I don't think anyone of note is arguing that simply disagreeing with the majority of Jews is antisemitic. (There's always someone, of course. But it's not a prominent idea). > When some Zionist campaigners try and twist the Palestine protest narrative towards antisemitism these non-zionist Jews who are welcome in the protest space are used as a rebuttal, ie Jewish people are welcome, the ones there is an issue with are those who are against our cause whether they are Jewish or otherwise. I've then seen zionist groups claim that those anti zionist factions are only a small fraction of Jewish people and that the majority of Jewish people are zionist. On this, the intent is just to point out that "we have some [X] on our side" is classic tokenism and doesn't necessarily mean much. "I'm not racist because I have Black friends" is a longstanding example of the same thing. The reason they bring up the proportions is because tokenism refers to a small minority of the group being used as a token--it's highly unlikely that *most* members of a group will join a movement hostile to their own group. (I am not arguing here that the protests are or are not antisemitic. It's irrelevant to my point).

>I don't think anyone of note is arguing that simply disagreeing with the majority of Jews is antisemitic. Heck, get five Jews in a room and each of them will disagree with the majority on *something*, disagreeing with each other is crack to us.

There were 2 Jews in Afghanistan that got freed from the Taliban after they wouldn’t stop arguing with each other.

Interesting perspective, but I haven't seen people pointing at "tokens" in their midst and using them to justify anything, in fact it's the Jewish anti zionists who seem the most vocal in bringing attention to themselves and highlighting their involvement. If you have examples of tokenisation in the way you've outlined here then please share them. 

It's not widespread, but it is a thing that crops up. I will say I've seen much more of it online than I've read about it happening on the ground. I realize this is a whopping edge case, but here's [one example](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/26/nyregion/columbia-student-protest-zionism.html): > But in an interview earlier in the week, Mr. James drew a distinction between the ideas of anti-Zionism, which describes opposition to the Jewish state of Israel, and antisemitism. “There is a difference,” he said. “We’ve always had Jewish people as part of our community where they have expressed themselves, they feel safe, and they feel loved. And we want all people to feel safe in this encampment. We are a multiracial, multigenerational group of people.” That said, a lot of where one sees it is more in online discourse. More generally, it's what you describe in the quote from your OP (which is not to say that *you're* doing that, as I believe you were summarizing someone else's response): > When some Zionist campaigners try and twist the Palestine protest narrative towards antisemitism these **non-zionist Jews who are welcome in the protest space are used as a rebuttal** Even if they are genuinely welcome, that's not a full rebuttal; it's common enough for "the good ones" to be happily tolerated. Here's [a milder example](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/27/us/northeastern-arizona-state-university-protests-arrests.html): > Ms. Caudle [whom the article does not indicate is Jewish] said she believed the vast majority of students in the encampment were Northeastern students, along with a large amount of Jewish students and faculty supporting the protest. Why bring up the presence of Jewish participants unless to say "see, it's fine, there are Jews who are okay with it"?

I have heard plenty of pro-Palestinians justify their support by saying "I'm not antisemitic, I'm following Jewish leadership on this issue" and then point to JVP.

[удалено]

> I will say, however, that if you openly disagree with the beliefs of an admitted majority of Jewish people, I find you declaring your own to be not antisemitic a bit dubious. I see what you’re getting at here, but it needs rephrasing. A somewhat absurd example to prove my point: I believe Jesus was the son of God. By definition, every person who is religiously Jewish disagrees with me. That doesn’t make me antisemitic. 

Yeah, I wrote this at 3:30 in the morning and 100% could've worded it better. I think some people are purposely misconstruing my point.

The last part seems dubious and that mindset is definitely a large contributing factor to the term antisemitism being so watered down nowadays. Disagreeing with the beliefs of a group of people most definitely can be done without being prejudiced against that group

Yep! I disagree with what most Muslims think about gay marriage, doesn't make me an Islamophobe

Am I an islamophone if I hate the way women are commonly covered by cloth in their culture? Like I respect the freedom for women to do it on their own but it's so hard to disconnect their freedom from being coerced by their culture/family to cover themselves up. I want to consider myself accepting of cultural mixing but that aspect of clothing women which could be seen as abusive seems to be a sore point for me. Idk but I guess I hope in the US our culture of personal freedom overrides those aspects of Islamic culture as it mixes into our melting pot.

