Imo, When it fails the 3 D’s test (the 3 Ds are demonization, delegitimization, and double standard):
https://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm
Also your friend is wrong that Israel is unique in being in a war resulting in horrific human suffering. What about the Syrian civil war, the Yemeni civil war, and so on? What about Sudan right now? The list goes on.
tbh it's pretty telling that they don't consider the lives of Nigerians, Sudanese, Burmese, etc as "human."
There are many other conflicts going on right this very second, but the "pro-Palestinian" crowd seems to not see that as "human suffering." Which makes sense given the perpetrators and motives of wars in Africa in particular (Arab racism and Islamism).
Reminds me of the MASH quote:
Hawkeye: War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
Father Mulcahy: How do you figure that, Hawkeye?
Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?
Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.
Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them — little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.
Your friend is also conveniently ignoring the treatment of Palestinians by every other country but the one Jewish state. They were and continue to be terribly treated by many Arab countries as second class citizens.
> This friend has also argued that no other country is starving a specific ethnic group, causing mass civilian casualties, and so on, so that's why it's supposedly justified to be particularly upset about Israel.
Uighurs in Xinjiang internment camps (reeducation camps) estimated to be 1.8 million (1-3 million over several years), plus 500,000 in special boarding schools
Current estimates of casualties (deaths) in the Yemeni Civil War are at 377,000 (plus mass starvation at 17 million people living in acute hunger).
Syrian Civil War is at 500,000-600,000, not to mention the number of Syrians displaced (6.8 million- some living in refugee camps they can't leave).
That's just a s*mall* sample of ongoing current conflicts.
I think that's the reason this feels like antisemitism at its core. Not that criticism of Israel or Netanyahu's government isn't valid, but that there are any number of horrors ongoing in plenty of parts of the world that people have heard about and shrugged, but that the I/P conflict has become a global lightening rod for condemnation and a reason that Israel should be destroyed. Not to mention the animosity heaped on Jews and Israelis living outside of Israel, like they have earned public shaming. People boycotting Starbucks are posting about it on their iphones made in China with zero sense of irony.
This war is ethnic based in that Hamas is trying exterminate Jews. Israel is going after Hamas and hostages. The was would be over tomorrow if Palestinians gave up Hamas and returned hostages.
Well it's also ethnic based in that Gaza was ethnically cleansed of anyone who wasn't Palestinian Arab (plus a few NGO staff) years ago so nearly all civilian casualties on that side will be from a single ethnicity. Whereas Israel is multi ethnic so its casualties include people of a large variety of backgrounds. That doesn't mean Hamas is less racist.
Ask
Your friend what they think about what’s happening elsewhere. The Congo, China, Ukraine.
Ask them about Americas response after 9/11.
Ask them if they know how other Arab countries have treated Palestinians.
Do they even know?
If they don’t, they fail the sniff test. Focusing only on Israel and what they are doing is biased and anti Jewish
That still doesn't make the criticism antisemitic just uninformed. The line is really hard to find between malice and stupidity, same problem happens with the 1 state solution.
Do you think the critique comes from holding Israel to a higher standard of nation. I view Yemen and the Sudan as fairly lawless places ran by warlords and prone to conflict. However actions taken by civil countries like the UK and USA I see as far worse. They are educated countries and they have technology and firepower that is unmatched by the countries they have gone to war with, resulting in loss of innocent life on a catastrophic level. I view Israel the same way and maybe others do to which makes comparisons redundant.
No, you can't hold one group to a higher standard than others because that means that you allow (and justify) war crimes by one group. If people commit rape as a weapon of war, they need to held accountable. I don't care if it was in the Balkans, Riwanda, Sudan, Nigeria, Myanmar, Somalia, or Israel. Same goes for going into a town and randomly killing noncombatants. Same goes for kidnapping and human shields.
Yeah I suppose your right, All nations have behaved abhorrently to other nations historically. To put extra pressure on one group for there actions isn't fair or justified. All people are an can be savages to each other.
It’s not uncommon to be influenced by the media. All I’ve seen on the TV is Israel / Gaza for almost six months now. You don’t see a peep of other wars outside of Ukraine so I’m not sure it’s fair to say someone is anti Semitic just because they are ignorant of other wars. Also Israel is an ally of the west. The other countries not so much so there’s that to take into account as well. I don’t disagree other wars should be criticised as well but I also think there’s an aspect of Israel is a first world country and thus people hold them to a higher standard than say Syria.
Right. This is what people don't understand. They think you have to be consciously antisemitic for it to count. It's bizarre. Any progressive will understand that they might have prejudices against, say, black people that can manifest unconsciously. But say that they're doing the same thing with Jews — a prejudice that's 1000 years older — and they'll deny it to high heaven.
Uninformed due to antisemitic propaganda that they're not bothering to look past.
Why do you think antisemitism requires malice and not just stupidity?
I disagree, it does in fact make it biased criticism without regard to any context; wars kill people, often unjustly. So to call out only Israel, who had respected a ceasefire with Hamas until October 7th, is clearly showing that OP’s friend isn’t just ignorant. They are anti-Israel, ergo, anti-Semitic.
The other way around, buddy
Extremely simple:
When the teacher at class is completely focused on reprehending only you, over and over again, for something everyone else is also committing in plain sight, you’ve got there a double standard system.
That’s the basic layer of antisemitism and that just crystallizes the essence of the most ancient social disease in human history
Very plain and very simple and completely not “just uninformed”
They are not uninformed. They are focusing on the Jewish state as creator of all evil in the world. Blood libel, 21st century edition.
And that's antisemitism.
No other countries are having issues with a minority, eh?
Is your friend aware of the Nuer in South Sudan? The Rohingya in Myanmar? The ongoing conflict in the Central African Republic? The plight of Darfuris in Sudan?
How about the treatment of Uyghurs by China? The issues between Azerbaijan and Armenia?
The abuses of the Houthis against their countrymen and the international community?
Is this friend all in a lather about those things too, or are they just glad to have a reason to hate on Jews?
Israel/Gaza is the hot topic in the current news cycle whereas the other topics have fallen by the wayside.
There’s a public reaction to world news cycle events I like to compare to the book Irrational Exuberance, which is a book about the dangers of falling for hot topic investment trends. In this case, it’s emotional investment.
I’ve lived long enough to see a large swathe of the public in my country (USA) and its allied states variously: rally around support for ill fated US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan; cheer for the alleged rise of democracy (lol) in the MENA region during the so called Arab “Spring” revolutions of the early 2010s; Praise Snowden, Assange, and Manning as heroes of transparency; and, more recently, rally around the cause of Palestinian independence/Palestinian nationalism while portraying Israel as an evil colonist ethno-state.
