Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I never said that ANY crititcism of Israel is anti-Semitic, and have repeated that throughout this thread. I have said that frequently it IS an indication of antisemitism, particularly when the condemnation is broad and all-encompassing. All you have to do is read this thread to see some of the horrible anti-Jew tropes bandied about.
Seems that the radical far-left insists that any condemnation of Israel should under no circumstances be be recognized as having antisemtism as its roots. According to them, it is NEVER about the Jews. And often it IS.
Frequently indicating that criticism of Israel is frequently an indication of antisemitism tends to amount to the same thing. Is this fact another "far left" notion as far as you are concerned? Or might it again be another attempt to focus on the legitimate issues these differences and conflicts have forced us to contend with for too long now?
For some the "condemnation is broad and all-encompassing," like sometimes people express about my comments and opinions. Damn if I'll ignore the truth or back away from my efforts toward sound reason and logic simply because there is all that nonsense and noise out there, victimizing ALL of us in more ways than one!
So people who won't give in and agree with YOUR perspective are "stubborn?" Well, compared to what far-leftists have called conservatives who won't submit to their opinions, I suppose that's mild.
I've got to sign off now, so real quick, I'll just thank you for the chuckle.
Like you are not the poster child of stubborn when it comes to YOUR perspective, but hey...
We're all guilty of being stubborn about our opinions!
I've even got my opinion -- theory -- about why that is...
What's important is being stubbornly right rather than stubbornly wrong. It's that distinction between right and wrong I tend to be more stubbornly focused upon.
As I sign off now, you go ahead with all the "far-leftist" rhetoric and such as I know you will. This seems to be more your focus, your game.
Right or wrong we can only leave everyone else to judge between right and wrong, between reason and noise.
We all know how we feel about our stubborn differences...
Frequently indicating that criticism of Israel is frequently an indication of antisemitism tends to amount to the same thing. Is this fact another "far left" notion as far as you are concerned? Or might it again be another attempt to focus on the legitimate issues these differences and conflicts have forced us to contend with for too long now?
For some the "condemnation is broad and all-encompassing," like sometimes people express about my comments and opinions. Damn if I'll ignore the truth or back away from my efforts toward sound reason and logic simply because there is all that nonsense and noise out there, victimizing ALL of us in more ways than one!
Yes, broad criticism of Israel, particularly when demonstrating lack of knowledge, is frequently anti-Semitic.
And your "efforts toward sound reason and logic," as you say? YOU get to decide what is sound reason and logic? The fact that you keep ignoring that I HAVE CRITICIZED SPECIFICS ABOUT ISRAELI POLICY ON SETTLEMENTS - and keep claiming that I say any criticism of Israel is antisemitic - is a big logic fail.
Here: Criticism of specific Israeli policy is not necessarily antisemitic. Broad negative characterization of Israel as a whole, while applying different standards to other countries that do the same or worse, is clearly driven by antisemitism.
I understand what you're saying. In fact I agree with what you said in this comment.
What you fail to understand is that the anti-Semites are not labelled anti-Semites because they criticize a particular action or policy of the Israeli government. As you correctly pointed out, if that were true then most Israelis would fall into that category. In fact the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which is accepted by the European Union and is gradually becoming the internationally accepted definition, clearly states that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic."
The full definition follows, and you can see where attacks on the State of Israel go well beyond mere criticism. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
I hopes this clears up the confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
If so, maybe this thread will finally come to an end. Wouldn't it be nice if it could be that simple? As simple as applying these simple rules? If so simple, why is this very long history of war, killing and terrorism going back to Jesus, so far from simple?
Why not simply lay out the 10 commandments, or Buddhist teachings, or suggest we simply do unto others what we would have them do unto you?
Where did we go wrong and why do all the wrongs still continue for so long now? Including the wars, killings and terrorism? I've got my theories...
Glad to see that you read and responded to my post explaining between mere criticism of Israel and something way beyond "criticism of Israel". I tried to explain the difference between "criticism of Israel" and anti-Semitism. It was meant for people like you and I hope it cleared up the confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Americans not afraid to express legitimate criticism with respect to Israel - antisemitic
OOPS!! You're right back at it.
You chose the ID "LearnMe". I really think that you need to concentrate more on the first part of that ID.
Glad to see that you read and responded to my post explaining between mere criticism of Israel and something way beyond "criticism of Israel". I tried to explain the difference between "criticism of Israel" and anti-Semitism. It was meant for people like you and I hope it cleared up the confusion.
