solution at this point is very long term. I suspect Israel becomes a failed state at some point, not due to external conflict, but because of the ultra Orthodox eventually getting enough power that more educated secular Israelis leave, and with them the economy. Also a long time fan of a two state confederation working to mutual benefit, but that is becoming harder to see a path to.
FWIW I find many individual Israelis and many individual Orthodox to be annoying. But I also find many other specific people of certain cultures annoying. Not hating the groups as groups though.
To the OP - really good point
Some people shout things like “from the river to the sea” ignorant that it was originally a call for genocide of Jews and is heard by many as such. “Zionism” to many of us has always simply meant Israel has a right to exist and anti Zionism was a call to erase it. Now its meaning is shifting but the meaning of each is different to different groups.
And yes it is very tricky because many conflate Israel and Jews, especially antisemites.
That example is obvious sure. Some less so.
…one could make literally exactly the same argument word for word about whatever the one word Palestinian nationhood equivalent to Zionism is and terrorism, not just in and against Israel but in Jordan and Lebanon as well. One could argue that this is not just an unfortunate historical development, but a predictable result of Palestinian nationhood ideology. Would you say that it’s “perfectly appropriate” to hate the very concept of Palestinian nationhood based on this violent history?
I really don’t think you would say that.
And to be clear “Free Palestine.” even when shouted by a known Jew hater, is not an antisemitic statement.
It should also be pointed out that bad actors on both sides want the line between legit criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism to remain as blurred and murky as possible, because it’s beneficial to both. This way, the Israeli-atrocity-defenders can try to shut up all critiques, and the anti-Semites can claim they’re just holding Israel properly accountable. Clarity on the issue would handicap both sides.
Given the first sentence here (which, obviously, I believe is false), then yes, the second would be “perfectly appropriate”.
This is a good point, and why I believe the current Israeli government should be seen more as allies than opponents of Hamas, functionally speaking - they’re both part of the “forever bloodshed” party.
To the extent that “Palestinian nationhood ideology” is defined as “implacable commitment to the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Palestine”, sure, it is hate-worthy.
Agreed. Completely failed. But in a way that makes me strongly suspect the current administration. Who, we can agree, is not particularly interested in respecting human rights of Palestinians.
I disagree. I think double standard can be extremely telling.
I mean, is that all that Macklemore did?
He didn’t just say “Free Palestine”, he gave a whole speech. At one point, he praised a group called CUAD.
What kind of views does CUAD promote? Let’s see what they had to say on, for example, on the 1 year anniversary of Oct 7:
There is no way to read that as anything but exceedingly antisemitic.
When a known Jew hater torpedoes a tour in order to give a group like that a shout-out, I’m not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Well, but that’s exactly my point.
Conflating either Zionism or Palestinian Nationhood with the most extreme, revanchist, ethnic cleansing enthusiastic branches of either ideology is biggoted.
Doing so for one side but not the other (as extremists on both sides do) is doubly so.
Sure. Saying you hate Evangelical Christians is also bigoted. But in all three cases, there is a real problem with the extreme branches having a very loud voice, which makes the situation different than it is for most analogous groups.
This seems absurd to me. Any religion must be open to discussion and criticism, otherwise the most ridiculous beliefs will become normalised. Blasphemy and heresy are among humanity’s basic rights.
Are you saying that hating Zionists/Palestine-Nation-Desirers/Evangelicals IS biggoted but it’s also OK because their bad beliefs justify it?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on their definition of “Palestine”. And of “free”, for that matter.
But that goes both ways. One side can be making legitimate arguments to which the other side has no good response, and so they claim “they’re playing the race card” even though they aren’t.
No, I am definitely not saying it is OK. But I am saying it is not surprising that strongly negative opinions about these groups are more common than negative opinions about, say, Belgians or Unitarians.
I think in some circumstances a “retaliatory” hatred is acceptable. The whole “I hate you because you are x, y, or z” is wrong. But I have no problem with “I hate you because you hate me”.
Criticism and blasphemy are fine. When it comes to arguing that government policy should aim at preventing or discouraging some group of people from practicing their cultural/religious beliefs, that’s much touchier. Although obviously there are extreme cases where that is necessary; human sacrifice and pedophilia can’t be tolerated in the name of cultural diversity (In the case of the Haredim, despite their frantic claims to the contrary, what is at stake is not their right to practice their religion, but their right to have that practice actively subsidized by others).
Extreme, yes. But I’m asking about antisemitic, and this is a position commonly found in discussions of colonial powers. Is wanting to give America back to Native Americans inherently anti-white?
And I note that “Zionism” has come up in this discussion without explicit agreement on a definition. Which are y’all using?