"Antisemitism and anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli sentiment and opposition to the Israeli government overlap, of course, but they are four distinct things."
Here's the definition of Zionism, as understood by Zionists. You can argue that not all Zionists follow the ideals, but that does not change what Zionism means.
"Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future."
So if you are anti-Zionist, you are opposed to the idea of a Jewish, democratic and secure State of Israel. Unless you want to totally transform Israel away from what Israelis actually want, I think anti-Zionist is identical to anti-Israel. Since Israel is the only Jewish state, I think anti-Zionist is awfully close to anti-semitic.
You can certainly be anti-settlement, anti-military, anti-Likud, anti-killing, and anti-Netanyahu without being anti-semitic. But anti-Zionist does not actually encompass any of those, so the best course of action is to be specific about what you oppose. And if you are anti-killing or anti-military, calling out just Israel while ignoring all the other non-Jewish examples in the world is probably anti-semitic.
I'm sure I am trying your patience, but please humor me.
What exactly do you disagree with? I think all of this is factual, or common sense, with the exception of what I said was "awfully close to anti-semitic" or "probably anti-semitic". Those are my opinions, and are framed as such.
Those judgments are based on the the idea that if the *only* time something is condemned is when a Jew does it, it could be anti-semitism.
"Antisemitism and anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli sentiment and opposition to the Israeli government overlap, of course, but they are four distinct things."
Not according to the American Jewish Committee, who argues that anti-Zionism is antisemitism because most Jews are Zionists, and the ones who aren't don't count (last part implied).
Depending on how one defines Zionism, it could be considered bigotry. (Race is already murky enough without tossing in multiracial ethnicities.) The point AJC is trying to make is that questioning Zionism as being too exclusionary is antisemitic.
What our friend here forgot to mention is that 3379 was revoked by Resolution 46/86, adopted on 16 December 1991 with 111 votes in favor, 25 votes against, and 13 abstentions.
I'm happy to provide a source, without any insults!
Since you're too intellectually lazy to find it yourself, here's the source;
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (adopted on 10 November 1975) "Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" with 72 votes in favour, 35 votes against, and 32 abstentions.
Wow, Teresa, thank you so much. But please don't! No one should use their last dollars or even penultimate dollars to support TFN! We're on the right track if those who can afford it continue to upgrade. Folks who are near the edge financially should focus their financial resources, elsewhere, please but can absolutely sign up to support TFN in tons of other ways. In fact, in some ways right now, helping TFN grow by letting other Newsfuckers know about us is just as important right now. All that said, I'm so thrilled by your support, Teresa, thank you! (And thanks to those paid subscribers who help ensure that TFN is free for all the Teresi..)
Some misfiring neurons combined with synaptic cross-wiring just led to this thought barging into my head from stage left..
'Although it worked out oh so very well this time, isn't it weird that Supreme Court justices can just up and take time off work to tan genitals? That there's some real serendipitydoodah'
The same logic that makes MAGA think it is unamerican to criticize Trump is working when they say it’s antisemitic to criticize the Israeli government.
Can you provide a source for anyone actually saying that?
It is antisemitic to criticize the Jewish State for things that get a pass in other states.
Criticizing Israel for killing civilians during a war is fine, as long as you criticize all the other countries that kill civilians in defensive wars just as fiercely.
This isn't a war, though. Under international law, Israel is the occupier, not a party to war. There is no "war", it's an occupation of a sovereign state.
Your attempt at deflection is noted, but the point remains that ISRAEL HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFENCE from those it occupies . By your twisted logic, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising had no 'right' to conduct asymmetrical terror attacks on the occupying Germans. I suggest you read the applicable laws which cover the Israeli occupation, because you sound increasingly foolish when you take the nazi point of view.
I never said anything about anyone’s “right” to attack. This is a fact. You are manufacturing quotes on my behalf.
As you said “ISRAEL HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFENCE from those it occupies”
So in your Germany analogy, terrorists from occupied Germany could attack the US, and the US would have no right to defense from the German terrorists.
Are you sure that is what you want to be saying?
Maybe a more rational position is “when an armed group kills hundreds of civilians and takes hundreds hostages, a country has the right to take action to prevent that killing from happening again”. We can disagree on the extent of the action for now, but do you agree on that principle?
How exactly do you think the Jewish State will be eliminated by Iran without killing anyone?
Do you want to eliminate all the racist Islamic States?
How about the racist Catholic State of El Salvador?
No, just the Jewish State.
How exactly do you think the Jewish State will be eliminated by Iran without killing anyone?
Do you want to eliminate all the racist Islamic States?
How about the racist Catholic State of El Salvador?
No, just the Jewish State.
Israeli Lies, a running score 👊
https://open.substack.com/pub/hebhjamal/p/a-list-of-israeli-lies-propaganda?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1pungh
"Antisemitism and anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli sentiment and opposition to the Israeli government overlap, of course, but they are four distinct things."
Here's the definition of Zionism, as understood by Zionists. You can argue that not all Zionists follow the ideals, but that does not change what Zionism means.
"Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, brought about the establishment of the State of Israel, and views a Jewish, Zionist, democratic and secure State of Israel to be the expression of the common responsibility of the Jewish people for its continuity and future."
So if you are anti-Zionist, you are opposed to the idea of a Jewish, democratic and secure State of Israel. Unless you want to totally transform Israel away from what Israelis actually want, I think anti-Zionist is identical to anti-Israel. Since Israel is the only Jewish state, I think anti-Zionist is awfully close to anti-semitic.
