How does one engage in criticism of Israel without stooping to anti-semitic tropes?
I write this topic knowing that it might get removed for being too controversial or incendiary or bring the anti-Semites out of the woodwork, in which case, I understand why this topic might get removed.
I am just hoping that tildes has a better capacity of engaging in such a charged topic, at least more than reddit.
onto my question:
Like anyone else who watches the news, I have been pretty aware of what is going on in the latest escalation of the Israel-Palestine war. I would not claim to be the most educated person ever, but I'd like to think I at least understand the broad-strokes.
And I consider myself generally a progressive person (not a liberal) so I personally am not a big fan of the Israeli govt. And yes I do condemn Hamas, I don't care what your struggle is, Oct 7th was a terror attack and only makes the situation worse for the people you claim to be freedom fighters for.
Having said all that, and seeing how much control Israel seems to have on the western powers, or specifically U.S., I will admit, my thoughts sometimes veer towards "they really do control things" and shit like that, but then 10 seconds later, I realize how ye-like that sounds and it's the exact same kind of thinking that led to the Holocaust. But then I also wonder if that is not entirely my fault and more because of the Jewish leaders who insist on making fervent support of Israel a strong part of their identity, thereby linking any criticism of the Israeli govt with criticism of Jewish people (or at least the Jewish leaders in the media who are supportive of Israel) rather than distancing themselves from a right-wing government.
So yea, I guess my question is: I don't think its entirely unreasonable to think that Israel has a surprising amount of control over western powers (specifically U.S.) but that sentiment in and of itself also veers dangerously close to antisemitism for my liking so I wondered how folks on here approach it?
If you're asking how to criticize Israel without being antisemitic, that is very easy and you just did it.
If you're asking "within English-speaking contexts, how can I criticize Israel without making people angry at me while also preventing them from misconstruing my words as antisemitic?", I don't think that is possible.
Honestly, I believe the Israeli government is exploiting this for their benefit - they're aware that any criticism that's not carefully worded can be shut down with "you're an anti-semite" so they can get away with more things.
I personally distanced myself from the Gaza War so I don't really engage with content about it. I believe Hamas shouldn't have attacked Israel, and I believe Israel is going too far with their retaliation. However I am not able to come up with a solution to the issue, so I'd rather not comment on it.
It's also important to make the distinction between Israel as a nation and Israeli people. I hate what Israel is doing, but I think most Israeli people are ordinary folks who just want to live their lives. There are lots of Israeli people whose work I admire.
(Same goes for the Ukraine-Russia war, it's okay to hate the Russian government, but don't hate the Russian people.)
In the same vein, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has really pushed the word "Islamophobia" a lot.
It's been a while since I saw it, but it was in a program on Danish TV I think. I can't find again I'm afraid and I wish I could find another source, but as I remember it, the point was that while there certainly are very real problems of racism and xenophobia against people from MENA countries, "Islamophobia" as a term has become largely meaningless because it gets abused as a way to deflect legitimate criticisms about something like Sharia law by a country like Iran.
All criticisms of religion is valid in my opinion. Especially in the case of authoritarian countries that use the religion as an excuse to be violent, to oppress, to refuse human rights for all. So it's really interesting that the OIC has been so successful in spreading this word and changing the way we talk about it.
Hate authoritarianism, don't hate the average person living there.
Absolutely, they are guilty of the same faults.
It's contributed to some tensions inside Europe, especially regarding the migrant wave that took place a while back. People were slinging the word "islamophobia" a lot, even in cases where the argument made was actually solid and not hateful at all.
I’m reminded about how governments will often complain about interference by “foreign actors.” We see that a lot now in the US too, people worried about Russian and Chinese influence.
Protests attract crazy people and will often be supported by meddling outsiders, which doesn’t mean they’re entirely illegitimate. It’s a complex situation. Allies can be problematic.
Criticisms can have some truth to them and also be exploited. Often they’re easier to exploit when there’s some truth to them.
Under such circumstances, attacking people’s motives only goes so far.
I think instead of framing it as Israel or Jewish people in general controlling things, you have to understand the forces at play here. It may feel like the west is bending a knee to Israel's whims, but the reality is they rely on the west, especially the good ol USA to facilitate their martial strength.
If there was nothing that Israel could provide for US interests, we would tell them to kick rocks and figure it out, much like every other ongoing conflict. Our social guilt in supporting a Jewish state in the aftermath of their displacement and subjugation after WWII (and earlier) has little bearing on why we support them.