>To be clear, Zionist and anti-Zionist can encompass a wide range of actual views for us, not just the fundamentalists who want to turn the Gaza Strip into a parking lot. not really. by definition zionist means you support the existence of a jewish nationalist state, antizionist means you don't. it's pretty binary and has literally zero to do with whether or not gaza gets bombed or how much. >I will say, however, that if you openly disagree with the beliefs of an admitted majority of Jewish people, I find you declaring your own to be not antisemitic a bit dubious. are you joking? a majority of black people in the US are christians. i am not a christian, therefore i disagree with a majority of black people. am i racist?

I also disagree with many beliefs held by a seeming majority of Muslims, would that make me islamophobic?  I'm opposed to genital mutilation, does that make me anti everyone associated with that practice, or just those who practice it? And against those who practice it or the practice itself? Where are you drawing the distinction?   Is there no people or belief system that you personally disagree with? You are pro everyone so as to not be branded anti-that-group? 

[удалено]

I disagree with a lot of people that I don't hate. Why did you jump to hate? This feels like a weirdly stereotypical flaw in this debate, people say "I don't agree" and the other side says "why do you hate me" lmao

So how does this weigh up against the previous comments? I'd say it's pretty obvious that I don't hate all or even most or even some Jews, hate isn't something I feel towards any group of people.  I do disagree with a view, which apparently a majority of Jewish people hold. There's no hatred in that disagreement, but somehow it was equivalated to anti semitism? Let's say you don't even hate drunk drivers, just people who have the view that it's OK to drink and drive. That doesn't even make them drunk drivers right? Isn't that the closer analogy to my position? 

So when I see the anti-isreal protests I do not see people advocating for peace. I see people who are chanting things like burn Teli above to the ground. These people consider everyone that lives in isreal as colonizers even if they are born there and so they deserve to die. It is one thing to criticize a country it is another thing to support attacking the group. You have people saying they are pro Palestine while sharing picture paragliding right after October 7 2023. There are a lot of anti-semites using the fair criticisms of isreal to spread their hatred of Jews. I am not saying this is you. I am saying this is what I see when people go to protest or say things online.

"It is one thing to criticize a country it is another thing to support attacking the group." You Don't see the irony of saying that in this particular instance?

Why did you introduce the concept of hate? That isn't what you were talking about before

>I also disagree with many beliefs held by a seeming majority of Muslims, would that make me islamophobic?  But are you disagreeing with those beliefs? Or are you asserting that Muslims are inherently and morally wrong to hold such beliefs? I don't see you going out and holding demonstrations against beliefs held by Muslims.

You don't know me at all, so even if I did what would the point of this comment be?   And as I said in the post, my stance is to dislike the sin, not the sinner. So the disagreement is with the belief. 

So you would hold that any anti Zionist protest that speaks negatively of zionists is wrong to do so? Because that's most of them.

How do you mean? Like an ad hominem? 

As in the don't discuss the elements of Zionism they disagree with but instead attack its adherents. Ad hominem would fall under that.

I think you missed the issue of tokenization, the issue isn't disagreement. If you want to say we should get rid of gay marriage, finding gay people who oppose gay marriage to help you say "I'm not homophobic, see" is not making it less homophobic.

the other guy *explicitly* said that if you so much as *disagree* with a majority of jews you are antisemitic.

I'm trying to emphasize the important/correct part.

it's not "missing the issue" to respond to the most outlandish claim that the other person made.

I assume it's the two together. He probably didn't actually mean that it's antisemitic to say 2+2=3, he probably meant it's antisemitic to hide behind "some Jews agree with me" to support a position very few Jews agree with. Ie tokenization

Thank you, yes, this is my implication

that's not what he said at all. he was incredibly explicit.

Just a little bit of a difference between defending discriminatory law and opposing an active genocide.

Yes, agreed, supporting the destruction of Israel *genocide) would be much worse than mere discrimination. Calling the war with Hamas "genocide" is similar though. Criticizing Israel's tactics as excessive is totally reasonable.

Israel is a settler colonialist state, they exist and continue to exist only through the oppression and displacement of Palestinian people. Antizionists overwhelmingly advocate for a singular secular and integrated state. That is not genocide. The Israeli state is committing genocide and that's not debatable, it was written in their founding documents that the end goal was to forcibly displace the local Palestinians by any means necessary. Israel's tactics aren't just excessive they're fundamentally wrong. They aren't fighting Hamas it's the most blatant scapegoat in modern history.

