Why is criticizm of Israel considered Anti-semitism?

[Big Guy]

Not all educated Jews are Zionists bent on knee-jerk reactions to criticism of Israel. Hundreds of academics call on the U.S. State Department to revise its definition of anti-Semitism, to respect criticism of Israel as protected speech.

https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/criticism-of-israel-is-not-anti-semitism/

But this is the well known Palestinian and terrorist loving organization called, "Jewish Voice for Peace" and certainly no friend of Israel - or is it?

[Argus]

But this is the well known Palestinian and terrorist loving organization called, "Jewish Voice for Peace" and certainly no friend of Israel - or is it?

Today’s “anti-Zionist” Jews are largely found on college campuses where the intellectualization of anti-Semitism fits in with the “anything goes” concept of allowing for new ideas and discourse in the academic paradigm. Like the Jews above, they usually claim intellectual superiority to their peers. Some like Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein draw attention to themselves and make a fortune writing books or on the lecture circuit when they would never be as recognized for their mainstream work and ideas. A Jew who will condemn other Jews for living in Israel is news and will always be embraced by the Arab money machine that works in “solidarity” with any organization or person who will support the goal of dismantling Israel. Some claim they are citizens of the world, and thus owe no allegiance to the Jewish people any more, and if the world wants the Jews of Israel dispossessed or killed, so be it.

http://www.stoptheism.com/content/index.php?pid=85&cid=91

[Rue]

The problem is there's not enough bandwidth in the world for that, especially reproducing what you say. The moderators heads would explode.

Speak to Ghost Hacked about childish comments. He seems concerned with them.

[GostHacked]

Speak to Ghost Hacked about childish comments. He seems concerned with them.

Let's get back to the topic.

[Rue]

See this is the kind of thing that is not very helpful for this discussion.

Again, can we deal with the topic like adults?

So you found the following words unhelpful that I stated:

"Would you give it a rest. This is a political forum not some group therapy session. Now you want to lecture on how to win over the hearts and minds of anti Israelis? Really? Lol, really? What next do you present a seminar on this? Do we go on Dr. Phil?

Piss on their right to exist, don't expect Israelis to pull out a tit and breast feed you,..."

What too tough on your sensibilities? That's the best you can pull out?

Not one post backing up your allegations I call people anti semites simply because they are anti Israeli as you claimed and now the above wrds arw what offends you.

Right.

What crap.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

Let's get back to the topic.

How about you do that,

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

Let's get back to the topic.

How about you address that topic to Eye. This is why you have zero credibility with your selective snittiness.

[kimmy]

Today’s “anti-Zionist” Jews are largely found on college campuses where the intellectualization of anti-Semitism fits in with the “anything goes” concept of allowing for new ideas and discourse in the academic paradigm. Like the Jews above, they usually claim intellectual superiority to their peers. Some like Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein draw attention to themselves and make a fortune writing books or on the lecture circuit when they would never be as recognized for their mainstream work and ideas. A Jew who will condemn other Jews for living in Israel is news and will always be embraced by the Arab money machine that works in “solidarity” with any organization or person who will support the goal of dismantling Israel. Some claim they are citizens of the world, and thus owe no allegiance to the Jewish people any more, and if the world wants the Jews of Israel dispossessed or killed, so be it.

http://www.stoptheism.com/content/index.php?pid=85&cid=91

Sounds like some pretty far-fetched claims from a pretty biased source...

-k

[GostHacked]

Alright, so I shall get back to the topic. Perhaps it is the way I framed the thread and set out some parameters of the thread that some are not understanding here. I am no moderator, but I did create this thread with specifics in mind.

So some members here may actually be anti-semites. But to say that all legitimate criticism of Israel is inherently anti-semitic is not helping dialogue.

Could the contentious article that is the settlements ever be discussed without it being viewed as anti-semitic?

[Rue]

In post 51 Big Guy states:

"

Not all educated Jews are Zionists bent on knee-jerk reactions to criticism of Israel. Hundreds of academics call on the U.S. State Department to revise its definition of anti-Semitism, to respect criticism of Israel as protected speech."