The truth is, they're a pro-Western power smack dab in the middle of a region of the world that hates our guts, especially after cold war spars and the shit we pulled in the war on terror. They provide local military influence and intelligence to an unmatched degree and our nations have worked closely together as military allies for decades.
While the seemingly obvious moral choice is to leave them to their own genocidal devices to get wiped out or bought up by an interested party like China, we would abandon a vital tactical asset in an area we very much want to monitor. If the region destabilizes further, or we lose lives to an unforeseen terrorist attack, or we embolden groups like Hamas to spread through appeasement, the fallout becomes dangerous to consider. Dangerous beyond the many innocent lives being lost now. Additionally, we cannot have a narrative that we abandon military allies when the going gets tough spreading to further undermine trust in our role as the ultimate military might on the planet. Combine that with pressure from our weapon manufacturing industries that don't want to lose one of their best year after year customers, and it becomes easy to see how difficult it is to just clean our hands of the situation and abandon our asshole nationalistic regional ally.
So all we can do is heavily encourage Israel to stop killing innocents because they're far more valuable as is, and pulling support could have even more dire effects due to how we've situated ourselves. So while it may seem that Netanyahu says "jump" and Biden asks "how high", the truth is that the situation is far too entangled and nuanced to just cut ties.
Trump already did major damage to our reputation as a reliable international partner with all his talk about pulling out of NATO. Though Israel is not in NATO, they are a major strategic ally, and abandoning them would be a clear sign that alliances mean nothing (edit: regardless of administration, to put the icing on the shit cake) and do irreparable damage to the security of all our allies, NATO or not.
This is also why Xi Jinping talked about how Israel needs to stop with its "collective punishment" of the Palestinians a few months ago - regardless of whether you view what Israel is doing as genocide, it doesn't matter, because China clearly has no qualms about genocide considering their treatment of the Uyghurs. They just want to try and undermine US support for its strategic allies, because if we're willing to abandon Israel, what are the chances we're willing to stand up for Taiwan? If they can create some bad PR for Taiwan (and with over a billion people, millions of whom speak English, they could easily muster up a PR warfare department to flood the internet with deepfake footage that will get quickly gobbled up and poison the well against Taiwan) and bribe some politicians like Russia did, it'll be over for them, too.
Why do you think that Israel has a "surprising" amount of control of the US? What is this control? Why is it surprising?
Once you start generalizing across other jews, that's a pretty clear line not to cross. For instance, there's muttering that ethnically jewish world leaders like Zelensky support Israel just because they're jewish - that's antisemitism.
Well, for example, the House has just voted to sanction the ICC. That's a surprising defense of a foreign leader. I honestly don't think you'd see that for most other leaders, especially after praising the court for going after Putin.
I don't think the ethnic composition of Israel is a factor here. Israel occupies a strange place in the American political system.
So what you're describing is Zionism, and you're right! there are people who equate being a Zionist with being Jewish, and will take any criticism of Zionism or the nation of Israel as criticism of Jews and Jewishness. There's just as many people who not only don't think Zionism is a prerequisite of Jewishness, but that Zionism is itself a harmful ideology. And then of course there's people who fall in-between or outside those positions.
I think the key is to not lean into sterotypes. You can absolutely say something like "There are Israeli government officials who fervently equate support of the nation of Israel with support of Jews" and "the Israeli government is committing war crimes" or "the United States is currently supporting war crimes by continuing to send shipments of arms to Israel" and even "the US media shows a clear bias towards Israel at the expense of Palestine" and literally none of that is antisemitic. The reason saying something like "the Israeli government is controlling the United States government" or "Israelis/Jews are controlling the media in the US" veers into antisemitism territory isn't bc governments don't make agreements with each other or bc news and news outlets don't have biases, it's bc those statements specifically pick on Israel/Jews in a way that wouldn't really hold water if it was applied to another country or group of people.
For example, the US gave military aid to Egypt for the past like 50 years? but nobody would say that Egyptians are controlling the US government, or that Egypt has a surprising amount of control of the government, media, or whatever else. Or take Ukraine. We're also giving military aid to Ukraine, and nobody reasonable would say that Ukraine is exerting undue control of the US or world governments. Or even Russia. They interfered with a whole ass election but nobody's out there saying that Russians, even Russians who don't live in Russia anymore, are literally controlling the entirety of US media.