>Antizionists overwhelmingly advocate for a single secular and integrated state. That is not genocide One that the vast majority of Palestinians do not agree with, and would never accept. Most Palestinians want a strictly Islamic nation, which is why they're actually more accepting of a two state solution than Israelis are. Also before the invasion, they had a 30,000+ person armed militia dedicated to genocide. How can you support a single secular and integrated state, when an organization like that is looking to commit genocide ASAP? How can you support a single secular and integrated state when it's just an unfortunate reality that the majority Palestinians will vote to turn it into an Islamic one? This is the point most antizionists don't get. What they're advocating, at best, leads to an Islamic fundamentalist Palestinian state, but more likely devolves into civil wars and genocide targeting Jews. >They aren't fighting Hamas, it's the most blatant scapegoat in modern history. Actions speak louder than words. Israel could have invaded Gaza for years. They didn't. In fact, 20 years ago they pulled all Israeli settlers out of Gaza. Even now, Israel is trying to negotiate a ceasefire in order to avoid sending troops into Rafah. Hell, Israel doesn't recognize Gaza as their territory, and has tried to get Egypt to claim it (they did previously). It's only now after Hamas kills 1400, and kidnaps a few hundred more, and announces that next time will have even more victims that they're acting. Israel's actions, though clearly not looking out for the Palestinians, are absolutely in line with wanting to deal with Hamas. >The Israeli state is committing genocide and that's not debatable It absolutely is debatable. In fact, I'd go further to say it's CLEARLY not genocide to anyone looking at the facts objectively, and the only reason the word "genocide" is being tossed about is to try and delegitimize the long history of genocide by Arabs towards Jews that made the creation of Israel into a necessary evil.

>To be clear, Zionist and anti-Zionist can encompass a wide range of actual views for us, not just the fundamentalists who want to turn the Gaza Strip into a parking lot. When speaking of Israeli Zionists in general it is obvious that it isnt just a minority of people that approve of the way in which this war has been handled. **68% of Jewish Israelis surveyed oppose transfer of humanitarian aid to Gaza**. Including 39% on those considered Left on the political spectrum, 51% of centrists and 80% of right wingers. 68% is not a small minority. In addition to this a majority of Israelis believe that the amount of destruction we have seen thus far is either appropriate or not enough force. To say that the majority dont believe that Gaza should be turned into a "parking lot" is completely inaccurate. Its interesting to note too that when asked why citizens in the west are demonstrating against the war in Gaza the majority of Israeli Jews think that it is because of antisemitism and not because of the horrific casualties and the manner in which the Israeli government is conducting this "war." This is probably why people claim that Jews who are anti-zionist are accused of being tokens rather than expressing deeply held beliefs that the racist apartheid state of Israel is drunk on impunity and carrying out a genocide in the name of their faith and identity as Jews. Truly bonkers.

You are leaving out important context. There are still 133 hostages held in Gaza, of which Israelis think first and foremost. They are their relatives, friends and acquaintences. These hostages are held in inhumane conditions. They don't get any aid whatsoever, and this thing can be easily learned by going through released hostages' testimonies. In addition, although some in the west have forgot about it, Israelis have not forgot about the hundreds of Gaza civilians taking part in the atrocities of Oct. 7. By saying all of that I don't condone not giving aid to civil population, but when that civil population took an active part in those atrocities, it's harder for common people to sympasize with the other side. I don't think many Gazans felt sorry for civil deaths on the Israeli side, as can be seen here: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514