The tactic Big Guy engages in above yet again, the "good Jew/bad Jew" dichotomy is as follows:

source:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Good_Jews_and_Bad_Jews

"Good Jews and bad Jews" is a common argumentative dichotomy, whereby "good Jews" are those who happen to agree with a person's positive stereotypes regarding how those who happen to practice Judaism or are of Jewish ancestry should behave (and, hence, ought to be protected from criticism) and "bad Jews" are those who fulfill negative stereotypes about how those same individuals should not behave. Either straw-man "group" can be a majority or minority, but both usually fulfill the lowest expectations (by non-Jews, usually those in historically-Christian- or Muslim-dominated territories) of how a Jewish person should be perceived.

...

In Anti-Zionism, a "good Jew" is one who does one of the following:

if living elsewhere, forswears moving to Israel

if living in or born in Israel, agrees with anti-Zionist viewpoints regarding why Israel should not be classified, culturally, as a "Jewish state".
tells "the truth" about "Jewish evil"

A "bad Jew" includes those who do not do these things, including everyone from Jewish settlers in the West Bank to nameless Israeli Jews in Tel Aviv."

You will note the above comments from Big Guy do not refer to the thread topic, i.e., Israeli government policies, in fact he attacks Jews and he starts the attack with these words:

"Not all educated Jews are Zionists....."

The purpose of his thread is loud and clear. Its not to discuss any Israeli government policy, it is to call out any Jew who is Zionist as bad. This is why I call such exercises he engages in anti semitic. He attacks Jews for being Jews and having opinions different than his own. A good Jew to him can onlyu be someone who agrees with him. i.e., knows their placer as a person without Jewish citizenship.

He uses the prop of good Jew as his excuse to piss on Jews. By showing what a good Jew is, he can express his anti Jewishness through the good Jew arguing well Jews agree with him .

The good Jew bad Jew routine has been used by Big Guy many times in threads supposedly discussing Israel and it shows his agenda is to paint Jews as bad people if they are Zionist. That is not just anti Zionist or anti Israeli, it insults all Jews. Whether a Jew is a Zionisty or anti Zionist does not make him or her good or bad.

A Jew isn't suddenly credible and good only because they are anti Zionist or Big Guy approves of them.

His presumption he can dictate what a good Jew is, I argue is bigoted and patronizing.

I remind you once before he claimed he shows my posts to his Jewish friends and they were shocked at my posts/

So I have yet to see one of these Jewish friends of his come on the board...why?

I again repeat using words other than my own that the real agenda of thread and evidenced by the above tactic is as follows:

source:

ttp://blogs.timesofisrael.com/are-you-a-good-jew-or-a-bad-jew/

"It used to be that critics of Israel avoided extreme rhetoric, such as comparing Israel to Apartheid or fascism; now such connections have become ordinary in the “Boycott, Divest, Sanction” movement. The point has become not simply to criticize Israel, but to deny its legitimacy entirely, to say that it is, essentially, not a country but rather a criminal act.

Because so much of the anti-Israel rhetoric depends on misrepresentation, it has not convinced the majority of Americans that it makes any sense. Having galvanized a minority and stopped there, the anti-Israel movement, in frustration, has begun showing its true colors, and attacking Jews for being Jews."

[GostHacked]

Can one be anti-Zionist but not be an anti-semite? Yes.

Can one be anti-Isreali but not be an anti-semite? Yes.

Can one be anti-jew but not be anti-semite? No, (trick question really!)

To me only the 3rd one can automatically classified as anti-semetic. Golng after the policy of the expanded settlements in the occupied territories is definitely NOT anti-semetic.

I guess for the most part there is an agreement here aside from one person , Rue, that not all criticism against Israel is inherently anti-semetic.

[Rue]

Alright, so I shall get back to the topic. Perhaps it is the way I framed the thread and set out some parameters of the thread that some are not understanding here. I am no moderator, but I did create this thread with specifics in mind.