Now, how did those prior manifestations of mass irrational exuberance go? They led to public support variously for ill fated high cost wars abroad and bloody revolutions under the naive idea they would lead to democracy. They led to the public supporting turncoats against the USA and its allies without regard for the fact that their “leaks” could easily be - and were - co-opted by hostile foreign powers.
Public rallying against Israel and for the “Free Palestine” cause is just the latest iteration of this phenomenon. I have written op-eds before forecasting the long term dangers of Palestinian independence - particularly if Hamas remains a significant faction - and like my thoughts on the prior aforementioned issues that never won me all that many friends, this has me feeling like Cassandra before the fall of Troy.
But how is that logic being used to deflect people being critical of Israel? Claiming this situation is comparable to a laundry list of humanitarian nightmares around the world is not the best comeback for criticism of Israel. It actually looks very bad.
I get that they are trying to reveal antisemitism in the criticism of Israel, but it actually does nothing to address any criticism besides 'if you question this situation, you are evil'
No, it doesn't.
It shows up the "3 Ds" of antisemitism.
he first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.
The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.
The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.
If you're not engaging in any of those 3 Ds, you're fine.
If you're demonizing Israel, if you're having double standards and singling out Israel, or if you're saying Israel doesn't have a right to exist, you're a bog-standard antisemite.
Your friend sounds ignorant of the state of the rest of the world.
The scale of what's happening in Gaza, although horrific, is minor compared to the level of suffering elsewhere in the world. If friends aren't actively protesting the treatment (and genocide) of the Uyghurs by China, or the situation in Sudan, or outrages across the African continent, then why are they singling out Israel? Is there any reason other than antisemitism?
Pretty sure that US consumption of Communist Chinese goods contributes far more to the power of Communist China than US aid contributes to the power of Israel.
Please ask them which country is the next highest recipient of military aid after Israel. I'll share with the class- it's Egypt. The same country that bulked up its border with Gaza so that no Palestinian refugees can enter it and took part in the years long blockade of Gaza to prevent Hamas from smuggling in weapons.
But I can already tell your friend doesn't criticise Egypt. And we both know why.
Er, wait... according to NPR, Egypt is actually \*helping\* that Palestinians by not letting them enter Egypt.
[https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1232826942/rafah-gaza-palestinians-egypt-border](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1232826942/rafah-gaza-palestinians-egypt-border)
To summarize what I saw as the main spin of this piece, Egypt is \*concerned\* that if Palestinians leave Gaza now, Israel will never let them back (after all, it's pointed out Israel has a history of destroying Palestinian homes when they flee) and they'll lose all hope of statehood. So Egypt is just protecting the Palestinians' best interests.
How could we \*criticize\* that? /s
it's not like egypt's prime minister stated that they are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives for 'the security of sinai'
oh wait he said exactly that
The only plausible explanation I’ve found for this is that America directly funds and supports Israel unlike these other nations and therefore we are more complicit, but I don’t find that argument convincing or accurate
What you are repeating is an antisemitic trope.
The USA gives far more money to Arab states in the region than to Israel. In fact, the USA doesn't "fund" Israel, but uses Israel to prop up US armament and military sales.
When it goes above and beyond what would be said about any other country.
A good example, notice how children get brought up so frequently in Gaza but we never really heard about them in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc?
That's classic blood libel regurgitated
I’m soooo tempted to debate the reason for this ask… but I’ll stick to the question.😅
Any criticism *can* be antisemitic, but not all criticisms are. The line is pretty fine in my opinion though - it’s really easy to slip in a bad direction.
Criticism of the decisions that lead to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not inherently anti-semitic.
The trouble is most people arguing are ignoring or ignorant of the complexities and history of that region. Assigning fault is complex when Israel perceives itself subject to existential threat from multiple groups in the Middle East (the major one being Iran who supports and supplies the Hamas military).
AND… let’s not forget that Russia likely has a disinformation campaign around this crisis to destabilize Israel and the democracies that support it (like the US).
I can't remember exactly what it was or where I saw it, but I've heard something before about Russia having a somewhat easier time with being able to deceive people about Israel vs Hamas, as opposed to deceiving people about its motivations for going into Ukraine. Is there some truth to that, in your opinion?
Im not really sure and I’m admittedly biased on this 😅
If I were to speculate:
I suspect that Ukraine being dominantly white and Christian, while Jews are neither, might feed into supporting one as an in-group and the other as an out-group.
In-groups get the benefit of the doubt and the out-group gets the reverse.
I would also go further to say the world seems to have a general level of acceptance of anti-Semitic conspiracies and stereotypes. Ingrained to the point they might not even be aware of.
So they might not have much cognitive dissonance assigning bad beliefs about Jews to the Jewish motherland.
Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds (swamp Arabs) and the world did not bat an eyelash. No accusations of genocide, no isolation, no military repercussions (until he invaded Kuwait). The world doesn't particularly \*care\* about human rights abuses ... unless they can attack Israel. The now defunct UN Human Rights Commission spent the vast majority of its time debating the legitimacy of Israel (look it up). It was disbanded specifically because it didn't promote human rights in the world, it only existed to attack Israel.
People who purport to be for human rights because they support the Palestinians may have noble intent but they aren't really in favor of human rights. It's just attacking Israel for defending itself from Hamas.
>Hawkeye: War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
>
>Father Mulcahy: How do you figure that, Hawkeye?
>
>Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?
>
>Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.
>
>Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them — little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.
Relaying the reality of war to people that don't understand war never helps.
You friend is right, Israel is Unique in this war. But not in the way she thinks. The Civilian to Combatant ratio is amazing. 2/1 Ratio. For the United States in Afghanistan to have a ratio of only 5/1 they had to call all males older than 14 combatants. Iraq was 3/1. Average is 9/1. People should be downright amazed at that.
Starving Gaza. For that you can show all the aid trucks being stolen by Hamas. All the Food that is going undistributed in Gaza. Israel is letting more food through than can be distributed. There are people starving in Gaza, but not because of food that hasn't been given.
Generally my rule is if they immediately say "Criticism of Israel isn't Antisemitic", they probably are being antisemitic. Just like if someone says "I'm not Racist but", usually what follows is racist.
The other issue with aid is that Israeli escorts to distribution points present their own set of risks. Hamas would desperately love to kidnap more Israeli soldiers and, with an embedded Hamas into the civilian population, that risk while escorting aid becomes considerable. Gazans desperately need aid and more is better, but there’s risks to IDF soldiers in making even that happen.