TLDR, (in my opinion) valid criticisms turn into antisemitism when they ascribe power or motivation to Jews that wouldn't be ascribed to literally anyone else in the same position. Saying the Israeli government is committing war crimes isn't antisemitism. Saying the Israeli government is controlling the US media or the US government in order to cover up war crimes would be antisemitic bc the implication is that the israeli gov is so powerful that it can force a world power to do what it wants which is literally an ancient antisemitic canard. There are, of course, always going to be people, Jews and non Jews alike, who say that any criticism of Israel is antisemitism. But I think, as long as you're not saying or implying that Jewish people are somehow, as a group, controlling the world/banks/media/elected officials/Hollywood/etc or are money grubbing degenerates who are going to corrupt society or anything else that sounds like it could be cribbed straight from Nazi propaganda, it's fine. And yeah finding that line, it sometimes takes some digging into why (general) you think the things you think, and what antisemitism has looked like over the centuries.
Like, if anybody is controlling the US government, it's the defense contractor lobbiests who want to insure a steady supply of unstable, warring nations to keep their quarterly numbers up.
I'm closer to the China vis a vis Chinese Communist Party shade of things so here's my two cents.
Three facts:
(1) the CCP is a murderous regime currently engaged in genocide against the Uighur people. (Source)
(2) Chinese people (and non Chinese east Asians as well) experience racial discrimination and racially motivated violence.
(3) The CCP uses (2) as a shield to deflect criticisms against it - eg, if you don't like the actions of the CCP, that's because you're racist. (Example)
Quote from second source:
Another quote from an Asian activist:
So. My opinion is that there are governments promoting and actively killing in order to achieve racial purity, and these governments very intentionally hold up isolated instances of violence against people they govern as a shield to deflect all criticisms of their racially motivated ethnic cleaning efforts.
People just want to survive and to have a good quality of life without fear of being destroyed by others who hate them and others who are greedy for their land or belongings. For my part, I will stick to making statements without labels, such as "I hope leaders will seek peaceful resolutions" and "I am hoping for speedy ceasefire and and an end to the tragic loss of life" and "I hope the atrocities which happened to the Jewish people in Nazi Germany will never again happen to any other group of human beings anywhere ever again."
If someone rebuts with "yes which means we must do-----" then no, sorry, you said that not me, and I don't necessarily agree with you. If you then claim I am a racist for not siding with you, then I will stop engaging with you and leave the conversation.
I've stopped engaging with online critiques of Israel/Palestine because there's just too many bad-faith, reductive techniques, like the "AIPAC controls the US govt" talking point espoused in this thread and which I frequently see parroted in slightly more cloaked language in left-leaning spaces, and the inevitable "Hamas did nothing wrong" takes that seem to follow.
Honestly, this whole conflict has been a bit of a wake-up call in terms of seeing how easily people fall for rather blatant propaganda that falls apart upon the slightest inspection. I've even seen rehashed crap from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion getting heavily upvoted and treated as fact. At this point, I'm convinced that a large portion of leftists are just as intellectually lazy as conservatives and not willing to learn about the broader context of issues outside those which immediately affect them, like NIMBYism driving up rents and ruining the very spaces they claim to want to protect.
There are valid criticisms of Israel's right-wing government (of which I have many), and there are broader contexts that explain why these things happen to begin with when you look at the shifting alliances that fuel these conflicts (namely Iran v. Saudi Arabia), the original 1947 Resolution 181 borders being indefensible and a perfect example of design by committee hubris, and the reality of Hamas being so inept at civil governance that they could not hold on to power if they were to pursue peace in good faith and hold new elections, thus guaranteeing a forever war (which is pretty depressing to think about).
And all of this just gets tossed out the window when online debate-bros catch wind of a fresh conversation about the conflict and feel the need to shit up any legitimate, good-faith discussion with the latest bad thing Israel did meaning the gloves are off and the US should declare war on them.
I've unsubbed from a lot of reddit communities because of this bad-faith one-sided mess, and been outright banned from subs like /r/LateStageCapitalism for attempting to introduce nuance to the conversation. It's clear that people who take a holistic view on the conflict are not wanted by most leftist communities, so I've opted to reserve discussion for people who I know want an actual conversation IRL.
Keep in mind that there have been documentaries through the years showcasing how (religious) youth groups have sometimes been intentionally, even if in good faith, been taught about how to argue for the case of "Israel" in ways I would call zionist propaganda ways. Because youth are online, energetic, and make for a formidable force.
Don't confuse online presence with presence in real life. Even if it heavily influences people, the simple act of reminding people that "online" isn't real life is often helpful. And that we shouldn't take everything we read there as proof that most people hold the same views in real life. Most people actually don't spend time online in this way.
