zlacker

>>anigbr+(OP)
I have no skin in this game.

What I have seen is a confusion (perhaps intentional) between anti-semitism, and protesting Israel’s behavior since the Hamas attack in October.

Criticizing Israel’s response is not anti-Semitism- it is literally just criticizing the response.

>>Scubab+2n
Israel and pro-Israel commentators have spent a lot of time and effort trying to ingrain the idea that Israel == Jews. Of course, not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis are Jews. And there are many Jewish Israelis who are critical of the actions of the Israeli government.

Of course, a lot of criticism of Israel is rooted in antisemitism. But saying all criticism of Israel is antisemitic deflects legitimate criticism, and makes it harder to identify legitimate antisemitism.

>>ARandu+2t
> But saying all criticism of Israel is antisemitic deflects legitimate criticism

Who is saying this? All I've heard are people on one side insisting that people are saying this, sounds like a straw man

>>matrix+Cu
This isn't exactly the same, but it's pretty close. Here's Nikki Haley tweeting: "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. No federal funds for schools that don't combat antisemitism." [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley/status/1720501916088590704

>>the_ga+iw
Anti-Zionism is asserting that the Jewish state should not exist in the land of Israel. It _is_ antisemitism. You can criticize current Israeli government and it's certain actions, while acknowledging Israel's right to exist and defend its existence.

There are plenty of people in Israel who are opposed to Netanyahu and were protesting against him before the war started, but don't doubt that destroying Hamas is justified.

>>oytis+KP
Israel is an implementation detail, not a requirement. No state has a right to exist: people have rights, not states.

>>8note+oW
It is about people. Jews have right for their own state and the right to defend it.

>>oytis+zY
Are Palestinians not people? What rights should they have?

>>cogman+I71
They absolutely deserve their own state as soon as they make peace with Israel

>>oytis+r72
Interesting. So having a state isn't a right. Or are you saying Palestinians are not people?

What does "making peace" with Israel look like? Why don't you consider the West Bank to be at peace with Israel?

Was modern Israel established by making peace with its occupants?

>>cogman+Tb2
It is a right. But if your state attacks another state and loses, you are going to be occupied, tough luck, consider not attacking anyone next time.

Israel was established by consent of the legal owner of Palestine that day, British Empire, and was attacked by what you would call Palestinians today (Arabs living in former British Palestine) on the first day of existence - and never had a day of peace since then.

I in all honesty don't know what peace could look like today. It should embrace recognition of State of Israel in its borders (that's the easy part, but was never delivered from the Arab side) and realistic guarantees that it will not be attacked again (that one is hard).

>>oytis+ni2
> But if your state attacks another state and loses

What state attacked what state?

Gaza is not a state, Hamas is not a state government, it's a terrorist organization.

But also, what of the West bank, which has been at peace with Israel for decades. Why don't the Arabs living there have rights? Why are they without state? Because of the actions of terrorists in gaza? Should you share a punishment because you share an ethnicity?