So some members here may actually be anti-semites. But to say that all legitimate criticism of Israel is inherently anti-semitic is not helping dialogue.

Could the contentious article that is the settlements ever be discussed without it being viewed as anti-semitic?

Thank you. Can I say I can not stand what Eye, Big Guy or Hudson have stated but do I think they hate Jews, no. I do not think they understand that when someone presumes to tell anyone, a Jew included how to define themselves, its presumptious and turns into bigotry.

I don't define Palestinians or Muslims the way they do Jews, Israelis Zionists.

I don't assume Palestinians are all criminals because Hamas or the PA have engaged and condone criminal behaviour. I don't depict Palestinians as evil for wanting a country.

Unlike them I define Palestinians and Israelis as equals.

I know you can and can do a better job of it than I explaining when the comments go too far so please do. I am admitting it. I admit I am emotionally strung out on this issue and you are not. You know what I am saying, about when it crosses the line. Shut me up and you explain it and I would be glad to defer to you on the point I am trying to make.

Do not for one second put yourself on their level. You are not. You criticize Israel fairly. Your grasp of the issues and Jewish history is excellent an dyou know that. I have never challenged you for that. Yes you are right I could be more careful but I am past that. Its become too personal with some readers and you know that so the best I can do is edit myself if I go too far or you say shut up if I go too far and believe it or not I do take your criticism seriously although I have Jewish pride. Read between the hot air.

You said:

"But to say that all legitimate criticism of Israel is inherently anti-semitic is not helping dialogue."

If you rephrased the above:

"But to say that all legitimate criticism of ISRAELI GOVERNMENT POLICIES is inherently anti semitic isn ot helping dialogue" I would agree.

For that matter every day, Zionists and Israeli citizens criticize their government's policies as od others. What makes the criticism vaid or not is its

contents. Israel is full of piss and vinegar t.v. shows, newspapers, radio shows, human rights organizations, activists criticizing it.

Criticism is essential for democracy and its essential for friends of Israel to be able to criticize her policies.

That is not the issue.

The issue is when you use the term:

" legitimate criticism of Israel" and not "legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies", there's a huge difference.

The former as you can see on this thread does not address specific Israeli government policies and generate leveled objective discussions as to what is wrong with the policies.

It generates instead a general attack on Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and the right of Jews to be Zionist and Israeli and that is why you have people like Big Guy using the thread not to discuss a specific Israeli state policy but instead his defining Jews as bad if they are Zionists.

Or you have comments like Hudson Jones' including the one where he called Zionist ideology cancerous and in need of being wiped out.

I have yet to read anything legitimate on this forum when it comes to questioning the right of a Jew to express their Jewishness as a nationality.

What I have read are comments that misrepresent Judaism, Zionism and project false negative stereotypes on Jews and exploit the holocaust.

That is why I challenge them. Discussing and criticizing Israeli government policies, yes. Attacking Jews for choosing to be Zionist nd being Israeli, no its not legitimate and its no more legitimate than arguing all Palestinians are criminals or should not have a country.

You know my opinion. I have always believed settlement policy on the West Bank was and will remain an impediment to a peaceful solution

However to isolate that one policy and not look at it in reference to the bigger picture and the other issues its connected to I w ould argue is not helpful.

I think to isolate the settlement issue, blame it for the conflict and ignore all the other impediments to peace is not legitimate.

I have yet to see one anti Israeli on this board hold the Arab world and Palstinians to a basic standard of reciprocity, i.e., be willing to recognize Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state and free of terrorist attacks.

For that reason I find their selective criticism illegitimate.

Big Guy I believe by stating the only necessary source to defne the conflict is Al Jazeera and his constant references to Jews for me long ago rendered his agenda on this board illegitimate.

I have never read a word from Eye indicating he knows where Israel or Palestine is on the map.

As for Mr. Jones, his rigid syntax and scripts speak for themselves.

You asked,

"Could the contentious article that is the settlements ever be discussed without it being viewed as anti-semitic?"

