Why Some See Anti-Israel as Anti-Semetic

[iamjoy]

Just another perspective:

When Israel was founded, all the Arab nations said Israel had no right to exist. Many Arabs and Muslims still feel this way. Whether true or not, Israel, a tiny country surrounded by huge enemies who want nothing more than to push them into the sea, feels its very existence is threatened. So, Israel's enemies would destroy the nation, Israel defends itself. If you don't think Israel should be able to defend itself, then maybe you don't think Israel has a right to exist. If you don't think Israel has a right to exist, you don't think Jews have a right to a country of their own. Therefore, you are an Anti-Semite. After all, most other major world religions have at least one country where their culture is dominant.

Second, look at the escalating attacks in Europe against Jews and Jewish institutions. Supposedly, these are carried out by Muslims angry at Israel. By attacking Jews in retribution for Israel's policies, they are equating Jews with Zionism. They are impliying that if you are Jewish, you must be Pro-Israel. So, a reverse must also be true and if you are anti-Israel, you must be anti-Jew.

The sad thing, many Israelis just want peace. They are secular Jews. They believe in civil rights. But you have hard line Jews, fundamentalist Jews who won't compromise. Maybe because they believe God gave them that land or perhaps because they don't believe in negotiating with terrorists. They justify the brutality against the Palestinians as either carrying out God's will or the only response to terrorists sworn to destroy you. In that way, Israel is like the U.S. with Sharon & the extremists being like Bush and the rest being like us - wanting peace and freedom and not theocratic and martial policies. Arafat made a big mistake in my opinion, because Barak offered almost everything the Palestinians wanted and he turned it down. Now they've got Sharon and Sharon won't compromise. Barak was risking his life (from hard line Jews ironically, like Rabin) but Arafat wouldn't accept the olive branch. Maybe he feared hard line Palestinians?

Finally, again trying to draw analogies to the U.S. we have our own dirty history, namely our policy against Native Americans. Some have compared what Israel has done to the Palestinians to what we did to the American Indians. So, what do you think the U.S. response would be if the Cherokee, Souix, etc were to rise up say that the mono-theists of European (African, Asian) descent stole this land and had no right to it? If those Native Americans then started blowing up our shopping malls, cafes, buses, etc? If their only compromise was for the U.S. to give up large tracts of land equal to approximately half the country?

[still_one]

1. I think you need to seperate legitimate critisim of Israel

from Israel's right to exist...

The ironic thing is Labor lost in Israel to Likud because Arafat encouraged the infatadia. Out of fear Israel voted in Sharon, which is very much like you indicated what bush is trying to do here, run a campaign on FEAR

The problem is that there are quite a few people who extrapolate that is an Israelli or Jew is spying against the U.S. they believe that represents all American Jews. The same analogy goes to 9/11 where quite a few people believe all American Arabs are terrorists.
Obviously, those ideas are the most anti-American in themseleves.

Remember Walker and FBI spy Robert Hanssen, i.e not all bad people are Jews or Arabs?

The main failure of this administration was that when they took control of the government, they ignored the Israelli/Palestinian issue, and did NOT continue where Clinton, or for that matter every President since FDR, worked to try and bring a solution to that issue

[iamjoy]

7. Criticizing Israel

For people who feel that if Israel does not do what it is doing it will cease to exist, criticizing Israel is saying Israel has no right to exist.

Personally, I feel Israel's actions are harming its survival. The hard liners in Israel are turning the world against them. Some don't trust the rest of the world anyway, claiming it stood silent for too long during the Holocaust and if the Arab nations were to rise up en masse against Israel the U.N. would not lift a finger.

Remember, a lot of U.S. support for Israel comes not from Jews but from fundamentalist Christians who see it as a flash point for the Rapture.

There are other threads on the spy issue, and I wanted to keep those on topic. If this man is indeed spying, he should be prosecuted. If government officials are connected with it...