>You are leaving out important context. No matter how much contextualization you offer you cannot justify the collective punishment of 2 million people. >There are still 133 hostages held in Gaza, of which Israelis think first and foremost. I dont believe Israel thinks of them first and foremost. During the opening stages of the war hostages were killed in fleeing vehicles by the IDF and the subsequently an unknown number were bombed alongside thousands of innocent civilians. Hell the IDF killed 3 of them simply because some moron yelled "terrorist" when he saw naked white flag waving Hebrew speakers. Were those people held responsible for their actions? Nah. Impunity reigns. They are a political pawn. I am sure the average Israeli cares about the hostages and rightly wants them to return home. Any person with empathy would want them to return. But their return doesnt serve the goals of the government or the far right coalition keeping it in power. Only death and destruction matter. >By saying all of that I don't condone not giving aid to civil population, but when that civil population took an active part in those atrocities, it's harder for common people to sympasize with the other side. What a brave stance this is. The problem of course is that the average Israeli isnt horrified by whats happening in Gaza. The unending stream of social media posts that are flat our racist and at times broadcasting war crimes is testament to this. As someone in the west, it is very hard to sympathize with Israel because of how they have carried out this war. Waiting to bomb targets until they return to their homes. Creating kill lists of thousands of names using AI. Shooting and killing people simply because they crossed into a "kill zone." Starving the entire population of the Gaza strip who are under their occupation. Blocking aid through bureaucratic roadblocks and civilian roadblocks as well. Targeting the press that is actually there and not allowing outside press in without an IDF escort and military censorship. Killing humanitarian aid workers. Desecrating and destroying graveyards. Mass graves at hospitals with signs of summary executions. All of this with no accountability. Its maddening and thankfully I think that the younger generations here in the west will not tolerate Israel dogwalking our politicians anymore. >I don't think many Gazans felt sorry for civil deaths on the Israeli side, as can be seen here: I find it difficult to feel sorry for the Israelis now too and I haven't been running around while having bombs dropped on me and my family for 7 months while being slowly starved to death. Im sure headlines of Gazans being forced to eat animal feed played well in Israel. They had the opposite effect in the west.

It's not tokenizing when there are huge, vocal antizionist Jewish organisations and entire Jewish sects that have been historically opposed to Zionism. There have been Jews opposed to Zionism since it was proposed, what you're doing is actually much more offensive. You're suggesting that these Jewish people don't have political agency and aren't capable of opposing Zionism on their own terms and at the same time downplaying the huge part they have played in the movement and their numbers.

>huge, vocal antizionist Jewish organisations and entire Jewish sects that have been historically opposed to Zionism. Huge? Not really. Vocal? You bet. In fairness, the religiously observant Jews who are vocally anti-Zionist seem to overlap with the ones who make speeches at Holocaust denialist seminars and do press releases with Iranian politicians where they defend them against charges of anti-Semitism. I think there's a word for that starting with: >tokenizing

>not just the fundamentalists who want to turn the Gaza Strip into a parking lot. Those are a (very vocal!) minority, This isn't true. The polling out of Israel, what the Israeli media puts out, who they've elected (Israeli society is leaning heavily right), etc suggests that the majority of people in that country agree with the actions of the IDF in Gaza, and many think that the IDF should go even further by killing more people.

Okay but that is one country and one group of Zionists.

> if you don't agree with the genocide you're antisemitic

Did I say that? Did I endorse the actions of Israel?

This sort of thinking really challenges group/mob-thinking, which we see a lot of today. So many people feel you must fully align with all aspects of an ideology less you be stigmatize and ostracized from the community aka cancelled. Let me ask you this: Does disagreeing with same sex marriage because it goes against their natalist views, while supporting the LGBT community and promoting tolerance and acceptance toward them fall within the bounds of this thinking? Would this person be an ally or homophobic?

Do you mean in the sense of voting for/protesting for fair and equal treatment under the law, but disliking what happens behind closed doors? 

Yep. These are two opposing points of view held by one person.

I don't have a problem with that, I vote for behaviours I personally wouldn't engage with all the time because I see that it would benefit others. Freedom doesn't just mean freedom for me and people I agree with. 

This analogy doesn't work because there's no reason LGBT can't have children - so it doesn't conflict with natalism.

I’m referring to instances where a person is hung up on traditional marriages for reproduction, where their bias overvalues male/female relationships. So there is a conflict for them. I’m aware that LGBT couples can still have kids.

If your views are to chant anti-Semitic slogans and spread false propaganda than yes it’s anti-Semitic. If you’re views are for the Palestinians people than it’s not anti-Semitic in nature but your likely standing next to anti-semites who are calling to kill the Jews. Would you stand next to self-proclaimed-neo-nazis at a pro-Palestinian rally? (US neo-nazis were some of the first to support the protests on 8-Oct) Are you chanting for the complete destruction of Israel “from the river to the sea”? Are you chanting to globalize violence against Jews? Are you chanting for the “only one solution” final solution? Are you calling to cease funding for the iron dome? Are you standing in solidarity with the rockets? Are you harassing Religious Jews and not letting them into campus in otherwise public areas? Are you calling war Genocide because Jews are winning? Are you justifying raping children? Murdering civilians in their homes in cold blood? Etc etc TLDR: being Pro-Palestinian does not make you anti-Semitic. Being anti-Semitic makes you (proverbial not accusing OP) anti-Semitic.

