Is denying Israels's right to exist anti-semitism?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by FredOrJohn
Yes but we don't live next to people who want to destroy you. Would you want to live in a small isolated country in the middle east that was not muslim that everyone else around hated?
They idea that all of Israel's neighbours "want to destroy" it is a bit of a myth, Israel has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt and has been getting quite chummy with Saudi lately.
Original post by queenofswords
Discuss.
Have holocaust mk 2 everything will be fine
Original post by FredOrJohn
Yes but we don't live next to people who want to destroy you. Would you want to live in a small isolated country in the middle east that was not muslim that everyone else around hated?
If you go back to the 1940s, I too would want out of "white euro" lands and find somewhere else. It was the muslim population back then that rejected mass immigration into their lands and indeed rose up against the jewish immigrants.
Israel came into existence as a result of a breakdown in relations.
There is no way to wind back the clock.
I have NO ANSWER - but being anti-Zionist does not help.
I have zero idea of what I would do, I feel sorry for the Israelis I really do.
They are against a rock and a hard place. Everyone appears to hate them.
I don't; I really wish them well.
Perhaps if the Muslim religion was more lovey dovey the world would be a much nicer and richer place for all to share. Perhaps I would buy a house in Bagdad and watch it rise in value. But alas, the world is not like that.
If you go back to the 1940s, I too would want out of "white euro" lands and find somewhere else. It was the muslim population back then that rejected mass immigration into their lands and indeed rose up against the jewish immigrants.
Israel came into existence as a result of a breakdown in relations.
There is no way to wind back the clock.
I have NO ANSWER - but being anti-Zionist does not help.
I have zero idea of what I would do, I feel sorry for the Israelis I really do.
They are against a rock and a hard place. Everyone appears to hate them.
I don't; I really wish them well.
Perhaps if the Muslim religion was more lovey dovey the world would be a much nicer and richer place for all to share. Perhaps I would buy a house in Bagdad and watch it rise in value. But alas, the world is not like that.
Peace? Have you not heard of the 'Samson option'? The piece of Israeli military doctrine that states it will not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran?
Original post by Redmonds
Peace? Have you not heard of the 'Samson option'? The piece of Israeli military doctrine that states it will not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran?
Where else do they go to apart from the sea. Its easy for you and me. We live here. I would not preach to Israel, we don't have to live like that.
Original post by crimezonepeace22
You're resorting to what the law says in order to answer what is clearly a political question.
I see no evidence that OP is using the word "right" in a more abstract moral sense rather than an international legal one, particularly since we're talking about a state.
If you or OP or anyone want to argue for moral rights of states outside international law, go ahead.
Original post by Redmonds
Peace? Have you not heard of the 'Samson option'? The piece of Israeli military doctrine that states it will not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran?
Relax, not only against Iran. Against any country in case if its military has destroyed much of Israel.
Original post by Volvic Water
No, many Orthodox Jews oppose the existence of Israel.
That does not make any less antisemitic.
Original post by garfeeled
If it is then opposing Scottish nationalism is bigoted as well.
truth be told it depends where your issues lies.
Personally though I think isreal should exist, at least I feel the alternative would be truly terrible.
truth be told it depends where your issues lies.
Personally though I think isreal should exist, at least I feel the alternative would be truly terrible.
I think opposing Scottisn Nationalism in England did indeed have some "bigotedness" and ill feeling. So I think you could define much of English "anti-SNP" as anti-Scottish, indeed much of it was aimed at Scottish people in general, whether SNP or not.
Its a good parallel. Now multiply that by at least 100, and that is what Israelis have to put up with - GLOBALLY.
The issue is more nuanced than that. Condemning the Israeli government for their perceived failures and mistreatment of others isn't necessarily anti-Zionism, many Zionists do this. I am dubious however of those who give disproportionate attention to Israel over all other countries which violate human rights.
More often than not, those who want to deny Israel's right to exist, the only Jewish country in the world, have no issues with Saudi Arabian human rights abuses etc.
Those with a disproportionate hatred of Israel, to the extent of hoping for it's destruction and accepting suicide bombings which have killed Israeli civillians as 'freedom fighting,' arguably have anti-semitic elements to them.
More often than not, those who want to deny Israel's right to exist, the only Jewish country in the world, have no issues with Saudi Arabian human rights abuses etc.
Those with a disproportionate hatred of Israel, to the extent of hoping for it's destruction and accepting suicide bombings which have killed Israeli civillians as 'freedom fighting,' arguably have anti-semitic elements to them.
Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jews deny Israel's right to exist as they don't believe there should be a Jewish state until the Messiah comes. If you deny the right to exist for political reasons, that is not anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, I have come across many who use anti-Zionism as a thinly veiled means of spreading anti-semitic views whereby they call on ancient anti-Semitic tropes that the 'Jews are agressive, wish to dominate others and use the Holocaust to deny this.' That is anti-semitic.