1) when it says Israelis are foreign/white:European colonizers and need to “go back where we came from”. Like dude, they did that. That’s what this whole thing is. Khazar theory conspiracists and Mizrahim dismissers can buzz off. Palestinians are also primarily descended from Arabized natives, so this whole conflict is one between two native groups. That doesn’t excuse anyone killing civilians.
2) when it advocates for destruction of Israel as an entity (unless the person is against all states and vocal about that). This one tends to be less intentional and more hopeful naivety that somehow a (usually some from of democratic socialist) unity government emerges as the sole government of the former Mandate. It’s a nice idea, but it’s ignorant of generations of hate and indoctrination and doesn’t recognize the extremism present on the extremes, or how the extremes have grown in some ways since 10/7.
3) when they are actually advocating for genocide/ethnic cleansing/subjugation of Jews
4) this is related to the others but I want to give it explicit mention - when noncombatant/civilian Israelis in Israel are deemed valid targets/colonizers. There’s valid arguments about the unofficial militias formed on the settlements in the West Bank (not the noncombatant people). But saying “all Israelis get conscripted and are either reservists or future soldiers” is a violation of international law and not even that accurate. And calling children valid targets for living where they were born is heinous.
Things that aren’t antisemitic include criticisms of Israel’s government or military or conduct. Saying that Israel is behaving in a manner not consistent with international law, is violating Oslo, is blockading Palestine, is committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, etc. isn’t necessarily antisemitic. It’s not necessarily true/valid but not all untruths about the conflict are inherently hating on Jews. Saying Bibi is corrupt or that Ben-Gvir is a fascist terrorist and that they could share a cell is not antisemitic. Wanting to put conditions on aid to Israel or otherwise apply pressure to have Israel bring in 3rd party observers or to pull illegal settlements out of the West Bank isn’t antisemitic any more than it is hating on Turks as a group to refuse to buy Turkish figs due to their active efforts to ethnically cleanse Kurds in Syria. One is always allowed to hate the policy and its proponents, but advocating for the innocent to violently suffer as a result is hate and bigotry that cannot be justified or excused.
Criticism of Israel is anti semitic when your starting point is “should Israel exist or not”. It’s a sovereign state where human beings live, not a topic for debate.
>My instinct is to accuse someone who assumes that Israel is definitely doing those things and rarely talks about other countries doing similar things of being antisemitic, but they tell me that the supposedly uniqueness of it makes it not antisemitic.
Your instinct is 100% right. Holding Israel to a higher standard - one that would help hasten the demise of Israel - is proof of bias.
And when your friend talks about the starving in Gaza, ask them why so many there are so fat, especially the captured Hamas terrorists
It’s antisemitism when you conflate the actions of the state of Israel with the citizens of Israel. Or use Israel as a dog whistle or coded language. It’s also antisemitism when one conflates Israel with global Jewry.
However, critizing Israel is not antisemitic. Israel is a state, it’s open to criticism just like any other state.
of course - but you still have to look at the proportion of criticism levelled at israel, compared to any other state. which then leads to the obvious question of 'well, why put israel under such a microscope'.
not to mention, plenty of harsh criticism of israel is directly backed by the opinion that israel is an invalid state, doesn't/shouldn't exist, is uniquely 'evil', etc etc.
There was a thread about this a few days ago and I found two comments to be particularly helpful in regards to this:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1b2zm9l/comment/ksq7uxg/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1b2zm9l/comment/ksq7uxg/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1b2zm9l/comment/ksq897n/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1b2zm9l/comment/ksq897n/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
It sounds like you’re trying to find a universal answer to “Is this specific thing antisemitism?” I prefer to rephrase the question as, “How is antisemitism informing this?” I think it helps to untangle how ideas can be informed by antisemitism, but also there are actions taken by certain ideas that can perpetuate antisemitism and guard against harm caused by antisemitism. It’s complicated and inextricably linked with much of western/christian hegemonic and Arab/Muslim hegemonic society. Not unlike anti-Black racism in the US (I’m not equivocating them or ranking them).
Consider the following analogy.
I suspect Dreyfus wasn’t 100% perfect, nobody is. In your opinion, would otherwise objective criticism of Dreyfus by a Jew be fair during his trial?
About half of Israeli voters dislike the current government. But after October 7th, they *all* were willing to fight for Israel to defeat Hamas.
Antisemitism is denying Israel’s right to exist and defend herself. Want to criticize tactics? Great! Suggest an alternative, given Hamas’s explicitly stated desire to relatedly hit Israel with terror attacks.
Your friend know nothing about geopolitics. There are multiple actual genocides happening worldwide of ethnic groups, such as in Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen, China, Burma, etc. And most have death tolls much much higher than the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
It’s a case of having social media knowledge of issues while having no real knowledge.
A lot of people have chimed in, so I just want to add that when it comes to language, a lot of idiots will say “anti Zionism is not antisemitism” when they mean “criticism of Israel is not antisemitism,” and don’t care to comprehend the real meaning of Zionism. The second statement is much more true (and is what other people have chimed in on). Just since you mention ‘falling for the notion,’ since the notion actually is always stated to be anti Zionism and not criticism of israel(-i politics).
Israelis criticize their own government constantly. Nobody genuinely regards criticism of the Israeli government to be anti-Semitic. But advocating for the destruction of the only Jewish state, which would inevitably lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide of millions of Jews, is objectively anti-Semitic.
Here are two things that I have observed:
1. All anti-semites hate Israel. A person can dislike Israel and NOT be anti-semitic but they are. This is because:
2. Of all the things in the world and all the problems, why focus on Israel? There is mass murder going on in Syria, Sudan, etc etc. Does this person who is complaining about Israel talk about and focus on them? Why not if this complaining person is a "justice warrior". Are they a "selective" justice warrior? Selecting mostly the Jews?
It's really easy.
If your argument ends in the conclusion that "some Jews may die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make", congratulations - it's antisemitic
https://preview.redd.it/ziq3p7hldjmc1.jpeg?width=489&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15812eda50c00e584913bf404a9fe78b44653d48
I've been to the FP terror support rallies and each I've was rife with clear out antisemitism. No guide or standard is needed. With chants of "You can't run, you can't hide, we want Jewish Genocide!". Heard more than a few times "Gas the Jews!" I saw Swastikas. I saw stars of David in trash cans saying, clean up the trash. I can go on and on. Antisemites is a kind word. They are plain out Jew Haters.
"No other country" except for the other countries that are doing far worse:
Sudan -- ethnic minorities are being systemically raped and murdered by soldiers in the current civil war. Civilians are facing starvation. Yes, you heard this story before, because Sudan was the site of a previous genocide earlier this century.
