Northern Ireland, in my example, is equivalent to the “settlement blocks”, the areas near the Green Line where the vast majority of Jews in the Territories live. If Israel withdrew from most of the territories while annexing these areas - which is what will eventually happen, IMHO - then their inhabitants, being Jewish, will in fact be Israeli citizens and will indeed wish to remain part of Israel.
That’s the parallel here. The Brits once illegally occupied all of Ireland, and after reaching a compromise with the IRA retreated from most of the land, while keeping the largest “settlements” in their possession. It’s not exactly the same as Israel/Palestine, but it’s pretty close.
Great. You don’t see someone smearing an ethnic group as an “evil cult” as problematic … but you do see smearing the person who says that as a bigot as problematic?
What, exactly, would someone have to do, before you’d be willing to label 'em as a bigot?
Oh OK. So the non “settlement block” parts of the Occupied Territories have representation in the Knesset then at the moment? The residents there are citizens of Israel? Are there Israeli army units, for example, made up from the non “settlement block” parts of the Occupied Territories?
What makes the situation different is that there was an attempt to bring the geographical entity of Ireland into a united political structure. That attempt was unsuccessful, because the people who lived in a large part of that geographical entity did not want it. The attempt should have been stopped earlier, but it was stopped. Israel has never to my knowledge made any attempt to bring the Occupied Territories into Israel proper, though you I am sure know more of the history than I do and I stand to be corrected if wrong.
I said it wasn’t a perfect analogy. Israel never offered voting rights to the Palestinians in the West Bank because unlike the British, it never annexed the vast majority of the Territories - something the world would never have allowed it to do even if Israel had ever formulated a coherent policy as to whether it intended to hold on to the Territories permanently . In the one small portion of the Territories it did annex, East Jerusalem, the inhabitants were indeed granted (or at least offered - I believe many refused) full voting rights.
Which is what makes it a terrible analogy. I know you wanted to bust on the British because you were arguing with ivan. It just was a singularly bad way to do it and undermined your argument, IMHO.
I think it’s a pretty good analogy, actually. The Irish got most - but not all - of what they considered their ancestral homeland because they were willing to compromise; and the world accepted this solution, not because it was “just”, but because it was practical.
Anybody who speaks Arabic as their first language = Arab, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not like the Egyptian fellahin are descended from Arabian Bedouin, either. The Druze can just suck it on this one ;).
His opinions, including his sarcastic “suppose ifs” are all based on conduct/policy of Israelis. At least that is what I’m seeing. Remove comments centralized on Israel, and he seems to have no problem with Jews.
Israel is not immune from criticism for its policies, nor is accusing its critics of anti-Semitism a legitimate defense: it’s an ad hominem attack.
Actually, it’s perfectly valid if the person in question is in fact an anti-Semite. That some people throw accusations of anti-Semitism around willy-nilly doesn’t mean that there are no anti-Semites. Al Sharpton likes to throw accusations of racism around even when it isn’t a factor. That doesn’t mean actual racism doesn’t exist.
Calling a bigot a bigot isn’t an ad hom, it is simply accurate.
The fact that someone happens to be anti-Israel is not a free pass on bigotry, or at least, it should not be.
‘I hate Jews [because of Israel]’ is no more acceptable than ‘I hate Jews [because they killed Christ]’ or ‘I hate Jews [because they are all hook-nosed money-lenders]’.
Your opinion is the equivalent of ‘Remove comments centralized on money-lending , and he seems to have no problem with Jews.’ The fact is that even if one accepts that he’s 100% correct in his opinions on Israel, he’s still a bigot - for the simple reason that he equates the two (Jews and Israel) quite improperly, just as in previous eras bigots like him used to equate Jews with other things they disliked, such as money-lending.
Myself, I have nothing against money-lending as a profession; some of my best friends are bankers. I’d still have problems with someone who does, and claims all Jews are somehow ‘tarred’ with the practice, and that as a result Judaism should be replaced with “alternatives”. :rolleyes:
I don’t see the snideness there. He feels that Judaism is, at its most basic, no better or worse than any other religion, but that its appeal and applicability to modern life is diminished by what he perceives as its insistence on unquestioning support for the actions of the government of the political state of Israel.
I could say similar things about Christianity (pick a denomination). Does that mean that I hate Christians?
Clearly not. As I’ve stated twice now, I could not care less what this fellow (or indeed anyone) thinks about Israel.
My assertion is that someone who outright states that all Jews are tarred by the fact that all Jews unquestioningly support Israel, and thus that Judaism itself should be replaced by its “alternatives”, is a bigot.
See the difference there?
You stated position is the equivalent of someone saying "so, anyone who declares their hatred for moneylenders is a bigot, then?’ if I had a problem with ‘all Jews are tainted by their moneylending habits, and Judaism should be replaced’.
No “intuition” on my part is needed here. He’s simply a bigot.
OK, I think. Your first example (all Jews are tarred by their unquestioning support of Israel) I get. Your second money-lending one confuses the shit out of me.
On the continuum of “government of Israel, Israeli citizens, Israeli Jewish Citizens, Jews…”, I am happy to express my displeasure with the first while having no problem in general terms with any of the others.
Sorry if I bugged you; I have seen many arguments which have blurred the distinction between specific actions of Israelis (government, prominent citizens, local-grown idiots) and “hatred” for followers of Judaism.
Judaism and Christianity are not synonimous - Judaism is an ethinicty as well as a religion; hence, thyere are many Jewish atheists (not so many “Christian atheists”).
Hence, it is no answer for a Jew-hating bigot that their hatred is simply a species of atheism.
It is clear the target of the OP is using “Judaism” in this sense, as an ethnic group identifier, and not as some critique of religion. Consider:
The term “American Judaism” is an identifier of ethnicity, not religion. If an American Jewish Atheist supports Israel, are you of the opinion s/he’s not included here?
The appropriate comparator is ethnicity, not religion. The equivalent is ‘who would be Armenian? The soul of their evil is … X’.
Are you seriously contending that the above is not indicative of anti-Armenian bigotry? Assiging a “soul of evil” to an entire ethnicity?
The reason I threw it in is to demonstrate by example that the issue isn’t one having to do with “Israel”. You could replace “Israel” with any one of a number of other traditional reasons to hate Jews, without thereby changing the meaning one bit.
If I was to assign a “soul of evil” to an entire ethnicity based on some cause, it really doesn’t matter what that cause is. Arguing about whether that cause is, or is not, actually evil misses the point - that you can’t tar an entire people with it regardless.
I’d still have problems with someone who does, and claims all Jews are somehow ‘tarred’ with the practice, and that as a result Judaism should be replaced with “alternatives”. :rolleyes: