'Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic'?

[Coyote]

Back to the topic.


There is a dangerous confluence between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, though the two concepts are not always identical. Anti-Zionism is often used to conceal hatred of Jews. Anti-Semitic views can be easily distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel.

• Consider the source. Is the speaker someone with a history of anti-Jewish attitudes?
• Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries) are anti-Semitic.
• Likening Israel to Nazi Germany, or to traditional anti-Jewish stereotypical behavior is another sure sign of Jew-baiting.
• Attacks on the merits of Israel's existence rather than individual government policies are anti-Semitic.

When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Dr. Martin Luther King responded: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism.”

(From Seymour Martin Lipset, “The Socialism of Fools—The Left, the Jews and Israel,” Encounter, (December 1969), p. 24.)

Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries) are anti-Semitic.​

When a Palestinian was asked why he singled out Israel his response was that Israel was the only country occupying Palestine.

So? What do you want me to say?

Your guy was either an Egyptian or a Jordanian for over 20 years. Then overnight he became a Palestinian.

The same way Jews overnight became Israeli's where before they were Jordanians, Egyptians, Germans, Russians...

70,000 Mandatory Palestine passports were issued between 1924 and 1948. Issued by the High Commissioner for Palestine.

These passports became invalid with the termination of the British mandate on 15 May 1948. Israelis and Palestinians still keep them as interesting keepsakes, but they are worthless.

If individuals living there had British parents, their passports would be British, with all its rights and privileges.

There were no Israeli's before 1948 - they suddenly were created.

 

[gtopa1]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

So where is the Roma Homeland?? False analogy.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

Except that Jews have always lived in Palestine - they ARE one of the native inhabitants.

Let's get our definitions straight. An Inuit that converts to Judaism becomes a Jew. An Inuit is not a native inhabitant of Palestine likewise a European that converts to Judaism is a Jew but not a native of Palestine.

There were a "handful" of native inhabitants prior to 1850 that had not converted to the Roman religions, Christianity and Islam through the years. These few followers of Judaism were native inhabitants, they were Arab Jews, they spoke Arabic and were culturally Arabs.

Not Europeans from Spain, Portugal, Germany, Russia, Poland, North Africa etc.

Conversely, native inhabitants of Palestine that changed religion through the ages did not magically become foreigners, just as native americans that adopted Christianity (or Judaism), for example, did not lose their status as native inhabitants of the americas.

Who are the indginous inhabitants of Palestine? They are a mixture of peoples who have been there for thousands of years that include the Jews as well as the remnants of other peoples from those times. Those same people have had mixtures of later people's who came in via subsequent migrations, religious conversions etc. The end result is a native Palestinian population that includes Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze, Samaritans, and others. In addition to Jewish immigration from Europe, there was Arab immigration from surrounding countries.

So...who is indiginous? Where do you draw the line?

I agree - if an indiginous person converts to a different religion, he is still that same person.

If an Inuit moves to Florida - does he lose his identity as an Inuit?

Just bathes more often and smells less of seal fat.

So I'm told.

Greg

 

[Coyote]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

So where is the Roma Homeland?? False analogy.

Greg

Very false.

The Jews still maintained a population there, had a long history there, and wanted to establish a an autonomous homeland where their ancestral population still lived is no different thant the Kurds, Basques, Chechnyans, Palestinians, or other independence movements.

Trying to make it different makes one want to ask - why? Why do some native groups have a right to establish a homeland but others not?

 

[gtopa1]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

So where is the Roma Homeland?? False analogy.

Greg

Very false.

The Jews still maintained a population there, had a long history there, and wanted to establish a an autonomous homeland where their ancestral population still lived is no different thant the Kurds, Basques, Chechnyans, Palestinians, or other independence movements.

Trying to make it different makes one want to ask - why? Why do some native groups have a right to establish a homeland but others not?

The Roma have no sense of Homeland. They are "running water" which stagnates when they are still.

Greg

 

[flacaltenn]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

No.. actually this forum is for news and current events from Israel or Palestine as well.. Not required that the topics be about the conflict between Israel and the displaced Palis. The Palis are in conflict in more places than just the occupied territory of Israel..

And TIME is of the essence when you talking about occupations. Occupations should NEVER span generations. And the longer the prospects of a peaceful settlement are postponed by fillibustering about what happened 60 years ago or the "greater Israel" imperialism that doesn't exist --- the less favorable the outcome to the Palis will be.. They NEED a representative leadership with the vision of the Zionists. To live independently and to prosper in peace with their neighbors...