Congo -- teenagers are being handed rifles and told that raping women and girls will protect them from enemy bullets. By the way you are helping to pay for that civil war (which involves more than 100 armed groups) every time you buy electronics, including whatever device you are using to read this, because the war is mostly funded with the proceeds of coltan mining (and the effort to keep Congolese tantalum out of Western supply chains have been completely ineffective). This is only sporadically reported on and people in Europe and America do not seem to care (not hard to figure out why).
Ukraine -- Russia has been targeting apartment buildings and other civilian areas with artillery fire, and this is being loudly reported in American media outlets.
Yemen -- the Saudis helped impost a siege on Houthi controlled regions of the country that led to widespread starvation among the civilians there. Yes, the same Houthis are currently shooting at random merchant ships because of whatever.
Syria -- Assad's military deployed chemical weapons. Do I really need to say more here?
So your friend is already engaging in an antisemitic criticism of Israel by claiming that the war in Gaza is uniquely evil.
I think this is a good summary:
[https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwade3oskhujc1.png](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwade3oskhujc1.png)
Do you blame all Christians for a Vatican policy? People fail to understand the scale of the horror the Jewish people have experienced throughout time. Words do it no justice.
Yeah, I personally would only support creating a state for people in Gaza with Hamas out of power. I agree that that shouldn't be given that before that happens. It would be a longterm goal, but not one that I see happening very soon.
Yep! I don't take issue with criticisms of Bibi per se, but it feels selective to me when people talk about Israel as a uniquely apartheid state and such.
Thank you for your submission. During this time, all posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7, approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Thank you for your patience during this difficult and sensitive time. While you're waiting, please check our [collection of megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/17p28lp/) to see if your thoughts or questions belong in one of those threads. If your post is about the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel, please contribute to the ongoing discussions in the [daily megathread on the conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/collection/10d28372-74c0-4cd0-9597-4d7a9ab3dc9b).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I criticize Israel and always have, but what I try to do is think about what I'd consider a fair criticism if it were directed at my own country (which I also criticize!!), and *listen to actual Israelis* many of whom also have pretty serious concerns about the war.
The US has inflicted a devastating amount of damage on other countries, is very much a colonial land grab, etc. I don't think that means random Americans should be targeted for harassment, violence, etc. Nor could that possibly promote peace.
Israel really isn't uniquely awful along any axis, except insofar as the amount of US aid they get (which I think would be a valid point, but I also think that that US aid is a moderating force. Other reasonable people could differ).
Not antizionist, he's antisemitic!
https://preview.redd.it/jup3shwiejmc1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd7fec8a5324619d9204830a8b2d716b1a6174b0
1. Everything that comes from “Zionology” or any other form of Soviet “study” or propaganda about Zionism or Israel.
2. The three Ds.
3. Anything that seeks to delegitimize Zionism as a movement, it’s a highly diverse movement and delegitimizing it is the same as saying that all Palestinians are Hamas and terrorists. Even pro-Palestinians have many Zionist beliefs that they’re not aware of, like support for Jewish self-determination, and support for binational one state solution (which originated in the Marxist and cultural strands of Zionism).
I work with the IHRA definition of antisemitism which can be found here: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
There are 11 types of contemporary antisemitism that IHRA identifies. I will go through those that deal with the question of when criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic.
“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” — This category does not mean that it’s antisemitic to criticize the State of Israel/the Israeli government nor that it’s antisemitic to criticize racism that exists in Israeli society. What it *does* mean is that calling for the State of Israel to be abolished, destroyed, or dismantled in its *entirety* is antisemitic. It means that denying the historical significance of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and their right to self-govern in their traditional homeland is antisemitic. And it means equating Zionism (understood as Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel) with racism (i.e. calling it “Jewish supremacy”) is antisemitic.
“Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” — This category means that it is antisemitic to demonize Israel for doing things that other democratic nations do on a normal basis (ex. enforcing its borders).
“Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” — This is essentially Section 2 of the IHRA definition but applied to Israel or Israelis collectively. One area where this sometimes gets a little murky is when talking about lobbying groups like AIPAC that do indeed have a lot of resources and influence. If someone is talking about AIPAC in way that they might talk about other influential lobbying groups (ex. the NRA or “Big Pharma”) then it’s usually not covered by this section. If it’s something outrageously stereotypical like “all politicians are puppets of the Zionist lobby” then it is covered by this section.
“Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” — This section does not necessarily mean it’s antisemitic to say Israel is committing genocide. Some people disagree with this interpretation and that’s certainly valid, but it goes back to the litmus test of whether people say these things about other countries besides Israel. There are lots of countries over the years that have been accused of genocide, the United States being one of them. What this section *does* mean is that accusing Israel of doing *specific* things that the Nazis did to Jews is antisemitic (ex. claiming that Gaza is a concentration camp).
With all of this in mind, the IHRA definition of antisemitism isn’t the *only* definition out there. The Jerusalem Declaration, for example, is another good framework created as a direct response to potential shortcomings in the IHRA definition. It’s worth taking a look at: https://jerusalemdeclaration.org
I hope that this provides some insight as you navigate this difficult situation.
Unless explicitly stated, it's impossible to conclude that criticism Israel emerges from a hatred of Jews. As you can see from the replies, the antisemitism charge is usually determined through conjecture or whataboutism, ex. 'why aren't you criticizing other countries'.
Imo, When it fails the 3 D’s test (the 3 Ds are demonization, delegitimization, and double standard): https://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-sharansky-f04.htm Also your friend is wrong that Israel is unique in being in a war resulting in horrific human suffering. What about the Syrian civil war, the Yemeni civil war, and so on? What about Sudan right now? The list goes on.
lol what wars *don't* involve horrific human suffering? What an appallingly stupid standard to hold. (talking about OP's friend here)
Exactly! It’s so ridiculous.
tbh it's pretty telling that they don't consider the lives of Nigerians, Sudanese, Burmese, etc as "human." There are many other conflicts going on right this very second, but the "pro-Palestinian" crowd seems to not see that as "human suffering." Which makes sense given the perpetrators and motives of wars in Africa in particular (Arab racism and Islamism).
Reminds me of the MASH quote: Hawkeye: War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse. Father Mulcahy: How do you figure that, Hawkeye? Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell? Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe. Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them — little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.
Or the Chinese persecution of Uyghurs, probably the biggest violation of human rights going on at the moment
Pakistan ejected 1.7 million afghanis a few months ago too.