You can certainly be anti-settlement, anti-military, anti-Likud, anti-killing, and anti-Netanyahu without being anti-semitic. But anti-Zionist does not actually encompass any of those, so the best course of action is to be specific about what you oppose. And if you are anti-killing or anti-military, calling out just Israel while ignoring all the other non-Jewish examples in the world is probably anti-semitic.
OK, tell me the “international law” you are referring to on what is anti-semitism.
But nobody cares about your personal interpretation. International law is the guideline, not your "feelings".
Very much disagree with some of this -- but appreciate you sharing. Thank you.
I'm sure I am trying your patience, but please humor me.
What exactly do you disagree with? I think all of this is factual, or common sense, with the exception of what I said was "awfully close to anti-semitic" or "probably anti-semitic". Those are my opinions, and are framed as such.
Those judgments are based on the the idea that if the *only* time something is condemned is when a Jew does it, it could be anti-semitism.
Is that an unreasonable judgment?
These guys aren’t exactly filling me with Palestinian rights vibes.
https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/settler-colonialist
"Antisemitism and anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli sentiment and opposition to the Israeli government overlap, of course, but they are four distinct things."
Not according to the American Jewish Committee, who argues that anti-Zionism is antisemitism because most Jews are Zionists, and the ones who aren't don't count (last part implied).
https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/Zionism-is-racism
So most Jews are racists? Zionism is a racist ideology.
Depending on how one defines Zionism, it could be considered bigotry. (Race is already murky enough without tossing in multiracial ethnicities.) The point AJC is trying to make is that questioning Zionism as being too exclusionary is antisemitic.
The UNITED NATIONS proscribed Zionism as a racist and hateful ideology. Good enough for me.
source?
What our friend here forgot to mention is that 3379 was revoked by Resolution 46/86, adopted on 16 December 1991 with 111 votes in favor, 25 votes against, and 13 abstentions.
I'm happy to provide a source, without any insults!
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180327/
I couldn't find a source for the vote total other than Wikipedia.
Since you're too intellectually lazy to find it yourself, here's the source;
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (adopted on 10 November 1975) "Determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" with 72 votes in favour, 35 votes against, and 32 abstentions.
Yeah, I got the sense the Multifaith Alliance was a little closer to what we might hope for.
Jonathan I’ll give my last dollars (after Trump takes my money) to subscribe to you.
Wow, Teresa, thank you so much. But please don't! No one should use their last dollars or even penultimate dollars to support TFN! We're on the right track if those who can afford it continue to upgrade. Folks who are near the edge financially should focus their financial resources, elsewhere, please but can absolutely sign up to support TFN in tons of other ways. In fact, in some ways right now, helping TFN grow by letting other Newsfuckers know about us is just as important right now. All that said, I'm so thrilled by your support, Teresa, thank you! (And thanks to those paid subscribers who help ensure that TFN is free for all the Teresi..)
Jonathan I’ll give my last dollars (after Trump takes my money) to subscribe to you🤗
Jonathan I’ll give my last dollars (after Trump takes my money) to subscribe to you🤗
He’s expelling Jews?:…as part of his “war” on antisemitism?????
K:
This one is RICH!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Micro fist!
Some misfiring neurons combined with synaptic cross-wiring just led to this thought barging into my head from stage left..
'Although it worked out oh so very well this time, isn't it weird that Supreme Court justices can just up and take time off work to tan genitals? That there's some real serendipitydoodah'
Oh well, back at the stack to read the rest.
The same logic that makes MAGA think it is unamerican to criticize Trump is working when they say it’s antisemitic to criticize the Israeli government.
Can you provide a source for anyone actually saying that?
It is antisemitic to criticize the Jewish State for things that get a pass in other states.
Criticizing Israel for killing civilians during a war is fine, as long as you criticize all the other countries that kill civilians in defensive wars just as fiercely.
This isn't a war, though. Under international law, Israel is the occupier, not a party to war. There is no "war", it's an occupation of a sovereign state.
Your attempt at deflection is noted.
Call it whatever you want, the criticism of the behavior is the point.
Your attempt at deflection is noted, but the point remains that ISRAEL HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFENCE from those it occupies . By your twisted logic, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising had no 'right' to conduct asymmetrical terror attacks on the occupying Germans. I suggest you read the applicable laws which cover the Israeli occupation, because you sound increasingly foolish when you take the nazi point of view.
I never said anything about anyone’s “right” to attack. This is a fact. You are manufacturing quotes on my behalf.
As you said “ISRAEL HAS NO RIGHT TO DEFENCE from those it occupies”
So in your Germany analogy, terrorists from occupied Germany could attack the US, and the US would have no right to defense from the German terrorists.
Are you sure that is what you want to be saying?
Maybe a more rational position is “when an armed group kills hundreds of civilians and takes hundreds hostages, a country has the right to take action to prevent that killing from happening again”. We can disagree on the extent of the action for now, but do you agree on that principle?
No, that's not what the law says. Again, you should have an infant read it to you.
The law fi ds Israel at fault for genocide, and the world will never forget, or ever have sympathy for Israel again 🤷♂️
Nobody will miss Israel when Iran finally has had enough.
It's always a mistake to under-rate the ineptitude at play in all this kakistocracy.
Jonathan, what is your opinion of changing the name of the Big Beautiful Bill to the MAGA Murder Bill?
I don’t think I get a vote!
FRO (Fucking Right On) TFN !
“Stochastic”: because “random” is just too obscure?
It's a piece of humor.
What’s wrong with stochastic?