Yes it happens all the time in Israel whether it be in the Knesset, in the media or on the streets.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Rue

[Rue]

I guess for the most part there is an agreement here aside from one person , Rue, that not all criticism against Israel is inherently anti-semetic.

Your above comment directly contradicts what I have stated and continue to state.

I have repeated over and over that not all criticism against Israeli government policies is anti semitic. Whether comments become or are anti semitic depends on their context and content.

Stop misrepresenting what I have said.

[Big Guy]

That Palestinian organization called the Anti-Defamation League suggests there is a difference as posted in the OP

http://www.adl.org/israel-international/israel-middle-east/content/AG/inaccuracy-israel-critics-anti-semites.html?referrer=http://int.search.myway.com/search/GGmain.jhtml?searchfor=criticizing%20Israel%20is%20not%20criticizing%20jews&st=tab&ptb=99166A7F-9FEF-4823-9828-32B92A9024A9&n=782a305a&ind=2016030810&ct=SS&pg=GGmain&tpr=tabsbsug&p2=%5EY6%5Exdm005%5ETTAB02%5Eca&si=COj-v-rTsssCFQIKaQodh3IMVg#.Vvbg6vkrLy0

"Certainly the sovereign State of Israel and its government can be legitimately criticized just like any other country or government in the world. Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies – even harsh and strident criticism and advocacy - in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism.":

It is only Zionists who are blind to the truth.

[eyeball]

How about a thread on anti-gentiles?

[Rue]

How about a thread on anti-gentiles?

That Palestinian organization called the Anti-Defamation League suggests there is a difference as posted in the OP

"Certainly the sovereign State of Israel and its government can be legitimately criticized just like any other country or government in the world. Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies – even harsh and strident criticism and advocacy - in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism.":

It is only Zionists who are blind to the truth.

The very next paragraph in the above article stated:

"However, it is undeniable that there are those whose criticism of Israel crosses the line into anti-Semitism. It is also undeniable that criticism of Israel is considered socially acceptable, thereby providing a pretext for some whose criticism masks deeper anti-Jewish attitudes."

Of course you omitted that. You deliberately cherry picked and removed the paragraph you did to misrepresent what the article actually said.

That is exactly what I would expect from you at this point.

As well the name calling:

"It is only Zionists who are blind to the truth."

..its also par for the course with you.

You again show you are on this board to mislead and insult.

[SpankyMcFarland]

In human history, any time you move people off their land, there will be trouble. That is one element of the current conflict that should always be remembered, no matter how heated and sectarian the dispute becomes. When even someone like Bill Maher discusses Israel and Belgium in the same breath as having exactly the same problem with Islamic extremism, he is not telling the whole truth.

[Argus]

Sounds like some pretty far-fetched claims from a pretty biased source...

-k

It's A source. Why is it far-fetched? Can you think of a good reason why some Jews would be anti-Zionist aside from religious fanatics who don't believe in states?

I admittedly don't know a whole lot of Jews, especially compared to the writer, who IS Jewish, so I can't say I have any personal experience of anti-Zionist Jews. Do you?

Edited March 27, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

So some members here may actually be anti-semites. But to say that all legitimate criticism of Israel is inherently anti-semitic is not helping dialogue

And who here has ever suggested such a thing?

Could the contentious article that is the settlements ever be discussed without it being viewed as anti-semitic?

Sure. The settlements should be abandoned.

[Rue]

In human history, any time you move people off their land, there will be trouble. That is one element of the current conflict that should always be remembered, no matter how heated and sectarian the dispute becomes. When even someone like Bill Maher discusses Israel and Belgium in the same breath as having exactly the same problem with Islamic extremism, he is not telling the whole truth.

The above has nothing to do with the thread topic. As well you selective as to whose removal from land you wish to discuss.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Rue

[SpankyMcFarland]

It has a great deal to do with the thread topic - antisemitism is often now given as the sole reason for Palestinian actions - and I have excluded NOTHING from the discussion. I am not saying it is the ONLY reason but to claim that land is not part of the cause of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is utterly and wilfully absurd and yet it appears more and more in North American narratives.