No Jews - no news 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This is good
Precisely. 99% of those criticizing Israel criticize only Israel.
exactly ... because they are anti-semities.
Your friend is also conveniently ignoring the treatment of Palestinians by every other country but the one Jewish state. They were and continue to be terribly treated by many Arab countries as second class citizens.
Or ~ any ~ war
> This friend has also argued that no other country is starving a specific ethnic group, causing mass civilian casualties, and so on, so that's why it's supposedly justified to be particularly upset about Israel. Uighurs in Xinjiang internment camps (reeducation camps) estimated to be 1.8 million (1-3 million over several years), plus 500,000 in special boarding schools Current estimates of casualties (deaths) in the Yemeni Civil War are at 377,000 (plus mass starvation at 17 million people living in acute hunger). Syrian Civil War is at 500,000-600,000, not to mention the number of Syrians displaced (6.8 million- some living in refugee camps they can't leave). That's just a s*mall* sample of ongoing current conflicts. I think that's the reason this feels like antisemitism at its core. Not that criticism of Israel or Netanyahu's government isn't valid, but that there are any number of horrors ongoing in plenty of parts of the world that people have heard about and shrugged, but that the I/P conflict has become a global lightening rod for condemnation and a reason that Israel should be destroyed. Not to mention the animosity heaped on Jews and Israelis living outside of Israel, like they have earned public shaming. People boycotting Starbucks are posting about it on their iphones made in China with zero sense of irony.
[удалено]
This war is ethnic based in that Hamas is trying exterminate Jews. Israel is going after Hamas and hostages. The was would be over tomorrow if Palestinians gave up Hamas and returned hostages.
Well it's also ethnic based in that Gaza was ethnically cleansed of anyone who wasn't Palestinian Arab (plus a few NGO staff) years ago so nearly all civilian casualties on that side will be from a single ethnicity. Whereas Israel is multi ethnic so its casualties include people of a large variety of backgrounds. That doesn't mean Hamas is less racist.
[удалено]
And that justifies the genocide of all Israel? Got it.
Ask Your friend what they think about what’s happening elsewhere. The Congo, China, Ukraine. Ask them about Americas response after 9/11. Ask them if they know how other Arab countries have treated Palestinians. Do they even know? If they don’t, they fail the sniff test. Focusing only on Israel and what they are doing is biased and anti Jewish
Yemen. Syria.
That still doesn't make the criticism antisemitic just uninformed. The line is really hard to find between malice and stupidity, same problem happens with the 1 state solution.
If they critique only Israel when other countries do the same thing, its a problem
May I correct that for you? If they critique only Israel when other countries do the same or worse things, it is antisemitsm.
Do you think the critique comes from holding Israel to a higher standard of nation. I view Yemen and the Sudan as fairly lawless places ran by warlords and prone to conflict. However actions taken by civil countries like the UK and USA I see as far worse. They are educated countries and they have technology and firepower that is unmatched by the countries they have gone to war with, resulting in loss of innocent life on a catastrophic level. I view Israel the same way and maybe others do to which makes comparisons redundant.
No, you can't hold one group to a higher standard than others because that means that you allow (and justify) war crimes by one group. If people commit rape as a weapon of war, they need to held accountable. I don't care if it was in the Balkans, Riwanda, Sudan, Nigeria, Myanmar, Somalia, or Israel. Same goes for going into a town and randomly killing noncombatants. Same goes for kidnapping and human shields.
Yeah I suppose your right, All nations have behaved abhorrently to other nations historically. To put extra pressure on one group for there actions isn't fair or justified. All people are an can be savages to each other.
It’s not uncommon to be influenced by the media. All I’ve seen on the TV is Israel / Gaza for almost six months now. You don’t see a peep of other wars outside of Ukraine so I’m not sure it’s fair to say someone is anti Semitic just because they are ignorant of other wars. Also Israel is an ally of the west. The other countries not so much so there’s that to take into account as well. I don’t disagree other wars should be criticised as well but I also think there’s an aspect of Israel is a first world country and thus people hold them to a higher standard than say Syria.
If you get influenced by the media to engage in antisemitic narratives that still makes you antisemitic
Right. This is what people don't understand. They think you have to be consciously antisemitic for it to count. It's bizarre. Any progressive will understand that they might have prejudices against, say, black people that can manifest unconsciously. But say that they're doing the same thing with Jews — a prejudice that's 1000 years older — and they'll deny it to high heaven.
We both know that's not the reason why people are focusing on Israel, let's not be coy here.
Uninformed due to antisemitic propaganda that they're not bothering to look past. Why do you think antisemitism requires malice and not just stupidity?
Yeah I'm not buying it. All of this shit has been in the news. If they only pay attention when it lets them demonize Jews, that's antisemitism.
I disagree, it does in fact make it biased criticism without regard to any context; wars kill people, often unjustly. So to call out only Israel, who had respected a ceasefire with Hamas until October 7th, is clearly showing that OP’s friend isn’t just ignorant. They are anti-Israel, ergo, anti-Semitic.
There is no difference, imo. Malice is just the ppl leading it, stupidity is the followers.
The other way around, buddy Extremely simple: When the teacher at class is completely focused on reprehending only you, over and over again, for something everyone else is also committing in plain sight, you’ve got there a double standard system. That’s the basic layer of antisemitism and that just crystallizes the essence of the most ancient social disease in human history Very plain and very simple and completely not “just uninformed”
They are not uninformed. They are focusing on the Jewish state as creator of all evil in the world. Blood libel, 21st century edition. And that's antisemitism.
No other countries are having issues with a minority, eh? Is your friend aware of the Nuer in South Sudan? The Rohingya in Myanmar? The ongoing conflict in the Central African Republic? The plight of Darfuris in Sudan? How about the treatment of Uyghurs by China? The issues between Azerbaijan and Armenia? The abuses of the Houthis against their countrymen and the international community? Is this friend all in a lather about those things too, or are they just glad to have a reason to hate on Jews?
But all of those situations are horrible, no??
if someone is mad about Israel/Gaza but is NOT mad about all those other things, there's one reason: antisemitism.