I do realise that there is actually a lot of sway coming from the online discourse, but this is one argument I have found that often helps cut through people's intense opinions to sometimes reach a more nuanced perspective.
Having attended a wide range of Jewish youth organizations -- everything from Reform sleepaway camps to Orthodox Kiruv clubs, I think you're overstating what's actually happening. Young Jewish people raised as such are almost always "zionist" (I always try and provide a definition when I use that word) in the sense that they believe that Israel must continue to exist, and that its destruction would mean the death of safety for huge portions, of the Jewish people. In the United States (or really anywhere in the diaspora, but I'm only familiar with the US), any Jew who actually practices has a common experience of being "other".
Whether that's having sung Christmas carols at the "winter celebration" in elementary school, dealing with making up exams that took place during Sukkot, sitting through chatter from Christians who assume you share beliefs that you don't, or just needing to explain your differences frequently, it's a common experience, and it's grating. Coping with that and building a community where it doesn't exist is the primary purpose of many Jewish youth organizations. When you consider that their shared zionism is another difference between young Jews and their peers, it makes sense that it that is something outreach organizations address, particularly with how heated the entire situation is.
I've spoken before here on my observation how challenging it is to be an engaged Jew navigating a progressive college campus right now. Most folks are not the ones attending protests and building encampments -- your peers are aware of the issue, but often not very well informed. Often, what they're reading is a mix of headlines and opinion pieces that assume the absolute worst. But when you're talking to them, and you're clearly a nice person, so when the topic comes up, they ask you questions.
I've never attended one as an adult, but I have seen events advertised that were intended to teach counter arguments to anti-Israel talking points My impression with the context I shared above was always that they were primarily intended to try and defuse the sort of questions that happens when you mention offhand the trip to Israel you took for your cousin's bar mitzvah.
Gently, this echoes one of the discussions above about where antisemitism starts: there is a very common trope through history of accusations of Jewish conspiracies and propaganda. I do not think you were being intentially antisemitic, but I do think that arriving at the conclusion that the Jewish youth movement is working together to promote Israeli propaganda online does fall into the stereotype. Often, you can apply Occam's razer and come to a simpler reason, which is that there is demand from young Jewish people for instructions on how to navigate arguments they feel like they can't avoid. I have no doubt that there are online propaganda efforts, but they aren't being spearheaded by youth groups.
Honestly? One doesn't. Not because it's impossible; I think it is possible, using a lot of nuance. But all that nuance doesn't matter if the person/people hearing or reading the comments of another doesn't have nuance with their own thinking. Or, worse, refuses to have nuance. And that's what I see across the Internet anytime I/P comes up. Apparently, this is now a thing in the meatspace, as well.
I have thoughts on I/P. I read the news. But I pretty much don't talk about these with anyone. Certainly not in public spaces like Tildes, reddit, Lemmy, Mastodon, etc. Even in private spaces, however, among my friends and family, I still don't bring it up. I am absolutely self-censoring. I didn't always, but in the last several years, and definitely after Oct 7, I just don't talk about it all.
One is, I don't want to deal with the BS that comes with discussing I/P. Either accidental or purposeful misconstruing of what's being said (ie lack of nuance). The sportsball mentality of "If you're not with us, you're against us," even if the criticisms are valid. Threats. Doxing. Being cancelled. No thanks, I'm good.
Secondly, there's literally nothing that any of us are saying or could say, that hasn't been said before. And none of those things have fixed or solved I/P. This conflict has raged for decades, since at least Israel's founding three quarters of a century ago. I don't mean to be rude, but there is literally nothing you, me, or any other Joe Schmo can do to fix this. Especially not through discussion on the Internet or with friends at a cafe or something.
That sounds defeatist, and it probably is. Though I'm not blind to the incredible suffering that people -- on both sides -- are going through. But I don't know what continuing to discuss this actually does to alleviate the suffering and fix the issue once for all. I think it can be solved, but it's not going to be done by people arguing online or on college campuses.
Agreed. As I have said before, I genuinely believe Joe Biden is doing his best, as foreign policy is truly a balancing act, and sanctions don't really work if a country is committed to bypassing them and resisting change.
Ten years ago, I would have been fully in favor of the US invading I/P and attempting to setup a one-state secular democracy a la Turkey. But at this point, after learning about US meddling and our attempts at state-building (and how Turkey has been actively backsliding due to Erdogan's right-wing government), I'm completely burnt out on the idea of regime change. Best case, you get a secular dictatorship that can stand up to Iranian and Saudi meddling with equal oppression for everyone.