OOPS!! You're right back at it.
You chose the ID "LearnMe". I really think that you need to concentrate more on the first part of that ID.
Glad you caught that. You laid out a very excellent list of what constitutes antisemitism - I especially stopped at that one that questions Jews' loyalty - and LearnMe thanked you for your contribution. Then he went right back to his old, false claim.
Frequently indicating that criticism of Israel is frequently an indication of antisemitism tends to amount to the same thing. Is this fact another "far left" notion as far as you are concerned? Or might it again be another attempt to focus on the legitimate issues these differences and conflicts have forced us to contend with for too long now?
For some the "condemnation is broad and all-encompassing," like sometimes people express about my comments and opinions. Damn if I'll ignore the truth or back away from my efforts toward sound reason and logic simply because there is all that nonsense and noise out there, victimizing ALL of us in more ways than one!
Yet again we are back to the missing definition of "Israel-hatred." What is "broad and all-encompassing?" It appears to be the eyes of the beholder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator11040
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. I hopes this clears up the confusion.
For this poster who refers to an international definition, the criticism is at a higher level than what's applied to other democratic nations. This appears to make some sense. The definition offered by the below poster would potentially shut down any criticism of an Israeli policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
When Israel's policies that are criticized are pablum compared to other nations, that is not honest criticism.
No Israeli policy could possibly be worse than those of some rogue nations. North Korea comes to mind. And we have seen posts demanding ... why isn't Syria being criticized? ... why isn't Saudi Arabia being criticized? There are so many worse actions taken by other nations, they say. This is absolutely correct. Israel's policies are "pablum" compared to those of many other nations.
The "democratic nation" wording gives us a generally understood and, more important, shared standard of what constitutes acceptable behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
You just ignore the truth when it doesn't fit your agenda, don't you?. Nobody is saying that legitimate criticism of specific Isrseli policy is antisemitic. For the nth time, I repeat: I myself have been critical of their settlement policy.
Here's yet a third twist. The criticism now must be "legitimate."
Americans not afraid to express legitimate criticism with respect to Israel - antisemitic
Social media does a VERY good job these days. Some are expert at the job in this tread and always hard at it!
You, The Judge of Objectivity, Logic, Reason, Right & Wrong, shall determine what is and isn't legitimate criticism ?
Illegitimate criticism [whatever that means] isn't per se anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. There are such things as differences of opinion or insufficient information.
You, The Judge of Objectivity, Logic, Reason, Right & Wrong, shall determine what is and isn't legitimate criticism ?
Illegitimate criticism [whatever that means] isn't per se anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. There are such things as differences of opinion or insufficient information.
There are facts, which are not subject to opinion. I think illegitimate criticism might apply to people who make up “facts” to fit their agenda.
There are facts, which are not subject to opinion. I think illegitimate criticism might apply to people who make up “facts” to fit their agenda.
I said not ''per se' anti-Semitic or Israel. I know the phrase 'alternative facts' is mocked, but even the 'facts' about how land ended up being divided or the historical record of who lived there aren't easy to decipher, imo. This isn't math.
I said not ''per se' anti-Semitic or Israel. I know the phrase 'alternative facts' is mocked, but even the 'facts' about how land ended up being divided or the historical record of who lived there aren't easy to decipher, imo. This isn't math.
As you say, it does become incredibly complicated with even "facts" in dispute depending on time frames selected with multiple systems for recording land ownership. This is simply one of those situations where there may be no absolute, IMHO. One simply has to make a choice. Then be as responsible as you can within that framework.
There's no inherent shame in that, in not finding or living in some absolute morality or rightness. We support our family ... we support our tribe ... we support our co-religionists ... we support our country ... sometimes blindly but at least frequently without objectivity. No doubt the world would be a better place if that were not the case, but not too many volunteer to be the first in line. Maybe a first step is not to be so bloody insistent about our rightnesses and wrongnesses that, in the end, only work to create "the other." Some acceptance of ambiguity might help here.
For example, I accept that there will be no "Law of Return" for those Palestinians outside the West Bank but then find problematic Israeli land policies within the West Bank. That's inconsistent. Property ownership is not recognized for 1948 and 1967 but then the policy changes starting with the settlements. So some principal has to be derived to apply consistency and it is in the rationales for various policies that a lot of the difficulties begin. At least, that's how I look at it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