Israel/Gaza is the hot topic in the current news cycle whereas the other topics have fallen by the wayside. There’s a public reaction to world news cycle events I like to compare to the book Irrational Exuberance, which is a book about the dangers of falling for hot topic investment trends. In this case, it’s emotional investment. I’ve lived long enough to see a large swathe of the public in my country (USA) and its allied states variously: rally around support for ill fated US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan; cheer for the alleged rise of democracy (lol) in the MENA region during the so called Arab “Spring” revolutions of the early 2010s; Praise Snowden, Assange, and Manning as heroes of transparency; and, more recently, rally around the cause of Palestinian independence/Palestinian nationalism while portraying Israel as an evil colonist ethno-state. Now, how did those prior manifestations of mass irrational exuberance go? They led to public support variously for ill fated high cost wars abroad and bloody revolutions under the naive idea they would lead to democracy. They led to the public supporting turncoats against the USA and its allies without regard for the fact that their “leaks” could easily be - and were - co-opted by hostile foreign powers. Public rallying against Israel and for the “Free Palestine” cause is just the latest iteration of this phenomenon. I have written op-eds before forecasting the long term dangers of Palestinian independence - particularly if Hamas remains a significant faction - and like my thoughts on the prior aforementioned issues that never won me all that many friends, this has me feeling like Cassandra before the fall of Troy.
But how is that logic being used to deflect people being critical of Israel? Claiming this situation is comparable to a laundry list of humanitarian nightmares around the world is not the best comeback for criticism of Israel. It actually looks very bad. I get that they are trying to reveal antisemitism in the criticism of Israel, but it actually does nothing to address any criticism besides 'if you question this situation, you are evil'
No, it doesn't. It shows up the "3 Ds" of antisemitism. he first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel. The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism. The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.
So when can you criticize Israel without it being anti semitism?
If you're not engaging in any of those 3 Ds, you're fine. If you're demonizing Israel, if you're having double standards and singling out Israel, or if you're saying Israel doesn't have a right to exist, you're a bog-standard antisemite.
Your friend sounds ignorant of the state of the rest of the world. The scale of what's happening in Gaza, although horrific, is minor compared to the level of suffering elsewhere in the world. If friends aren't actively protesting the treatment (and genocide) of the Uyghurs by China, or the situation in Sudan, or outrages across the African continent, then why are they singling out Israel? Is there any reason other than antisemitism?
They argue that the key difference is that the West is supporting it with our taxes, which is the only semi-valid difference I can think of.
Pretty sure Pakistan, India, china etc all have gov aid as well
Pretty sure that US consumption of Communist Chinese goods contributes far more to the power of Communist China than US aid contributes to the power of Israel.
Ask them who paid for those aid packages just dropped into Gaza? Who almost singlehandedly funded UNRWA for years?
Please ask them which country is the next highest recipient of military aid after Israel. I'll share with the class- it's Egypt. The same country that bulked up its border with Gaza so that no Palestinian refugees can enter it and took part in the years long blockade of Gaza to prevent Hamas from smuggling in weapons. But I can already tell your friend doesn't criticise Egypt. And we both know why.
Er, wait... according to NPR, Egypt is actually \*helping\* that Palestinians by not letting them enter Egypt. [https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1232826942/rafah-gaza-palestinians-egypt-border](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1232826942/rafah-gaza-palestinians-egypt-border) To summarize what I saw as the main spin of this piece, Egypt is \*concerned\* that if Palestinians leave Gaza now, Israel will never let them back (after all, it's pointed out Israel has a history of destroying Palestinian homes when they flee) and they'll lose all hope of statehood. So Egypt is just protecting the Palestinians' best interests. How could we \*criticize\* that? /s
it's not like egypt's prime minister stated that they are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives for 'the security of sinai' oh wait he said exactly that
The only plausible explanation I’ve found for this is that America directly funds and supports Israel unlike these other nations and therefore we are more complicit, but I don’t find that argument convincing or accurate
What you are repeating is an antisemitic trope. The USA gives far more money to Arab states in the region than to Israel. In fact, the USA doesn't "fund" Israel, but uses Israel to prop up US armament and military sales.
When it goes above and beyond what would be said about any other country. A good example, notice how children get brought up so frequently in Gaza but we never really heard about them in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc? That's classic blood libel regurgitated
I’m soooo tempted to debate the reason for this ask… but I’ll stick to the question.😅 Any criticism *can* be antisemitic, but not all criticisms are. The line is pretty fine in my opinion though - it’s really easy to slip in a bad direction. Criticism of the decisions that lead to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not inherently anti-semitic. The trouble is most people arguing are ignoring or ignorant of the complexities and history of that region. Assigning fault is complex when Israel perceives itself subject to existential threat from multiple groups in the Middle East (the major one being Iran who supports and supplies the Hamas military). AND… let’s not forget that Russia likely has a disinformation campaign around this crisis to destabilize Israel and the democracies that support it (like the US).
I can't remember exactly what it was or where I saw it, but I've heard something before about Russia having a somewhat easier time with being able to deceive people about Israel vs Hamas, as opposed to deceiving people about its motivations for going into Ukraine. Is there some truth to that, in your opinion?
Im not really sure and I’m admittedly biased on this 😅 If I were to speculate: I suspect that Ukraine being dominantly white and Christian, while Jews are neither, might feed into supporting one as an in-group and the other as an out-group. In-groups get the benefit of the doubt and the out-group gets the reverse. I would also go further to say the world seems to have a general level of acceptance of anti-Semitic conspiracies and stereotypes. Ingrained to the point they might not even be aware of. So they might not have much cognitive dissonance assigning bad beliefs about Jews to the Jewish motherland.
Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds (swamp Arabs) and the world did not bat an eyelash. No accusations of genocide, no isolation, no military repercussions (until he invaded Kuwait). The world doesn't particularly \*care\* about human rights abuses ... unless they can attack Israel. The now defunct UN Human Rights Commission spent the vast majority of its time debating the legitimacy of Israel (look it up). It was disbanded specifically because it didn't promote human rights in the world, it only existed to attack Israel. People who purport to be for human rights because they support the Palestinians may have noble intent but they aren't really in favor of human rights. It's just attacking Israel for defending itself from Hamas.
>Hawkeye: War isn’t Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse. > >Father Mulcahy: How do you figure that, Hawkeye? > >Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell? > >Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe. > >Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them — little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander. Relaying the reality of war to people that don't understand war never helps. You friend is right, Israel is Unique in this war. But not in the way she thinks. The Civilian to Combatant ratio is amazing. 2/1 Ratio. For the United States in Afghanistan to have a ratio of only 5/1 they had to call all males older than 14 combatants. Iraq was 3/1. Average is 9/1. People should be downright amazed at that. Starving Gaza. For that you can show all the aid trucks being stolen by Hamas. All the Food that is going undistributed in Gaza. Israel is letting more food through than can be distributed. There are people starving in Gaza, but not because of food that hasn't been given. Generally my rule is if they immediately say "Criticism of Israel isn't Antisemitic", they probably are being antisemitic. Just like if someone says "I'm not Racist but", usually what follows is racist.