As much as I hate to see the death toll continue to rise, I'm legitimately not sure what good we can really do beyond continuing to supply aid to Gaza and hoping the Israeli people elect Labor or another party which genuinely wants peace. But there's not much we can do to further that end. Certainly, internet debates between non-Israelis aren't going to do much to move their political needle.
At most, it may result in more understanding of the conflict. But expecting change from online debates is just setting yourself up for a negative feedback cycle in my experience. Sadly common, though.
I generally agree on sharing opinions, and that what happens is mostly not up to us. I think it’s still helpful to try to share information. The more specific and factual, the better.
Everything will be debated, but at least it’s possible to have a productive debate on factual matters. It’s also easier for people to say they don’t know something on specifics.
"It's a complex situation. Neither side is coming out looking great. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but this can't be it."
I think this applies equally well to current US politics, the situation with Israel and so many other things.
Anyone who claims something this complex is either black or white are delusional.
Something that I think is very important to realize, and not at all actually covered in most discussions about the issue, is that Israel is geographically important.
It's a friendly nation in a region where we don't have many. They could be literal demon's or angels and so long as they let our military operate in the region we'll make it work. That is where a ton of the supposed influence comes from.
This does not mean "the jews" have a ton of influence. It means that whoever controls friendly territory in a contested region has a ton of influence, and ONLY in relation to keeping that influence in that region. Israel is also useful there because they happen to line up more with our cultural beliefs more than just about any other country in that region (everyone has to be friendly to the Saudi's because of oil and a million other little reasons despite all sorts of horrible shit), and because since many of the countries surrounding them want them dead (or claim to because of appearances which is a whole other issue), we have some leverage over them and can also draw lines in the sand.
All of this needs to be understood, and quite a bit more, before people get into the whole "the jews control everything" nonsense (which also tends to stem from ignorant knowledge of banking, hollywood, and history).
This does not mean that what is going on is ok, and that's a whole other pile of problems to unpack and understand and likely without any good solutions for those who want reasonable outcomes. But people really should understand that our current president nailed it when he said “If there were not an Israel, we’d have to invent one.” back in the 80s. Strategically israel is hyper important, and so all decisions based on morals have to be very very pressing to justify any action.
Even worse, the balance in the world is already fragile enough as it is at this point in time. Coups in west-Africa, the Sudanese, Syrian, Yemen and Myanmar civil war, Russo-Ukrainian war, the US, EU and China having domestic issues that are difficult to reform away, and more. The current situation is so fragile that this heatup of the most complicated geopolitical conflict came at a terrible timing on top of it.
I don't condone the actions of either side in this war, but in the context of global politics it's not difficult to see that Israels strategic positioning and global tensions it's an ally Biden may want to keep. Regardless of whether you agree to that, or not.
Your post has a lot of things to unpack, but I am just going to address what I read as your main ask, ..." "they really do control things" - The answer to the question is, No. The influence and shaping of public priorities, agenda, and shaping of a public message is related to what I understand to be "agenda-setting" political process. It's particularly effective when you have a small very focus group of people driving the message. It's to me similar to a political campaign i.e., Yes, We Can, Compassionate Conservatism, I Like Ike, Happy Days Are Here Again, whose main goal is to win your vote. To contrast agenda-setting efforts done by Palestinians one only has to look at for example U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar and her district's no confidence vote on Biden. Its having an impact, how effective it will ultimately will be is still unknown. I am no expert on these matters but a reasonable inform person this is how I filter all the political messages (agenda-settings) and ultimate public policy that is shaped by all these forces. No doubt Israel (separating the country from it's people) is very effective in agenda-setting however maybe you missed one message that President Biden has stated to Israel, they are losing the "young" people of America. Hope what I wrote helps.
I completely agree (other than your use of the word control, I would prefer 'influence' plus Unkz comment about AIPAC). I read the weekly Israel War on Gaza threads and am often disgusted by some of the bad faith arguments I see there. I don't have the time or energy to argue with people who only care to further push an agenda, but often feel bad for not showing solidarity with those I agree with.
I lost a friend who vehemently argued criticizing Israel's policies in the slightest was anti-Semitic. I was shocked and expressed how I was upset they could consider me racist given my broadly multicultural friend group and immigrant wife, plus my overall world views and values regarding community, love and empathy. They responded with an explanation of how anti-Semitism isn't your run-of-the-mill racism but actually much worse. Now I'm not in the business of 'grading' different racisms, but that seems to me something a racist would argue, as then shown thru his other comments (Palestinians (and Arabs) are barbarians, all their woman do is pump out babies, they are inherently anti-Semitic, lies about raped and beheaded babies, etc etc etc).