Of course, when anybody in the West points out these truisms, there are also shrieks of antisemitism which intimidates a lot of people into silence, that being the intent. It's funny how the right has embraced this particular form of political correctness hook, line and sinker.

I put to you a simple question - is land not central to this dispute.

Edited March 27, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[eyeball]

It has a great deal to do with the thread topic - antisemitism is often now given as the sole reason for Palestinian actions - and I have excluded NOTHING from the discussion. I am not saying it is the ONLY reason but to claim that land is not part of the cause of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is utterly and wilfully absurd and yet it appears more and more in North American narratives.

Of course, when anybody in the West points out these truisms, there are also shrieks of antisemitism which intimidates a lot of people into silence, that being the intent. It's funny how the right has embraced this particular form of political correctness hook, line and sinker.

I put to you a simple question - is land not central to this dispute.

Of course land is the central issue on the ground but the central issue here should be the power this dispute has to polarize, divide and distract us. Political dividends go to parties and ideologues who profit from intimidation and shrieking and that is why our official position should be one of neutrality. Taking sides under such intransigent conditions is really short-sighted and a big part of why the entire ME region is slowly but surely turning into a failed region. That said I suspect being neutral in the case of Israel is deemed even worse than being anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Palestinians. The irony that most Palestinians are as Semitic as most Israelis is truly profound.

What's not funny is where the demand for this peculiar brand of PC is spreading and why it's becoming impolite to be intolerant towards racism. I suppose the next protected minority will be the poor maligned AGW skeptics.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Of course land is the central issue on the ground but the central issue here should be the power this dispute has to polarize, divide and distract us. Political dividends go to parties and ideologues who profit from intimidation and shrieking and that is why our official position should be one of neutrality. Taking sides under such intransigent conditions is really short-sighted and a big part of why the entire ME region is slowly but surely turning into a failed region. That said I suspect being neutral in the case of Israel is deemed even worse than being anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Palestinians. The irony that most Palestinians are as Semitic as most Israelis is truly profound.

What's not funny is where the demand for this peculiar brand of PC is spreading and why it's becoming impolite to be intolerant towards racism. I suppose the next protected minority will be the poor maligned AGW skeptics.

The dispute combines multiple elements. It's the new cause after the end of Apartheid involving a member of the western club. I am not saying it is Apartheid but merely that our journalists have easy and comfortable access and there are lots of English-speakers on both sides. Many similar fights in Africa go unnoticed because they are much harder to cover.

[Moonlight Graham]

Glenn Greenwald:

Fighting Israeli occupying forces is "terrorism." Boycotting is "anti-Semitism." What's allowed?

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/03/fighting-israeli-occupying-forces-is-terrorism-boycotting-is-anti-semitism-whats-allowed/

Israel defenders are now trying to take away even non-violent means of resistance? I guess Gandhi would have been called a racist for his British boycotts etc.?

[Argus]

Glenn Greenwald:

Fighting Israeli occupying forces is "terrorism." Boycotting is "anti-Semitism." What's allowed?

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/03/fighting-israeli-occupying-forces-is-terrorism-boycotting-is-anti-semitism-whats-allowed/

Israel defenders are now trying to take away even non-violent means of resistance? I guess Gandhi would have been called a racist for his British boycotts etc.?

Ghandi was fighting for the freedom of his own people. The BDS people are fighting to punish Israel because they don't like Jews. There's a difference.

Also, Ghandi was fighting for freedom. There is no one in Palestine fighting for freedom. They might want to get rid of the Jews, or kill the Jews, but only a simpleton would think any sort of democracy or freedom would ever result in that land from Israel's removal. In essence, the Palestinian terrorist organizations fighting against Israel can be compared to Robert Mugabe's terrorist group which fought to overthrow Rhodesia. And all the earnest BDS sympathizers can be compared to all those people who marched and campaigned to overthrow Rhodesia, then congratulated themselves, hurting their arms with mutual back patting, and turned their heads away as Mugabe went on a killing spree and invited North Korea (!) in to train his security forces.