Why criticism of Israel isn't Antisemitism

Post Reply New Topic

Hate crimes against Jews in America have jumped in the past few years, but the media likes to blame and focus on people criticizing the policy of the right-wing Israeli government and supporting the human rights of Palestinians, instead of the actual hatemongerers. There's an interesting development on the right: People there are becoming both Antisemitic and pro-Israel:



EDIT: Also, we can never have an honest conversation that criticizes Israel with the right, "because it only takes one bad-faith reading of a critique to claim Antisemitism and derail the entire conversation."

It doesn't matter who is ruling in Israel, the policies are the same. The left are the problem generally seeing racism everywhere.

Whataboutism, two wrongs do not make a right etc but more about that later.

Surprised the vlogger did not mention the most antisemetic thing about a lot of the rights supports of Israel. The idea of the rapture. Israel has to exist and be powerful for this to happen. What happens is bye bye Jews(and all other heathens). So why do a lot pro Israel Jews accept their help. Pretty simple it's the old "deal with the devil" ,"the enemy of the enemy is my friend" thinking. If your a pro Israel Jew and you don't believe in the rapture stuff so why not take the support and money from the meshugganah's(crazy people)

Trump's "dual loyalty" claims are worse then the pro BDS left. At worst the pro BDS left is insinuating Semitic tropes. As pointed out in the video instead of Jews being actually more loyal to a foreign country Trump said Jews should be loyal to a foreign country.

And of course the most lethal antisemitism has come from the right.

So I guess it is understandable to only see the most innocuous explanations for these alleged tropes by the left as the vlogger does.

We have just come from a period where 30 years of anti-Semitic words that could be considered tropes from the right were explained away as innocuous. That is not going well.

We are in an era "cancel culture" where things and people from decades ago are being "erased" as racist with no context or "that is how it was then" is increasingly being considered as utterly unacceptable. But if it is possible RECENT "antisemitism" from the "left" in America or the no doubt anti-Semitic stuff said by current and former leadership members of the BDS movement maybe if not probably we should assume innocent intent but that is not human nature.

That all said I do believe Israel is overreacting to the BDS "threat". BDS is not much of a threat to Israel. BDS gets a lot of media attention because celebrities like Roger Waters and Elvis Costello are down with the cause. Israel has never been more powerful and has never had more allies and trading partners as they do now.

All of the above seems to be a contradiction because it is. The hardest decision with potential bad consequences is whether to ignore or fight a perceived threat and then how to oppose it. Ignore it and you run the risk of the old slippery slope, Jews know about that one. Fight your opponent and you make them more powerful by giving them publicity and often make them martyrs.

Interesting vlog. He is pretty much right on.

Trump is by turns adept, and inept, with tropes.

He said that "jews who vote Democrat" are "disloyal". This rightly offended many because it sounded like he was repeating the old trope that "jews have divided loyality between Israel and the country they live in". In fact he meant almost the opposite: that Jews who vote Democrat are being disloyal TO Israel (and to their own Judaism). It SOUNDED like he was trying to rally Gentiles against Jews when he was actually trying to pit American Jews against each other. Trump was too boneheaded to realize how his "disloyalty" comment would sound. He was trying to be one kind of rabble rouser, but it backfired because it made it LOOK LIKE he was being another kind of rabble rouser. Its hard to be demagogue like Trump. So much homework you hafta do!

But Trump can also smear a person by falsly accusing the person of antisemitism, and get a crowd to demonstrate their very real racism by shouting "send her back". Any excuse will do for kicking brown skinned folks out of the country. Flinging charges of antisemitism at them will due fine. Even for a crowd who probably believe that "immigration is a Jewish plot to fill America with brown people".

I don't need a third-rate YouTube video to explain to me something so painfully obvious. Anybody with a room temperature IQ already knows this s**t.

Criticism of Israel is usually anti-Zionist in nature-----rather than anti-Semitic, per se.

I wish the Palestinians weren’t thrown off their land.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance composed the definitive working definition of anti-Semitism.

Some relevant sections:
"Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

"Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

...

- 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."

In short, if it is a fair criticism of Israel that the speaker is equally willing to level at any country guilty of it, then it's not anti-Semitic. The Israeli government has done a lot wrong over the years which has warranted criticism. If, however, it's an anti-Semitic trope with the word "Jews" replaced with "Israel", then it's anti-Semitic. If it holds Israel to a higher standard than other nations, it is anti-Semitic. If it uses Israel as a way to attack Jews, then it is anti-Semitic.

- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
The left has generally not done this

- 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.
The left has generally not openly done this although some of us think it is implied.

- 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.
This is the most controversial definition because it does equate anti Zionism with anti semitism. Some elements of the progressive movement have said this

- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
This happens. Israel have been SOB's others that have been worse get less attention. But it is probably an ineffective thing to point out because it has been done so much at this point it is just another whataboutism

- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
American progressives have generally done this although the two members of the squad and others were sponsored by an organization that said this.

- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Nazi comparisons are done way too much by everybody left, right and non binary

-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
Progressives generally do not do this

"In short, if it is a fair criticism of Israel that the speaker is equally willing to level at any country guilty of it, then it's not anti-Semitic. The Israeli government has done a lot wrong over the years which has warranted criticism. If, however, it's an anti-Semitic trope with the word "Jews" replaced with "Israel", then it's anti-Semitic. If it holds Israel to a higher standard than other nations, it is anti-Semitic. If it uses Israel as a way to attack Jews, then it is anti-Semitic."

It takes mind reading skills to know a speakers intent. It is best not to accuse somebody of antisemitism based on one or two statements that could be construed as a trope or a "microaggression". When the speaker keeps on going into what could be construed as trope territory it is fine to highly suspect and call out said person.

Unfortunately because of call out and cancel culture has become so ubiquitous, accusations of bigotry has been so often used as a straw man, and the political tribalism I am very tempted not to call out anybody because I know my accusation will not be believed because I will be viewed, as a snowflake, sheepie, doing it for straw man purposes, or just as counterproductive because the other side is worse.