On a bit of a side note I do appreciate renaming the Weekly Gaza thread and agree with sparksbet's reasoning.
It’s difficult because it’s a polarizing topic. Try to to criticize actions, not people.
Also be aware that a lot of people argue in bad faith, claim everything is anti-semitism or that “Israel has the right to defend itself”. People will argue not what you said, but what they hear. Take your loss, because there is no winner in those discussions.
If you're not actually a raging anti-semite, it's pretty easy. Just use actual nouns instead of pronouns, and there won't be any confusion. If you can't find an actual noun that fits, and you really just want to say "Jews" then you're overgeneralizing. For example:
They control the US government -- bad
AIPAC controls the US government -- accurate
They are always murdering Palestinians -- bad
The IDF is always murdering Palestinians -- accurate
They are sneaky and untrustworthy -- bad
Netanyahu is sneaky and untrustworthy -- accurate
They drink the blood of babies -- bad
.... -- uhuh, that's just antisemitism, fail.
I get you might be trying to be quick and not super detailed on this, but "X controls the government" is the kind of overgeneralizing hyperbole that is absolutely over the line about ANY group. Their are a ton of reasons things are or aren't done, and boiling it down to a group with about 3 million members of a subgroup of a subgroup out of the some 300 million people in the country is exactly how this shit escalates.
I have similar criticisms of your other supposedly accurate points, but no need to get lost in the weeds on this. I do think being very precise in sensitive subjects is required.
I agree that it helps to be more specific. However, “AIPAC controls the government” is still bad. Having a lot of influence is not control.
I don’t think the word “control” makes any sense for the US Congress. Many people have influence, but in a divided government, nobody gets what they want all the time. It’s easier to stop things, though. One senator can often do that.
When I see someone talk about “control” over the US government, I assume they don’t know much about how it works.
Alright, AIPAC leadership exercises excessive influence over the US government.
What is the “right” amount of influence for them to have?
AIPAC membership = 3,000,000
US population = 340,000,000
Optimal influence: 3,000,000/340,000,000 ~= 0.008 "influence units", you get the idea. This applies to all lobbyist groups really. NRA, etc.
Do you think political influence should be directly proportional to population? Does this not lead to tyranny of the majority? Why do you think this would be better, and how would it be enforced?
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
Disproportionate democracy is still democracy. Well functioning modern democracies have institutions where minorities have disproportionate say to protect themselves; of course, in the end, a democracy will bend to enough will of the majority, but force a supermajority vs a majority of the populace to agree to trample on a minority is an important stopgap.
Either way, it's not as if AIPAC has a government position.
I don't think there's such a thing as a right amount in an objective sense. People who have good arguments should have more influence and people with bad arguments should have less influence, and of course that's subjective.
So I think it would be fair to say a lot of people think AIPAC's influence is bad, but that's another way of saying that they don't like their arguments.
This is close to 3 days old now, and I've managed to avoid jumping in so far ... nevertheless. No one else has really highlighted one of the things I see as a core issue.
The Israeli govt is making it okay to be antisemitic, and 20 years from now, more than anything else, that will be the legacy of the Netanyahu Administration.
It's like the Holocaust (following a millennium or two of actual antisemitism) created this massive "savings account" of social and political goodwill for Jewish people all over the world. And the past few decades, the Israeli govt has been wantonly burning thru that savings at a horrific rate, constantly--maliciously--arguing this false equivalence between criticism of their actions with antisemitism, and steadily making the word lose any real meaning.
Personally, I am moving in a direction, mentally and morally. I am not "there" yet, but I feel it. I am headed in the direction where someday I will no longer care if anyone calls me an antisemite. I won't even bother to try to correct them. The word will have lost all traction with me.
I cannot disagree more completely. And I hope you have a chance to pull yourself out of that, given your awareness of it in advance.
Either you have a very different definition of antisemitism than everyone else, or this is just... ??? Quite literally nothing Israel can do can make antisemitism "okay".
Do you think that a Jewish American who has never set foot in the middle east deserves persecution for the actions of Israel?
This is literally a caricature of what NOT to do - you are once again equivalating Israel and the Jewish race. I suppose, for OP, this is a good example of how people can slippery slope themselves into being racist.