 

[Shusha]

An Inuit who is displaced from northern Canada remains Inuit no matter where she happens to be living. Her children remain Inuit. And her children's children.

But you are missing the larger point here. It doesn't matter what argument you use to deny the Jewish people AS a people -- one whose ancestors originated on the territory in question. ANY argument which prevents the Jewish people from having the same rights as other peoples is fundamentally an anti-semitic argument.

 

[Shusha]

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Other ways to recognize anti-Zionism/anti-semitism:

Lies and exaggerations, such as "never offered full sovereignty"
Assumptions of intent which are not in evidence
Changes in meanings of words
Justifications for violence, especially for pointless violence

 

[Lipush]

An interesting article...

I think the title is 'wrong' however...

I just don't buy into the 'zionist' belief that any word said against the Israeli government and policies is 'anti-semitic'...

If I were to make a negative comment about the South African government, for example, that would not make me a racist...

5 Intellectuals Smash the Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic Argument

It's common sense dude. If your "anti-zionism" involves pushing Israel into the sea or fantasies of them picking up and leaving Israel -- or visions of honor for killing Israeli citizens and innocents -------- THEN it IS anti-Jew and anti Semitic.

Does that about answer the question?

Does it answer the question? Well, yes and no...

Your answer is too 'simplistic' and, if I may say, rather 'extreme'...

Would my criticizing a speech made by Netanyahu, or the continuation of more settlers into the WB be considered anti zionist or anti semitic?

Based upon my belief that the Jews SHOULD have a homeland, have self-determination, I think that rules me out of being an anti zionist.

Based upon my NON hatred of Jews, I have many Jewish friends around the world, I think that rules me out of being an anti semite.

Yet, there are MANY people who have the same beliefs as I do who, like me, get tagged as an anti zionist, anti semite, simply because I don't believe that everything that Israel does is right...

As has already been said in a previous post, it's like walking on eggshells... It seems that ANY negative comment or criticism of Israel WILL lead to that anti zionist/anti semite tag...

I understand your moderate stance. And I certainly appreciate it. But making excuses for MILITANT leadership of the Palestinian cause would certainly void all of that "moderation"... WE don't get to choose the leadership of Israel or Palestine. So you are free to criticize any ONE of the them, but condoning ineffective senseless death and violence in LIEU of meaningful nationalistic planning and LEADERSHIP for the Palis WOULD be very anti-Jewish and anti-semitic.. Because you would be EXCUSING the stated goals of pushing Israel off the map or hardening hearts so as not to negotiate for PROGRESS and peace..

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Even Rabin didn't succeed in making peace with the Palestinians. And he had more than one round of being in power.

Regardless of his murder, even our most peaceful leader could not make the Palestinians happy. And there wasn't anything he didn't offer them.

 

[Humanity]

An interesting article...

I think the title is 'wrong' however...

I just don't buy into the 'zionist' belief that any word said against the Israeli government and policies is 'anti-semitic'...

If I were to make a negative comment about the South African government, for example, that would not make me a racist...

5 Intellectuals Smash the Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic Argument

It's common sense dude. If your "anti-zionism" involves pushing Israel into the sea or fantasies of them picking up and leaving Israel -- or visions of honor for killing Israeli citizens and innocents -------- THEN it IS anti-Jew and anti Semitic.

Does that about answer the question?

Does it answer the question? Well, yes and no...

Your answer is too 'simplistic' and, if I may say, rather 'extreme'...

Would my criticizing a speech made by Netanyahu, or the continuation of more settlers into the WB be considered anti zionist or anti semitic?

Based upon my belief that the Jews SHOULD have a homeland, have self-determination, I think that rules me out of being an anti zionist.

Based upon my NON hatred of Jews, I have many Jewish friends around the world, I think that rules me out of being an anti semite.

Yet, there are MANY people who have the same beliefs as I do who, like me, get tagged as an anti zionist, anti semite, simply because I don't believe that everything that Israel does is right...

As has already been said in a previous post, it's like walking on eggshells... It seems that ANY negative comment or criticism of Israel WILL lead to that anti zionist/anti semite tag...

I understand your moderate stance. And I certainly appreciate it. But making excuses for MILITANT leadership of the Palestinian cause would certainly void all of that "moderation"... WE don't get to choose the leadership of Israel or Palestine. So you are free to criticize any ONE of the them, but condoning ineffective senseless death and violence in LIEU of meaningful nationalistic planning and LEADERSHIP for the Palis WOULD be very anti-Jewish and anti-semitic.. Because you would be EXCUSING the stated goals of pushing Israel off the map or hardening hearts so as not to negotiate for PROGRESS and peace..