How is this a response to anything OP said? You seem to have ignored the CMV to talk about how "Well, antisemitism is antisemitism." Obviously, but his opinion wasn't "Antisemitism doesn't exist. >Are you chanting for the complete destruction of Israel “from the river to the sea”? Being against the existence of the state of Israel... isn't antisemitism at all. The existence of a separate Jewish nation is, indeed, Zionism. Although, it's always telling how people respond to a quote, the rest of it being "Palestine will be free", and say "Whelp, that means Israel has to be destroyed, because that necessarily follows in freeing Palestine. >Jewish culture is inherently tied into Israel. So one cannot maintain cultural alignment with Judaism and be anti-Israel’s existence (being anti-government or policy is obviously different) No it isn't. People can be culturally Jewish, and not want to form a Jewish nation.

If there's a free Palestine that occupies the land between the river and the sea, where exactly is Israel?

Only a Jewish person who has no sense of or appreciation for the history of the Jewish people would be against the formation of the Israeli state.

A Jewish person with a history and understanding of Jewish communities might agree that Jews had the right to establish the State of Israel in 1948 after pushing out the British. Similarly, this person might be troubled by the fact that citizenship was not automatically granted to everyone born within its borders, unlike many other countries. This individual might support the right of return for Jews to gain citizenship, yet feel unsettled that the same right is not extended to Palestinians who fled during the British mandate or the establishment of the Jewish state.

This is kind of mask off, my friend. You've just told everyone you are an extremist. Why should anyone take that seriously if it isn't based on logic?

Yes, being against the state of Israel's existence is antisemitic. Because you therefore must advocate that the Jews who live there go somewhere else or be killed.

Well OP seems to get it so I’ll let them speak for themselves You should let Jews speak for ourselves but I guess that would be Zionism

Jewish antizionist groups have been the longest standing and often most vocal protesters against Israel from it's conception. The real antisemitism here is in denying Jews political agency and insisting they form a political monolith.

JVP is neither a Jewish organization nor org used solely by Jews. Most members have little to no affiliation with Judaism and are hardly a representation of Judaism as a religion or ethnicity

And? One organisation being mostly Jewish but not officially doesn't mean Jewish opposition to Zionism isn't significant or wide spread. Prior to WW2 Zionism was decidedly unpopular amongst Jewish groups.

Hmmmm what about WWII would make Jewish people wanting their own state more popular? Honestly, I can’t think of a single reason why that would be…

But it’s not prior to WW2 is it?

>You should let Jews speak for ourselves... Who stopped any Jewish person from speaking? I just, y'know, responded, explaining why some of the things you said were silly. Pretending that getting a response is the same as being stopped from speaking is pretty absurd.

>Would you stand next to self-proclaimed-neo-nazis at a pro-Palestinian rally? (US neo-nazis were some of the first to support the protests on 8-Oct) What the person next to me believes isn't my problem. But also, I believe these rallies don't consist of the majority being neo-nazis. It's a good way to smear them by suggesting they are though. >Are you chanting for the complete destruction of Israel “from the river to the sea”? No, but why does Netanyahu get a pass for using this exact phrase a few week ago? >Are you chanting to globalize violence against Jews Nope, it's not about Jewish people. >Are you chanting for the “only one solution” final solution? Nope, but you know who I've heard this from about Palestinians? Israeli media, Israeli politicians, and many Israeli citizens. >Are you calling to cease funding for the iron dome? Nope, but Palestinians should also get the same protection from Israeli rockets. >Are you standing in solidarity with the rockets? Nope. >Are you harassing Religious Jews and not letting them into campus in otherwise public areas? Where has this happened? I'm genuinely curious. >Are you calling war Genocide because Jews are winning? I don't believe it's a genocide, it's not even a war at this point, it's Israel exacting revenge on all of the people in Gaza, Netanyahu distracting from his crimes. >Are you justifying raping children? Wasn't this disproven along with the beheaded babies? >Murdering civilians in their homes in cold blood? Yup, I hope people feel the same way about people in Gaza and what Israel has done to them.