Many people misunderstand Israel to mean either the Jewish people in general or the Jewish people living under its territory. Israel on the contrary, is simply a state, a state whose existence is not just opposed by many Muslims but also many Jews. If we were contesting the right of the Jewish people to exist understandably there would be alarm bells ringing, but we are not doing this, we are questioning the right of Israel to have sovereignty over land that used to belong to Palestine before it was recognized by foreign powers.
I personally would be furious if our sovereignty and land was given away by France to Germany.
Many people speak of the dangers of the Iranians as a threat to the Jewish people due to well known phrases like 'wiped off the map', I would consider this a threat, but not necessarily to the Jewish people, but to the state which should not be on the map in the first place, such statements are twisted by the Zionists in order to present a sympathetic case to the state of Israel for many reasons.
One of these is money and power, this is when people here will call me anti-Semitic and say 'yeah the Jews own the media the goym etc' no this is not what I am saying, what I am saying is many people in Israel are rich because of its existence, the occupation of that new land benefits someone.
Another is religious significance, given the value of the land to the Zionists they want to make a claim on it.
What these reasons aren't are humanitarian concerns for the well being and co-existence of Jews and Muslims in the Middle East.
I personally would be furious if our sovereignty and land was given away by France to Germany.
Many people speak of the dangers of the Iranians as a threat to the Jewish people due to well known phrases like 'wiped off the map', I would consider this a threat, but not necessarily to the Jewish people, but to the state which should not be on the map in the first place, such statements are twisted by the Zionists in order to present a sympathetic case to the state of Israel for many reasons.
One of these is money and power, this is when people here will call me anti-Semitic and say 'yeah the Jews own the media the goym etc' no this is not what I am saying, what I am saying is many people in Israel are rich because of its existence, the occupation of that new land benefits someone.
Another is religious significance, given the value of the land to the Zionists they want to make a claim on it.
What these reasons aren't are humanitarian concerns for the well being and co-existence of Jews and Muslims in the Middle East.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by simbasdragon
The issue is more nuanced than that. Condemning the Israeli government for their perceived failures and mistreatment of others isn't necessarily anti-Zionism, many Zionists do this. I am dubious however of those who give disproportionate attention to Israel over all other countries which violate human rights.
More often than not, those who want to deny Israel's right to exist, the only Jewish country in the world, have no issues with Saudi Arabian human rights abuses etc.
Those with a disproportionate hatred of Israel, to the extent of hoping for it's destruction and accepting suicide bombings which have killed Israeli civillians as 'freedom fighting,' arguably have anti-semitic elements to them.
More often than not, those who want to deny Israel's right to exist, the only Jewish country in the world, have no issues with Saudi Arabian human rights abuses etc.
Those with a disproportionate hatred of Israel, to the extent of hoping for it's destruction and accepting suicide bombings which have killed Israeli civillians as 'freedom fighting,' arguably have anti-semitic elements to them.
Hear, hear.
Original post by Redmonds
No. Israel is not the same thing as Judaism. I don't call people 'Islamophobic for denying the sovereignty of Palestine. How about all the Jewish people that are campaigning against the actions of Israel and its expansion? DO we call them anti-semitic?
Original post by Volvic Water
No, many Orthodox Jews oppose the existence of Israel.
This. And also people forget palestinians are not only muslims FYI, christians as well.
Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
Many people misunderstand Israel to mean either the Jewish people in general or the Jewish people living under its territory. Israel on the contrary, is simply a state, a state whose existence is not just opposed by many Muslims but also many Jews. If we were contesting the right of the Jewish people to exist understandably there would be alarm bells ringing, but we are not doing this, we are questioning the right of Israel to have sovereignty over land that used to belong to Palestine before it was recognized by foreign powers.
You're entirely correct in suggesting that Israel as a nation is not simply about Jews. But the issue arises by the fact that historically, Zionism and Israel are interlinked. A core principle of Zionism, especially the political strand of it, was about the creation of the state of Israel (see Theodor Herzl). Furthermore, the Balfour Declaration asserted the recognition of such a state for the Jews.
The fact that Israel became a multicultural and democratic state is not necessarily related to this idea (I would argue it was a combination of macroeconomic and political factors that led to its governance model).
I personally find the argument that Israel has no sovereignty over the land a false one. Whether it's moral or not is another issue, but the fact remains: there are countless examples of nations being built on land where other people lived. Israel is not an individual case and nor should it we treated as one.
Original post by Aceadria
You're entirely correct in suggesting that Israel as a nation is not simply about Jews. But the issue arises by the fact that historically, Zionism and Israel are interlinked. A core principle of Zionism, especially the political strand of it, was about the creation of the state of Israel (see Theodor Herzl). Furthermore, the Balfour Declaration asserted the recognition of such a state for the Jews.
The fact that Israel became a multicultural and democratic state is not necessarily related to this idea (I would argue it was a combination of macroeconomic and political factors that led to its governance model).
I personally find the argument that Israel has no sovereignty over the land a false one. Whether it's moral or not is another issue, but the fact remains: there are countless examples of nations being built on land where other people lived. Israel is not an individual case and nor should it we treated as one.
The fact that Israel became a multicultural and democratic state is not necessarily related to this idea (I would argue it was a combination of macroeconomic and political factors that led to its governance model).