I'm sure if you read some of my previous posts you would see that I would never make "excuses" for militant leadership of ANYONE.... On that note, it's time for, long overdue for, regime change for the Palestinians... But thats for a different topic.

Yes, you are right, I don't choose the leadership and have criticized BOTH! I don't condone ANY violence, from Palestinians or Israelis and certainly have NO interest in pushing the Jews into the sea!

Yet I am still accused of being an anti semite and anti zionist because I don't believe that Israel or their policies in relation to Palestine is correct!

 

[Coyote]

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Other ways to recognize anti-Zionism/anti-semitism:

Lies and exaggerations, such as "never offered full sovereignty"
Assumptions of intent which are not in evidence
Changes in meanings of words
Justifications for violence, especially for pointless violence

I disagree. Lies and exaggerations are part and parcel of the arguments in both sides of the conflict - that isn't anti-semitism.

Assumption of intent - same thing, in any conflict and this one is no different. There is deep distrust of the other's intent on BOTH sides here.

Changes in meanings of words...not sure, can you give some examples?

Justifications for violence - again, that is not uncommon in conflicts, I don't see that as "anti-semitic" unless the person is holding double standards.

 

[montelatici]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

So where is the Roma Homeland?? False analogy.

Greg

Very false.

The Jews still maintained a population there, had a long history there, and wanted to establish a an autonomous homeland where their ancestral population still lived is no different thant the Kurds, Basques, Chechnyans, Palestinians, or other independence movements.

Trying to make it different makes one want to ask - why? Why do some native groups have a right to establish a homeland but others not?

Even if I were to agree that an Inuit or Russian magically becomes a native inhabitant of Palestine by converting to Judaism, it has nothing to do with the right to establish a homeland, it has to do with the right to expropriate the people inhabiting an area to establish a homeland.

The Roma (gypsies) came from what is now Pakistan, what was once northwestern India. Would it be considered rational today if a world power say, the U.S. or China, issued a declaration that mimicked the Balfour Declaration which suggested that a National Home for the Roma be established in Pakistan? Now that the native people there have almost all converted to Islam? It would be absurd to do such a thing. Yet some people believe that the Balfour Declaration was somehow justifiable.

 

[Roudy]

An interesting article...

I think the title is 'wrong' however...

I just don't buy into the 'zionist' belief that any word said against the Israeli government and policies is 'anti-semitic'...

If I were to make a negative comment about the South African government, for example, that would not make me a racist...

5 Intellectuals Smash the Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic Argument

Anti-Israeli government is not the same as anti-Semitism. Two different things. It's like saying if you are against the US government, you hate all Americans.

"Anti Israel govt" is not anti Zionism, you ignoramus.

The thing is, I've never heard any criticism of Israel, other than related to the Palestinians. Not in the way other "normal" countries are criticised.

It's an abnormal obsession, the justifications meandering into the land of myths.

Correct. They never voice any objection to any policy or political leaders. It's always Israel as a whole. Most of them also use the IslamoNazi term "Zionist entity" for Israel. The retards can't even bring themselves to use the word Israel.

 

[montelatici]

An interesting article...

I think the title is 'wrong' however...

I just don't buy into the 'zionist' belief that any word said against the Israeli government and policies is 'anti-semitic'...

If I were to make a negative comment about the South African government, for example, that would not make me a racist...

5 Intellectuals Smash the Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic Argument

It's common sense dude. If your "anti-zionism" involves pushing Israel into the sea or fantasies of them picking up and leaving Israel -- or visions of honor for killing Israeli citizens and innocents -------- THEN it IS anti-Jew and anti Semitic.

Does that about answer the question?

Does it answer the question? Well, yes and no...

Your answer is too 'simplistic' and, if I may say, rather 'extreme'...

Would my criticizing a speech made by Netanyahu, or the continuation of more settlers into the WB be considered anti zionist or anti semitic?

Based upon my belief that the Jews SHOULD have a homeland, have self-determination, I think that rules me out of being an anti zionist.

Based upon my NON hatred of Jews, I have many Jewish friends around the world, I think that rules me out of being an anti semite.

Yet, there are MANY people who have the same beliefs as I do who, like me, get tagged as an anti zionist, anti semite, simply because I don't believe that everything that Israel does is right...

As has already been said in a previous post, it's like walking on eggshells... It seems that ANY negative comment or criticism of Israel WILL lead to that anti zionist/anti semite tag...