[vi5]

2. Your last paragraph...

Who determines who has a right to what land? Imagine the reaction if the United Nations came in and said O.K. we decree that montana is the new homeland for Native Americans as reparations for them being displaced, abused, mistreated, etc. Or if another state was deemed a new homeland for African Americans because of how they were treated during slavery.

I'm not saying I have all the answers or even that I have an opinion myself on it not being either jewish, native american, african amerian or anything other than a white, male atheist. But there just seem to be a lot of inconsistencies that I've never been able to get my brain around. I've encountered many, many people who are in favor of a Jewish homeland but against slavery reparations, or who would wince at the idea of a Native American homeland (not sketchy small patches of reservations, I mean a full homeland). And I'm not entirely sure I get what the difference would be.

It's not an easy subject, but the "Nah nah nah I can't hear you" hands over the ears way a lot of Israelis or American jews (not all however) handle the issue makes free and open dialogue a lot more difficult.

[shadu]

4. you have framed this correctly

[bemildred]

11. The easy and obvious solution is that it all belongs to everybody,

in trust. The First Peoples seem to have understood how well that
could work. The entire problem arises when individuals decide to
grab portions of the environment for their own unrestrained private
profit in perpetuity. Now we have entire cultures and economies set
up on that premise, and they are systematically trashing the planet.
The story in Israel is a mere footnote in that process.

[shadu]

3. So long as israel mirrors zionism I am against their right to exist

Such a nation should have no rights and should not be recognized
by the world community.
If israel ever changes their evil ways, I will change my views.

[LiberalVoice]

6. Good post. n/t

[iamjoy]

9. But That's The Point!

Zionism refers to the movement for the establishment of a Jewish national or religous community, or support for Israel.

So, when you say "so long as Israel mirrors Zionism, I am against their right to exist" you are saying that if Israel supports its own right to exist, you are against it. That either makes no sense or reinforces the viewpoint of every paranoid hard liner Zionist.

[LiberalVoice]

5. No affense but...

That explanation is bullshit. Seriously no disrespect intended what so ever, but the author is making one ignorant assumption after another.

He/She is trying to insinuate that if you aren't pro-Israel then "maybe" you're Anti-Semetic. I have nothing against Jews(Other then the fact that I am an atheist and see relgion of any nature as a means of keeping people stupid.)I have jewish friends and I recognize the right to an Israeli state. But I am not Pro-Israel because to be quite frank I don't think Israel(And I'm speaking for their govt. and the hardliners)recognizes the right to a palestinian state.

All I ever hear is that the palestinians/arabs won't happily recognize Israel as a legitimate country. Well I hate to break to everyone but Israel has no intention of making palestine it's own state or recognizing it as such.

[lastknowngood]

8. Does Palestine have a right to exist? Do the Palestinian people

have a right to their fathers and grand fathers land. What gives Israelis / Jews the right to land own and occupied for over 2000 years by Arabs? Sorry for logic but I can't help but think. Sharon and his gang of murders have been trying to exterminate the Arabs continuously, and without let up. If you want a reasonable conversation you must use reason, Jews, Muslims and Christens are killing each other because they have three different names for the same biblical god and believe that god gave them the right to kill anyone who doesn't belong to their group. Thinking of the people as "the other" leads to blood and death.

[iamjoy]

10. That's Where It Gets Interesting

The British "controlled" the land in the Middle East called Palestine. And the Arabs living there were under British rule for years, and they lived much like the Arabs in the surrounding nations. The Zionist Jews came, settled in & revolted to throw the British out. Israel won independence. The very next day, Arab nations in the area went to war against the newly formed Israel. Why weren't the Arabs as interested in throwing the British out? The Palestinians living there did not want to live in a Jewish state, Israel's neighbors wanted to push the country into the sea.

And that is another reason Anti-Israel is perceived as Anti-Jew. The Zionists use the bible as their justification to claim the land of Israel. That God gave Jews that land. So, if you don't believe that or if you disagree...I think that's really stretching and agree that religion is too often used to justify atrocities.