I personally find the argument that Israel has no sovereignty over the land a false one. Whether it's moral or not is another issue, but the fact remains: there are countless examples of nations being built on land where other people lived. Israel is not an individual case and nor should it we treated as one.
There is agreeably complexity over the issue of Zionism and the British colonial governments authority over territory, and I would not like it to be a set precedent that former groups should claim land which was lost centuries ago (such a precedent would be of absurd proportions) but using the Balfour Declaration:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
I am of the opinion the conditions of the settlements on the West Bank violate this agreement.
There is also the correspondence between the British and Arab nationalists, the poorly defined border arrangements after the damage to the Ottoman empire and general colonial resentment because of this. Looking here I seem to be one of the only proponents of a one state solution which recognises the importance of both Zionism and Arab nationalism.
From the wikipedia article on the Balfour Declaration
British public and government opinion became increasingly less favourable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In February 1922, Winston Churchill telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure and noting:In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine, which will be stimulated by recent Northcliffe articles.[80] I do not attach undue importance to this movement, but it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy
It is clear to me and many others based on evidence from British officials themselves that Zionism originally was forced on the natives and was a deeply unpopular (both in Britain and in the Arab world), religiously and nationalistic based on policy, which should never have been recognised in the first place, if not likely for the money and power of those behind the proposal.
British public and government opinion became increasingly less favourable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In February 1922, Winston Churchill telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure and noting:In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine, which will be stimulated by recent Northcliffe articles.[80] I do not attach undue importance to this movement, but it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy
It is clear to me and many others based on evidence from British officials themselves that Zionism originally was forced on the natives and was a deeply unpopular (both in Britain and in the Arab world), religiously and nationalistic based on policy, which should never have been recognised in the first place, if not likely for the money and power of those behind the proposal.
(edited 7 years ago)
All peoples have the right to their own homeland, but in turn that nation must accept and respect the rights of other nations around it, respect their laws, their populations, territory and in particular, respect those without a homeland of their own.
For that reason, Israel, in its current form, does not have the right to exist. An Israeli state for Jews can exist in that region, but it must withdraw from the Golan heights (which it now states they will formally annex) and withdraw from most of the West Bank. It must also stop its forays into Lebanon and Syria and end the blockade on the Gaza strip.
It is not antisemitic to say the current state of Israel has forfeited its right to exist in certain areas. It is antisemitic to go the whole hog and say Jews do not deserve a homeland. Israel, for it to have a right to exist, must fall in line with the rest of the international community and, to put it bluntly, behave.
For that reason, Israel, in its current form, does not have the right to exist. An Israeli state for Jews can exist in that region, but it must withdraw from the Golan heights (which it now states they will formally annex) and withdraw from most of the West Bank. It must also stop its forays into Lebanon and Syria and end the blockade on the Gaza strip.
It is not antisemitic to say the current state of Israel has forfeited its right to exist in certain areas. It is antisemitic to go the whole hog and say Jews do not deserve a homeland. Israel, for it to have a right to exist, must fall in line with the rest of the international community and, to put it bluntly, behave.
Original post by BarBar124
It is not antisemitic to say the current state of Israel has forfeited its right to exist in certain areas. It is antisemitic to go the whole hog and say Jews do not deserve a homeland. Israel, for it to have a right to exist, must fall in line with the rest of the international community and, to put it bluntly, behave.
It is not antisemitic to say the current state of Israel has forfeited its right to exist in certain areas. It is antisemitic to go the whole hog and say Jews do not deserve a homeland. Israel, for it to have a right to exist, must fall in line with the rest of the international community and, to put it bluntly, behave.
I don't even agree with the proposition that the 'Jews deserve a homeland' which Jews are these? Such an admission seems to suggest the existence of a Jewish race, and even if such a race did exist why is it entitled to a state anymore than any other ethnic group? Do the hundreds of ethnic groups in Russia reserve the right to form their own states? While they're there perhaps they could also displace the native Russians?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Claims that a 9 year-old boy was treated poorly by staff ‘because he’s Jewish’
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- How did you come up with your username?
- 2023 King's Speech
- Geert Wilders's far-right PVV wins most seats in Dutch election
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- Am I Muslim if I am choosing not to worship God?
- who is donald trump
- The TSR Jewish Society (J-Soc) - thread TWO
- What phobias do you have?
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Should i vote Labour?
- anyway to find out where news sites like The Guardian get their sources from?
- Epq on Palestine
- French holocaust denier faces extradition from Scotland
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Are you 18-25 & studying in an England Uni, pls spare a few mins to fill my survey.Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
LAW: How to answer a problem question in Contract LawLast reply 3 minutes ago
UAL Bsc Fashion Management and fashion marketingLast reply 5 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadPosted 8 minutes ago
UNIT 7 ASSIGNMENT 2 D3 AND 4 (health and social care)Last reply 10 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 10 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 10 minutes ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official Durham University Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 14 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
What would you say to someone struggling with severe anxiety?Last reply 26 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 27 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Economics A Paper 1 (9ECO 01) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 28 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1274
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