I understand your moderate stance. And I certainly appreciate it. But making excuses for MILITANT leadership of the Palestinian cause would certainly void all of that "moderation"... WE don't get to choose the leadership of Israel or Palestine. So you are free to criticize any ONE of the them, but condoning ineffective senseless death and violence in LIEU of meaningful nationalistic planning and LEADERSHIP for the Palis WOULD be very anti-Jewish and anti-semitic.. Because you would be EXCUSING the stated goals of pushing Israel off the map or hardening hearts so as not to negotiate for PROGRESS and peace..

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Even Rabin didn't succeed in making peace with the Palestinians. And he had more than one round of being in power.

Regardless of his murder, even our most peaceful leader could not make the Palestinians happy. And there wasn't anything he didn't offer them.

The Palestinians have never been offered a sovereign state. In all the proposals Israel maintained sovereignty.

 

[Lipush]

It's common sense dude. If your "anti-zionism" involves pushing Israel into the sea or fantasies of them picking up and leaving Israel -- or visions of honor for killing Israeli citizens and innocents -------- THEN it IS anti-Jew and anti Semitic.

Does that about answer the question?

Does it answer the question? Well, yes and no...

Your answer is too 'simplistic' and, if I may say, rather 'extreme'...

Would my criticizing a speech made by Netanyahu, or the continuation of more settlers into the WB be considered anti zionist or anti semitic?

Based upon my belief that the Jews SHOULD have a homeland, have self-determination, I think that rules me out of being an anti zionist.

Based upon my NON hatred of Jews, I have many Jewish friends around the world, I think that rules me out of being an anti semite.

Yet, there are MANY people who have the same beliefs as I do who, like me, get tagged as an anti zionist, anti semite, simply because I don't believe that everything that Israel does is right...

As has already been said in a previous post, it's like walking on eggshells... It seems that ANY negative comment or criticism of Israel WILL lead to that anti zionist/anti semite tag...

I understand your moderate stance. And I certainly appreciate it. But making excuses for MILITANT leadership of the Palestinian cause would certainly void all of that "moderation"... WE don't get to choose the leadership of Israel or Palestine. So you are free to criticize any ONE of the them, but condoning ineffective senseless death and violence in LIEU of meaningful nationalistic planning and LEADERSHIP for the Palis WOULD be very anti-Jewish and anti-semitic.. Because you would be EXCUSING the stated goals of pushing Israel off the map or hardening hearts so as not to negotiate for PROGRESS and peace..

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Even Rabin didn't succeed in making peace with the Palestinians. And he had more than one round of being in power.

Regardless of his murder, even our most peaceful leader could not make the Palestinians happy. And there wasn't anything he didn't offer them.

The Palestinians have never been offered a sovereign state. In all the proposals Israel maintained sovereignty.

Israel offered them land, which is what they were after to being with.

 

[Coyote]

The problem is that the Zionist fanatics do not understand that this particular section is dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict. So of course every post should be about the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The other problem is that Zionists do not understand that non Jews do not have a different moral compass for Jews. If Jews bombard Gaza and kill thousands, they are treated no differently than Russians when they did the same to Grozny, claiming that the civilian deaths were unintentional. Nor do most non Jews (Christian Zionists excluded) feel that just because they were of the Jewish faith and/or had been oppressed in Europe, they had a right to expropriate the native inhabitants of Palestine.

If the people had been Roma (who also were subjects of extermination by the Nazis) that had expropriated the native inhabitants of Palestine, they would receive the same criticism as the Jews for doing the same thing.

So where is the Roma Homeland?? False analogy.

Greg

Very false.

The Jews still maintained a population there, had a long history there, and wanted to establish a an autonomous homeland where their ancestral population still lived is no different thant the Kurds, Basques, Chechnyans, Palestinians, or other independence movements.

Trying to make it different makes one want to ask - why? Why do some native groups have a right to establish a homeland but others not?

Even if I were to agree that an Inuit or Russian magically becomes a native inhabitant of Palestine by converting to Judaism, it has nothing to do with the right to establish a homeland, it has to do with the right to expropriate the people inhabiting an area to establish a homeland.

Is an Inuit magically become not-an-Inuit if he moves elsewhere? Are his children not Inuit?

The Roma (gypsies) came from what is now Pakistan, what was once northwestern India. Would it be considered rational today if a world power say, the U.S. or China, issued a declaration that mimicked the Balfour Declaration which suggested that a National Home for the Roma be established in Pakistan? Now that the native people there have almost all converted to Islam? It would be absurd to do such a thing. Yet some people believe that the Balfour Declaration was somehow justifiable.