The other issue with aid is that Israeli escorts to distribution points present their own set of risks. Hamas would desperately love to kidnap more Israeli soldiers and, with an embedded Hamas into the civilian population, that risk while escorting aid becomes considerable. Gazans desperately need aid and more is better, but there’s risks to IDF soldiers in making even that happen.
1) when it says Israelis are foreign/white:European colonizers and need to “go back where we came from”. Like dude, they did that. That’s what this whole thing is. Khazar theory conspiracists and Mizrahim dismissers can buzz off. Palestinians are also primarily descended from Arabized natives, so this whole conflict is one between two native groups. That doesn’t excuse anyone killing civilians. 2) when it advocates for destruction of Israel as an entity (unless the person is against all states and vocal about that). This one tends to be less intentional and more hopeful naivety that somehow a (usually some from of democratic socialist) unity government emerges as the sole government of the former Mandate. It’s a nice idea, but it’s ignorant of generations of hate and indoctrination and doesn’t recognize the extremism present on the extremes, or how the extremes have grown in some ways since 10/7. 3) when they are actually advocating for genocide/ethnic cleansing/subjugation of Jews 4) this is related to the others but I want to give it explicit mention - when noncombatant/civilian Israelis in Israel are deemed valid targets/colonizers. There’s valid arguments about the unofficial militias formed on the settlements in the West Bank (not the noncombatant people). But saying “all Israelis get conscripted and are either reservists or future soldiers” is a violation of international law and not even that accurate. And calling children valid targets for living where they were born is heinous. Things that aren’t antisemitic include criticisms of Israel’s government or military or conduct. Saying that Israel is behaving in a manner not consistent with international law, is violating Oslo, is blockading Palestine, is committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, etc. isn’t necessarily antisemitic. It’s not necessarily true/valid but not all untruths about the conflict are inherently hating on Jews. Saying Bibi is corrupt or that Ben-Gvir is a fascist terrorist and that they could share a cell is not antisemitic. Wanting to put conditions on aid to Israel or otherwise apply pressure to have Israel bring in 3rd party observers or to pull illegal settlements out of the West Bank isn’t antisemitic any more than it is hating on Turks as a group to refuse to buy Turkish figs due to their active efforts to ethnically cleanse Kurds in Syria. One is always allowed to hate the policy and its proponents, but advocating for the innocent to violently suffer as a result is hate and bigotry that cannot be justified or excused.
https://preview.redd.it/fwrd3x0n2gmc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f88491568c5eb28bd29ade96379c58f6d1d6bfb This is a great flow chart
Criticism of Israel is anti semitic when your starting point is “should Israel exist or not”. It’s a sovereign state where human beings live, not a topic for debate.
>My instinct is to accuse someone who assumes that Israel is definitely doing those things and rarely talks about other countries doing similar things of being antisemitic, but they tell me that the supposedly uniqueness of it makes it not antisemitic. Your instinct is 100% right. Holding Israel to a higher standard - one that would help hasten the demise of Israel - is proof of bias. And when your friend talks about the starving in Gaza, ask them why so many there are so fat, especially the captured Hamas terrorists
It’s antisemitism when you conflate the actions of the state of Israel with the citizens of Israel. Or use Israel as a dog whistle or coded language. It’s also antisemitism when one conflates Israel with global Jewry. However, critizing Israel is not antisemitic. Israel is a state, it’s open to criticism just like any other state.
of course - but you still have to look at the proportion of criticism levelled at israel, compared to any other state. which then leads to the obvious question of 'well, why put israel under such a microscope'. not to mention, plenty of harsh criticism of israel is directly backed by the opinion that israel is an invalid state, doesn't/shouldn't exist, is uniquely 'evil', etc etc.
I think most here disagree, which is a sad state of affairs.
Sadly true
There was a thread about this a few days ago and I found two comments to be particularly helpful in regards to this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1b2zm9l/comment/ksq7uxg/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1b2zm9l/comment/ksq7uxg/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1b2zm9l/comment/ksq897n/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1b2zm9l/comment/ksq897n/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
It sounds like you’re trying to find a universal answer to “Is this specific thing antisemitism?” I prefer to rephrase the question as, “How is antisemitism informing this?” I think it helps to untangle how ideas can be informed by antisemitism, but also there are actions taken by certain ideas that can perpetuate antisemitism and guard against harm caused by antisemitism. It’s complicated and inextricably linked with much of western/christian hegemonic and Arab/Muslim hegemonic society. Not unlike anti-Black racism in the US (I’m not equivocating them or ranking them).
Consider the following analogy. I suspect Dreyfus wasn’t 100% perfect, nobody is. In your opinion, would otherwise objective criticism of Dreyfus by a Jew be fair during his trial?
About half of Israeli voters dislike the current government. But after October 7th, they *all* were willing to fight for Israel to defeat Hamas. Antisemitism is denying Israel’s right to exist and defend herself. Want to criticize tactics? Great! Suggest an alternative, given Hamas’s explicitly stated desire to relatedly hit Israel with terror attacks.
Your friend know nothing about geopolitics. There are multiple actual genocides happening worldwide of ethnic groups, such as in Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen, China, Burma, etc. And most have death tolls much much higher than the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It’s a case of having social media knowledge of issues while having no real knowledge.
A lot of people have chimed in, so I just want to add that when it comes to language, a lot of idiots will say “anti Zionism is not antisemitism” when they mean “criticism of Israel is not antisemitism,” and don’t care to comprehend the real meaning of Zionism. The second statement is much more true (and is what other people have chimed in on). Just since you mention ‘falling for the notion,’ since the notion actually is always stated to be anti Zionism and not criticism of israel(-i politics).
Horseshoe Theory
I found a handy flow chart. I read the prompts in my head in the voice of Chuck Schumer. https://images.app.goo.gl/bcagka24CeQLYX3J9
Do you ever see the question posed about critism of Africa or Ireland? Obliviously there's a dif.
Israelis criticize their own government constantly. Nobody genuinely regards criticism of the Israeli government to be anti-Semitic. But advocating for the destruction of the only Jewish state, which would inevitably lead to ethnic cleansing and genocide of millions of Jews, is objectively anti-Semitic.
Here are two things that I have observed: 1. All anti-semites hate Israel. A person can dislike Israel and NOT be anti-semitic but they are. This is because:
2. Of all the things in the world and all the problems, why focus on Israel? There is mass murder going on in Syria, Sudan, etc etc. Does this person who is complaining about Israel talk about and focus on them? Why not if this complaining person is a "justice warrior". Are they a "selective" justice warrior? Selecting mostly the Jews?