I was raised Jewish, but have little connection with my faith. I can say though, I believe there should be a country where a Jewish kid going to a public school doesn't have to sue the School Board to make sure no tests are given on the Yom Kippur.

[Darranar]

12. Um...

When Israel was founded, all the Arab nations said Israel had no right to exist. Many Arabs and Muslims still feel this way. Whether true or not, Israel, a tiny country surrounded by huge enemies who want nothing more than to push them into the sea, feels its very existence is threatened. So, Israel's enemies would destroy the nation, Israel defends itself. If you don't think Israel should be able to defend itself, then maybe you don't think Israel has a right to exist. If you don't think Israel has a right to exist, you don't think Jews have a right to a country of their own. Therefore, you are an Anti-Semite. After all, most other major world religions have at least one country where their culture is dominant.

Supporting Israel's existance and supporting a Jewish state in theory are different things. Perhaps some would like to see it in Germany, or someplace depopulated that wouldn't result in conflict.

And not supporting the idea of a Jewish state doesn't mean you do support the idea of other religious states.

Second, look at the escalating attacks in Europe against Jews and Jewish institutions. Supposedly, these are carried out by Muslims angry at Israel. By attacking Jews in retribution for Israel's policies, they are equating Jews with Zionism. They are impliying that if you are Jewish, you must be Pro-Israel. So, a reverse must also be true and if you are anti-Israel, you must be anti-Jew.

Just because they equate it doesn't mean it's a true equation. There are anti-Zionist Jews and Jews harshly critical of Israel's policies, so that equation is clearly false.

Those attacks are anti-semitic because they consider all Jews to be supportive of Israel's policies. If they were attacking, say, the Israeli embassy, it would not necessarily be anti-semitic (but still wrong and criminal).

The sad thing, many Israelis just want peace. They are secular Jews. They believe in civil rights. But you have hard line Jews, fundamentalist Jews who won't compromise. Maybe because they believe God gave them that land or perhaps because they don't believe in negotiating with terrorists. They justify the brutality against the Palestinians as either carrying out God's will or the only response to terrorists sworn to destroy you. In that way, Israel is like the U.S. with Sharon & the extremists being like Bush and the rest being like us - wanting peace and freedom and not theocratic and martial policies. Arafat made a big mistake in my opinion, because Barak offered almost everything the Palestinians wanted and he turned it down. Now they've got Sharon and Sharon won't compromise. Barak was risking his life (from hard line Jews ironically, like Rabin) but Arafat wouldn't accept the olive branch. Maybe he feared hard line Palestinians?

Barak didn't offer "almost everything the Palestinians wanted"; he offered an unfair deal that almost split the Occupied Territories into two cantons. Arafat's negotiating record isn't great either though.

Finally, again trying to draw analogies to the U.S. we have our own dirty history, namely our policy against Native Americans. Some have compared what Israel has done to the Palestinians to what we did to the American Indians. So, what do you think the U.S. response would be if the Cherokee, Souix, etc were to rise up say that the mono-theists of European (African, Asian) descent stole this land and had no right to it? If those Native Americans then started blowing up our shopping malls, cafes, buses, etc? If their only compromise was for the U.S. to give up large tracts of land equal to approximately half the country?

If the Palestinians were actually trying to make Israel give up half its actual land, you may have a point. But the Occupied Territories aren't part of Israel, and even including them, they're less than a quarter of the land - 22%.

And general US policy is far worse than Israel's, with far less justification. That doesn't make Israel's moral.

Furthermore, Native Americans are allowed US citizenship. The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories aren't.

[undergroundrailroad]

13. Locking - Not a recent article.

New threads must be based on a recently-published news item or op-ed piece.


Guidelines for discussion of Israeli/Palestinian affairs


Undergroundrailroad
DU Moderator
FA/NS/IP Affairs Forums