this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
857 points (90.6% liked)
Political Memes
5054 readers
1813 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a tough needle to thread, because there is both a lot of antisemitism and a lot of opposition to genocide that is not motivated by antisemitism. Any support for Palestinians is joined by a chorus of calls to end the existence of Israel entirely, something that would require killing a lot of Jewish people. So it's difficult to untangle the legitimate criticism from the antisemitism.
So I don't disagree with you, but I also understand why people are quick to slap labels on critics.
Israel is not "Jewish people". Israel "could" end without a single Jew dying. Also, Jews lived there when it was Palestine. I dunno did they die when it became Israel? How are you arriving at the end of a concept being mass murder?
I think if Israel stopped trying to run itself as an ethnostate they'd be fine. I think there's an argument that the "concept" of what currently constitutes Israel may be too tainted to realistically save. Many unwilling to admit fault, apologize, and return what was stolen. And many unwilling to forgive them for doing it. It would take real concession and change. Something those in charge don't want. So the people both Israeli and Palestinian will continue to suffer for the gains of wealthy genocidal bigots.
Many Palestinians were killed or died in the transition when Israel was established.
I agree with you that Israel needs to change, and that they aren't going to change unless they are forced to change. But the Jewish people living in Israel will not leave peacefully. To "end" Israel is to kill a lot of Jewish people living there.
And the antisemites are counting on everyone making a distinction between the two.
I can't seem to find this comment on your user page or anywhere else on lemmy.world
I removed it, thinking that I had phrased it indelicately. The main point of the comment was a link to the Deir Yassin massacre, and maybe I'll just leave it at that.
There's no scenario, in any possible world, in which the 'abolition' of Israel doesn't result in the deaths of millions of Jews.
Well, at least absent a secular awakening in the middle east. And that is the real issue here in my view, and I'm not sure why so many people seem to be giving a pass to the extremist elephant in the room here.
There is a difference between possible and likely. And you my friend are misrepresenting the two. It is 100% possible. But it also is unlikely because of all the genocidal ethno statists.
The history of this region proves this to not be the case though. Jews have mostly been chased out of the region a few times with many dead left in the wake.
Jews did not live peacefully before the British mandate ended, there's a long list of pogroms and assaults leading to many dead in the hundreds of years leading up to the UN establishment of the state.
It would be great if they could live peacefully but history shows that's a risk they can't take.
Fuck that. Anti Zionism isn't antisemitism. Israel is a fascist state with no right to exist. Anyone who associates that fascist state to Jewishness is the true antisemite
It really isn't as long as both parties are arguing in good faith and refraining from strawman arguments or other logical fallacies.
Sadly, even that is usually too much to ask for, as evidenced by your apparently good faith post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of assuming that you can't argue that genocide of Palestinians is a bad thing without people agreeing with you by arguing that genocide of Israeli people would be super neat.
Of course, claiming that what other people say apart from agreeing with you that Palestinians shouldn't be murdered is the responsibility of you for some reason is in itself an association fallacy.
Come to think of it, ARE you arguing in good faith or are you just taking this chance to apply guilt by association without appearing to? 🤔
Anyway: NO it's NOT difficult to defend Palestinians without being antisemitic and benignly doing so does NOT make you responsible for antisemites agreeing with what you're saying and then adding a lot that you did NOT say.
How would you know? That's really my point. Antisemites are using this moment to inject their bigotey into the political discussion.
Case in point. I've called what Israel has been foing a genocide from the beginning. I think Netanyahu has committed crimes against humanity and should be deposed.
I also think Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas, and a right to prosecute and root out terrorists.
For this, I have been called a bigot from both sides. And I completely understand, because you don't know if I'm a secret bigot trying to sound reasonable.
I'm not at all suggesting that it makes me responsible for the statements of bigots, nor am I suggesting that anyone else should feel guilty by association as ling as they are challenging the bigotry. If you march shoulder to shoulder with them then yes you are guilty by association. If you tap into their hatred to achieve your political goals, however benign your goals are, you are guilty by association.
And that's the hard part. I'm not suggesting it's hard not to be a bigot. It's hard to tell who is who from the sidelines.
Ok, that's true and fair. Glad to meet someone reasonable 😁
If you see a beaten up homeless person in the street and they keep screaming something about "I'm gonna take over the united States government", the threat is basically idle and has to be taken in the context of what power he has, as a homeless perspn, as compared to a state like the US. Israel has all the power and is in no kind of substantial danger from Hamas or anyone else. It can erradiacte the entire place easily. Palestine is the homeless person screaming how he wants to replace biden while in fact he is beaten to the ground and survives on scrapes of food.
It’s not difficult at all. One is criticising government policies and extremists while the other is just bigotry using criticism of an entire people for their government policies and extremists.
So how do you tell a critic's motivations? How do you separate the two when they are chanting in the streets?