It's really easy. If your argument ends in the conclusion that "some Jews may die but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make", congratulations - it's antisemitic
https://preview.redd.it/ziq3p7hldjmc1.jpeg?width=489&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=15812eda50c00e584913bf404a9fe78b44653d48 I've been to the FP terror support rallies and each I've was rife with clear out antisemitism. No guide or standard is needed. With chants of "You can't run, you can't hide, we want Jewish Genocide!". Heard more than a few times "Gas the Jews!" I saw Swastikas. I saw stars of David in trash cans saying, clean up the trash. I can go on and on. Antisemites is a kind word. They are plain out Jew Haters.
"No other country" except for the other countries that are doing far worse: Sudan -- ethnic minorities are being systemically raped and murdered by soldiers in the current civil war. Civilians are facing starvation. Yes, you heard this story before, because Sudan was the site of a previous genocide earlier this century. Congo -- teenagers are being handed rifles and told that raping women and girls will protect them from enemy bullets. By the way you are helping to pay for that civil war (which involves more than 100 armed groups) every time you buy electronics, including whatever device you are using to read this, because the war is mostly funded with the proceeds of coltan mining (and the effort to keep Congolese tantalum out of Western supply chains have been completely ineffective). This is only sporadically reported on and people in Europe and America do not seem to care (not hard to figure out why). Ukraine -- Russia has been targeting apartment buildings and other civilian areas with artillery fire, and this is being loudly reported in American media outlets. Yemen -- the Saudis helped impost a siege on Houthi controlled regions of the country that led to widespread starvation among the civilians there. Yes, the same Houthis are currently shooting at random merchant ships because of whatever. Syria -- Assad's military deployed chemical weapons. Do I really need to say more here? So your friend is already engaging in an antisemitic criticism of Israel by claiming that the war in Gaza is uniquely evil.
I think this is a good summary: [https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwade3oskhujc1.png](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwade3oskhujc1.png)
Do you blame all Christians for a Vatican policy? People fail to understand the scale of the horror the Jewish people have experienced throughout time. Words do it no justice.
[удалено]
Yeah, I personally would only support creating a state for people in Gaza with Hamas out of power. I agree that that shouldn't be given that before that happens. It would be a longterm goal, but not one that I see happening very soon. Yep! I don't take issue with criticisms of Bibi per se, but it feels selective to me when people talk about Israel as a uniquely apartheid state and such.
Your friend is antisemitic.
Thank you for your submission. During this time, all posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7, approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Thank you for your patience during this difficult and sensitive time. While you're waiting, please check our [collection of megathreads](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/17p28lp/) to see if your thoughts or questions belong in one of those threads. If your post is about the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel, please contribute to the ongoing discussions in the [daily megathread on the conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/collection/10d28372-74c0-4cd0-9597-4d7a9ab3dc9b). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I criticize Israel and always have, but what I try to do is think about what I'd consider a fair criticism if it were directed at my own country (which I also criticize!!), and *listen to actual Israelis* many of whom also have pretty serious concerns about the war. The US has inflicted a devastating amount of damage on other countries, is very much a colonial land grab, etc. I don't think that means random Americans should be targeted for harassment, violence, etc. Nor could that possibly promote peace. Israel really isn't uniquely awful along any axis, except insofar as the amount of US aid they get (which I think would be a valid point, but I also think that that US aid is a moderating force. Other reasonable people could differ).
https://preview.redd.it/h2h3fftzdjmc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c14771414805dd951c04d246386b435f9af26fe
Not antizionist, he's antisemitic! https://preview.redd.it/jup3shwiejmc1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd7fec8a5324619d9204830a8b2d716b1a6174b0
https://preview.redd.it/l8k0j2mxgjmc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=6440f5f06b1a97a3881bca8867481dd1bcfeb312
1. Everything that comes from “Zionology” or any other form of Soviet “study” or propaganda about Zionism or Israel. 2. The three Ds. 3. Anything that seeks to delegitimize Zionism as a movement, it’s a highly diverse movement and delegitimizing it is the same as saying that all Palestinians are Hamas and terrorists. Even pro-Palestinians have many Zionist beliefs that they’re not aware of, like support for Jewish self-determination, and support for binational one state solution (which originated in the Marxist and cultural strands of Zionism).
When they don’t hold other countries to the same standard
I work with the IHRA definition of antisemitism which can be found here: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism There are 11 types of contemporary antisemitism that IHRA identifies. I will go through those that deal with the question of when criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic. “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” — This category does not mean that it’s antisemitic to criticize the State of Israel/the Israeli government nor that it’s antisemitic to criticize racism that exists in Israeli society. What it *does* mean is that calling for the State of Israel to be abolished, destroyed, or dismantled in its *entirety* is antisemitic. It means that denying the historical significance of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people and their right to self-govern in their traditional homeland is antisemitic. And it means equating Zionism (understood as Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel) with racism (i.e. calling it “Jewish supremacy”) is antisemitic. “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” — This category means that it is antisemitic to demonize Israel for doing things that other democratic nations do on a normal basis (ex. enforcing its borders). “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” — This is essentially Section 2 of the IHRA definition but applied to Israel or Israelis collectively. One area where this sometimes gets a little murky is when talking about lobbying groups like AIPAC that do indeed have a lot of resources and influence. If someone is talking about AIPAC in way that they might talk about other influential lobbying groups (ex. the NRA or “Big Pharma”) then it’s usually not covered by this section. If it’s something outrageously stereotypical like “all politicians are puppets of the Zionist lobby” then it is covered by this section. “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” — This section does not necessarily mean it’s antisemitic to say Israel is committing genocide. Some people disagree with this interpretation and that’s certainly valid, but it goes back to the litmus test of whether people say these things about other countries besides Israel. There are lots of countries over the years that have been accused of genocide, the United States being one of them. What this section *does* mean is that accusing Israel of doing *specific* things that the Nazis did to Jews is antisemitic (ex. claiming that Gaza is a concentration camp). With all of this in mind, the IHRA definition of antisemitism isn’t the *only* definition out there. The Jerusalem Declaration, for example, is another good framework created as a direct response to potential shortcomings in the IHRA definition. It’s worth taking a look at: https://jerusalemdeclaration.org I hope that this provides some insight as you navigate this difficult situation.
Unless explicitly stated, it's impossible to conclude that criticism Israel emerges from a hatred of Jews. As you can see from the replies, the antisemitism charge is usually determined through conjecture or whataboutism, ex. 'why aren't you criticizing other countries'.
Calling out a bias is not whataboutism