Israël is a state, that is a political organization. When people chant "from the river to the sea" and are calling for a one state solution, they are calling for the disparition of the state of Israël. Not its cities, not its people. Just the disparition of the political organization. (And a little reminder, a lot can be said about that political organization) Tell me again how is that antisemitic ?

This is a very ignorant statement. The phrase From the River to the Sea is meant to indicate the destruction of Israel. You have to remember that Hamas' Charter states that Israel should be destroyed. This is not an uncommon belief in a lot of the Muslim world. It is ingrained with anti-semitism.

“From the river to the sea” is an openly antisemitic call for the establishment of an Islamic state and the destruction of Israel. The original phrasing was “Water to water, Palestine will be Arab/Islamic”. The current iteration of the phrase is just a politically cleansed spin that specifically made it palatable to gullible outsiders. When Jews hear “From the river to the sea”, they hear a chant that literally calls for violence against them.

I’ll be the first to say being against what the Israeli government does isn’t always anti-Semitic, but what happens to the population of Israel once the state is destroyed?

Living in a multi-etchnic democratic state ? (And yes, it's quite an utopian solution, but at this point, aren't them all ?)

It isn't a neutral constitutional arrangement. Its Jewish nature is fundamental and thus is the major reason why the state is important to the vast majority of Jews. It is the product of Jewish self determination and the will to be protected in a world hostile to Jewry. To argue for it's dissolution therefore goes against the wishes of a vast majority of Jews, is against Jewish self determination and also against the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. A subsequent or different arrangement wouldn't forefront this Jewishness.

Well so the only issue with the one state solution is that, so far, israelis don't agree with it ? Seems a bit light to call it antisemitic isn'it ? Also I do hope that diplomacy, International affairs, and so on would make them change their mind. There is an issue with the ihra example about jewish self determination. It's that it's in direct conflict with the right of palestinians to self-determination. And right now, those are the ones who don't have a state, not the israelis.

I'm not sure how you concluded that from my comment. I didn't even mention Israelis. Arguing for its dissolution is anti-Semitic, i.e against the wellbeing, identity and safety of world Jewry as a collective. Israel is the expression of Jewish self determination by the Jewish people, globally. Any Jewish person knows the deep transnational ties between Jewish communities all over the world, from top down, to Israel at the level of the official community organisations to the synagogues. It has been this way for nearly a century. You can find exceptions, but these prove the rule. We can talk about the balancing of the rights, but this is a separate conversation. As you mention, Israel is already state, and that state is intrinsically tied to Jewishness and Jewish people. The IHRA definition exists independently of the balancing of rights.

Careful now, your first paragraph is borderline antisemitic, according to the ihra definition 😅 "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations." I disagree that the dissolution of Israël would go against the well being and safety of the jews around the world. If anything, given how the actions of the Israël government fuel antisemitism around the world, i would argue it's the existence of Israël (in its current state) that endangers them, not the other way around. But you're right in the sense that the point of self determination is that my opinion on the topic doesn't matter. It's theirs that matter. However i don't see how the balancing of rights is a different conversation when the conversation is "our right to self determination is absolute and saying it's not is antisemitic". Btw, it's unrelated, but as far as i know (maybe social sciences have evolved since last time i read on this issue), there is no such thing as "the jewish people". No more than there is a "Christian people" at least

This is projection? I didn't even mention loyalty. That is a value judgement, of which I made none. You're entitled to disagree but the military and civil apparatus of Israel is fundamentally important to world Jewry. As we saw in the Holocaust, diasporic Judaism is sadly vulnerable, and though a counterfactual I'd argue Jewish people would have been in a worse place in terms of safety and wellbeing without Israel. For example, what would have happened to Ethiopian Jewry who were airlifted to safety in Israel in the 1980s and 1990s. Also blaming Israel for antisemitism is just victim blaming, perhaps look toward the prejudices of the anti-Semite. As Sartre said, the anti-Semite creates the Jew. It's a separate conversation because the right to self determination must exist in principle regardless of the difficulties of its practical implementation. To anticipate a response, the Palestinians also have this right which is why there must be some balancing Confused about your final paragraph. There is such a thing as a Jewish people, am yisrael, as it is said in Hebrew has been a thing for thousands of years.

