Nothing you have presented means that it is either
1 Like
Sure it is.
Denying a whole group of people the right to autonomy and self-determination, especially in their own ancestral homeland is pretty bigoted.
And what do you call bigotry against Jews?
Answer: anti-Semitism.
Congressional resolutions have held anti-Zionism to be anti-Semitism with widespread bipartisan support.
1 Like
âequating all anti-Zionism with antisemitism intentionally conflates Jewish people with the state of Israelâ
As law is doing
Also, see the State Departmentâs working definition of anti-Semitism.
About 2/3 of the way down.
https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/56589.htm
It talks about denying Jewish people their right to self-determination, that is to say, anti-Zionism, as an example of how anti-Semitism manifests itself.
No one, much less yours truly, is âconflatingâ anything in the way that you say.
No, itâs not. It can cross over into anti-semitism, but they arenât interchangeable, no matter how much you put it in caps.
I am neither, but honesty is important.
American Jews are not a monolith. I have two in my house, so we have these discussions all the time.
You can also hate what Bibi is doing and be neither, which I do.
EDIT: And you are free to post links to articles that dispute my assertion. Iâve read most of them and remain unconvinced.
1 Like
Yes it is. anti-Zionism, that is to say, the denial of Israelâs right to exist, is indeed a form of anti-Semitism.
Congress has said so overwhelmingly and bipartisanly at that.
See here.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/894
The International Holocaust Remembrance Association and the US State Department concur.
Is your strangely contrary opinion weightier than theirs?
Hint: no.
My opinion is equally as weighty as Congress. They make laws, they donât police thought.
My family is as weighty a source as any of the others.
And Iâve read all of that.
You have an opinion, based on your links, I have mine, based on my experiences. Both are valid on their own levels.
Youâre basically saying that anyone who questions Israelâs border disputes is anti-semitic, and thatâs ridic.
No itâs not.
Itâs certainly not as weighty as the IHRA.
Youâre right that no one polices thought.
People are allowed to think in an ignorant or bigoted manner if they wish.
Doesnât mean that what they are thinking isnât ignorant and bigoted.
anti-Zionism is an example.
No one polices it, but that doesnât make it non-bigoted nor does that mean that it isnât anti-Semitic.
Thatâs what heâs saying
No it isnât.
Questioning Israelâs border disputes isnât necessarily anti-Semitism. Thatâs not even Anti-Zionism.
Denying Israelâs right to exist in any form and under any borders and calling for its destruction, that is to say, anti-Zionism, is anti-Semitism.
Those are not the same thing. Not sure how either of you could be mistaken about that.
Anti-Zionism is defined as denying Israelâs right to exist in any form or with any borders, and perhaps a handful of other closely related items mentioned by the IHRA (like holding Israel to various standards not insisted upon of other sovereign nations), not merely âquestioning Israelâs border disputes.â I think you both know that good and well. Silly conflation on YOUR parts if you didnât.
The problem with that Kinkaid booth is that it does exactly that which is anti-Zionist, and as such, anti-Semitic: deny Israelâs existence/right to exist.
It takes Israelâs borders, and defines them as a nation of âPalestineâ rather than Israel, effectively expressing a denial of Israelâs existence or right to exist, or if nothing else, a wish that it didnât exist, which means presumably wishing for its destruction in favor of something other than Israel within those same borders called âPalestine,â with a different flagâŠand not even a two state solution.
What happens to Israelis under that fantasy? Do they all get massacred or forcibly deported?
Thatâs anti-Zionism, and that IS anti-Semitic.
What do you call someone who accepts the right for all humans to exist, not limited to ethnic or self-described Jews, but also refuses to accept ANY state the right to exist.
This is anti-Semitism? Because I donât believe a state has any right to exist. I also am against funding a stateâs right to exist, which is exactly what American taxpayers do. Israel would not be able to defend itself if it werenât for US taxpayers.
You do understand this, right?
Refusing to accept that any state has a right to exist is a silly Noam Chomsky cop out.
Following that logic, no Palestinian state has a right to exist, right?
I do not believe a state of Palestine has a right to exist. I believe Palestinians have a right to exist. The State of Palestine was defeated by Israel in a war.
Do you believe a Palestinian state has a right to exist?
My religious authority sitting in Rome says they do.
But that Israel does as well.
Some sort of two state solution is ideal, but Iâm not sure how realistic it is given the Palestinian embrace of violent religious extremists as their government, and said governmentâs recourse to terrorism.
You may have broke the record for # of edits in a single post. Are you done?
Thereâs a lot that needs to be said.
Anti-Zionism, which is indeed Anti-Semitism, has a definition.
Questioning a border dispute doesnât meet that definition. I figured everybody would know that, but sometimes it needs to be spelled out.
Obviously that which should be intuitive and obviousâŠWASNâT.
Iâm not going to get into an Israel-Palestine debate because I already know itâs going to lead to nowhere and would be a waste of time.
Racism or religious discrimination, is not illegal except for when itâs institutional. As of today, there are no laws that bar any race or religion from private ownership or access to public spaces. However, anyone is free to be racist or discriminatory of oneâs religion (our very president does it practically every week).
In the same manner, there is no law forcing an American to accept the State of Israel. There are no laws that say I have to accept the State of Israel to enter a McDonalds. There is no law that says I have to accept the State of Israel to buy a home, nor is there a law that says I can buy a home if I DONâT accept the State of Israel.
There is no âAccept or Reject State of Israelâ when applying for loans.
Of course not. No one in the USA can be âforcedâ to not be a bigotâŠor even be prohibited from expressing bigotry really (most hate speech is protected âfreeâ speech based on the USSC decisions that have come down on the subject).
Thatâs a separate issue from whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism though.
It is. And when people express itâŠthey should, as is true of all other forms of bigoted expression, be condemned and ostracized for it.
Freedom of speech doesnât mean freedom from consequences.
and I would argue that the consequences of refusing the âacceptance of the State of Israelâs right to Existâ component of Antisemitism is far less consequential than the consequences of public social or religious discrimination.
I would also argue that the overwhelming of anti-zionists and anti-Israel demographic in America are NOT anti-Jew.
If Antisemitism includes rejecting a State that is actively causing harm to the State of America (for which Americans has a vested interest in), then I think itâs time to disect what antisemitism really is or what it stands for.
I reiterate that Israel cannot exist without the aid of America. If Israel did not receive the amount of aid and protection it did from America, then Israel would have been torn to shreds decades ago (unless another country stepped into Americaâs place as the defender of Israel).
Israel-Palestine is an unfixable situation. There was a short window in history where a 2-state solution couldâve have been served, but we are far beyond that window.
Israel won the 1967 Arab-Israeli War with mostly French aircraft and almost WWII vintage British (and some American) tanks.
Defeated the Soviet tanks and aircraft the Arabs tried using against them.
Israel has been better at tearing its enemies to threads than vice-versa.