Are there still Roma people in Pakistan?

 

[montelatici]

An interesting article...

I think the title is 'wrong' however...

I just don't buy into the 'zionist' belief that any word said against the Israeli government and policies is 'anti-semitic'...

If I were to make a negative comment about the South African government, for example, that would not make me a racist...

5 Intellectuals Smash the Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic Argument

Anti-Israeli government is not the same as anti-Semitism. Two different things. It's like saying if you are against the US government, you hate all Americans.

"Anti Israel govt" is not anti Zionism, you ignoramus.

The thing is, I've never heard any criticism of Israel, other than related to the Palestinians. Not in the way other "normal" countries are criticised.

It's an abnormal obsession, the justifications meandering into the land of myths.

Correct. They never voice any objection to any policy or political leaders. It's always Israel as a whole. Most of them also use the IslamoNazi term "Zionist entity" for Israel. The retards can't even bring themselves to use the word Israel.

There was no criticism of South Africa other than that related to the South African white's treatment of the non-white population, during Apartheid. Why would it be different for Israel?

 

[Mindful]

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Other ways to recognize anti-Zionism/anti-semitism:

Lies and exaggerations, such as "never offered full sovereignty"
Assumptions of intent which are not in evidence
Changes in meanings of words
Justifications for violence, especially for pointless violence

I disagree. Lies and exaggerations are part and parcel of the arguments in both sides of the conflict - that isn't anti-semitism.

Assumption of intent - same thing, in any conflict and this one is no different. There is deep distrust of the other's intent on BOTH sides here.

Changes in meanings of words...not sure, can you give some examples?

Justifications for violence - again, that is not uncommon in conflicts, I don't see that as "anti-semitic" unless the person is holding double standards.

The Israelis are well aware of the intent from Hamas..

 

[Coyote]

While it would be preferable to arrive at a peaceful solution, what would make you think that the Israelis would move away from their stated goal to expand Israel's borders to what they call Eretz Israel? The Palestinians were never offered full sovereignty even when Likud was out of power. There was never any thought to removing Israeli troops from the West Bank or East Jerusalem. If there is little cost to doing so, Israel intends to maintain control of all the land it now controls one way or another.

Sadly, in every case in the recent past, the occupied/oppressed have always had to put up enough resistance which makes the occupier/oppressor uncomfortable enough to cause him to give serious consideration to relinquishing control. Ireland, Algeria, South Africa, Rhodesia, Kenya, etc.

Other ways to recognize anti-Zionism/anti-semitism:

Lies and exaggerations, such as "never offered full sovereignty"
Assumptions of intent which are not in evidence
Changes in meanings of words
Justifications for violence, especially for pointless violence

I disagree. Lies and exaggerations are part and parcel of the arguments in both sides of the conflict - that isn't anti-semitism.

Assumption of intent - same thing, in any conflict and this one is no different. There is deep distrust of the other's intent on BOTH sides here.

Changes in meanings of words...not sure, can you give some examples?

Justifications for violence - again, that is not uncommon in conflicts, I don't see that as "anti-semitic" unless the person is holding double standards.

The Israelis are well aware of the intent from Hamas..

And the Palestinians firmly believe Israel intends to expel them in entirety. What's your point?

 

[Roudy]

Nice irrelvant propaganda mouthful. But Jews should be allowed to establish a state in their religious, spiritual and cultural homeland in land their ancestors came from. To be against that is what antizionism is, which is simply, the new antisemtism.

I agree, they should - and part of that is that they have always maintained a presence there. They didn't just up and suddenly appear in the area proclaiming a state. In that sense, they are no different than other groups calling for autonomy in their homeland. So why single them out?

They aren't being singled out, they are simply following what the original plan and intention was for the land by those that conquered it from the Ottomans, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Other areas were indeed singled out and labeled as "Arab Palestine" aka Jordan (of which no Jews were allowed to live), and other Muslim / Islamic states that were carved out of the Ottoman empire such Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia etc. Not so for the area singled out as "Jewish Palestine" that were to be governed by Jews, yet Arabs were still allowed to live there. The Arabs of course rejected this proposition, as they wanted it all. And the rest is history.

Like you said, this is an unresolved conflict (of which truly has been created as a result of the aggression of Arabs towards the Jewish state). Therefore the Arab states are mostly responsible for the plight of the Arabs left hanging after the many times they failed to destroy the Jewish state. Israel has reached out and tried to resolve this matter many times and was rejected and attacked many times. Now it is almost too late, as the facts on the ground and demographics of the West Bank no longer allow for a true two state solution.