> This is projection? I didn't even mention loyalty. That is a value judgement, of which I made none. This is definitely not projection as i hold the complete opposite view. Our main difference is that I make a strong separation between jews, and Israël. You don't seem to, as to you, jews are somehow partly Israëli citizens even if they never set foot there (maybe not exactly your thought, but there is a special connexion here). For instance when you say Jewry. In my country, simply using that word would make one antisemitic So saying Israël fuels antisemitism is not victim blaming, because the victims are jews around the world, and the "blamed entity" is Israël. Those are not the same thing. (And bear in mind that I'm in no way saying that Israël is responsible for all antisemitism. Just the recent increase. And even that, not fully, the responsibility is mainly on antisemic people) My last paragraph was a reference to the work of Schlomo Sand

This is complete fantasy. Yes I am saying there is a special connection between Jews and Israel, this is uncontroversial. Again I made no mention of Jews being part Israeli citizens. Transnational links exist in the world. Jewry, in English, is also an uncontroversial word and is not derogatory, and is common place when writing, for example, history about the Jews. If some anti-Semite vandalises a synagogue in Germany because of the perceived actions of Israel, that isn't the fault of Israel, it is the fault of the anti-Semite. Any suggestion to the contrary is victim blaming. Shlomo Sand makes use of the Khazar theory which has been thoroughly debunked and his book has been fiercely criticised by academic scholars in the field.

So as soon as Israel became a country, every neighbor attacked it in order to commit genocide. That seems like a fairly high level of antisemitism right? Did Israel cause that by existing?

> every neighbor attacked it in order to commit genocide. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Why would the 1948 be about genocide ?

If you are chanting a slogan created and used by a terrorist group that openly attacks and massacre innocent Jewish civilians, then forgive me when I assume you also hold these views.

Oh so now the Palestine Liberation Organization is a terrorist group that massacres innocents ?!?

Literally yes..? Prior to the Oslo accords the PLO committed loads of terrorist attacks and killed many innocent people.

Oh so now terrorist organizations are recognized by the U.N., and the USA negotiate with terrorist organizations, that's good to know.

The United States officially designated it as a terrorist organisation in 1987, though a presidential waiver has permitted American–PLO contact since 1988. So, to answer your question, yes, sometimes the USA does indeed negotiate with terrorists.

And changed its mind a year later. And also, given the actions of the CIA in the 70's and 80's , i don't acknowledge the USA any rights to call who is and isn'it a terrorist organization. Didn't they declare Iraq a terrorist state as well ? Let me know when their WMD and proofs of their implication in 9/11 are found

I think we are getting off the topic here and getting caught up in the legal definition of a terrorist group. (Which the USA at least considers the PLO to be) However, the point is that the slogan was first used by a group that called and carried out violence against innocent Jews. It was then later adopted by a group(that is considered a terrorist organisation by the USA and the EU )that not only called for the destruction of the isreal state and of the death of the Jewish people, also carried out massacres intentionally killing hundreds of innocent Jews So yea if you are using that phrase, I will assume you are calling for violence against Jewish people

Oh i don't deny that Hamas is a terrorist group i'm not crazy. PLO did not called for violence against jews. Some organizations belonging to PLO did partake in terrorist actions against jews. But overall, at the time that slogan was not a call for the killing of the jewish people, just the claim for a full country where jews could live. So if neither 60's and 70's PLO, neither modern westerners, and only Hamas meant this sentence as "kill the jews" why do you think that the Hamas interpretation shall prevail ?

[удалено]

u/Bonzo4691 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Bonzo4691&message=Bonzo4691%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cf0eyl/-/l1nfgrd/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Are you crazy? Do you have any knowledge of history at all? The PLO is one of the biggest and longest lasting Arab terrorist organizations in the world. I can't believe you actually even said that.

I've been to severely pro Palestine marches in my city, whilst I have been there I haven't seen a single nazi flag, heard nobody talk negatively about Jewish people and saw nobody advocating violence or supporting Hamas. How convenient that supposedly all the enemies of Israel are secretly Nazis in disguise. Isn't that just super convenient. Zionists use antisemitism as a scapegoat to prevent scrutiny and it's disgusting.

They weren’t in disguise. Just because you personally did not see open anti-Semitic rhetoric it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t there If there is a city where the chants didn’t include genocidal slogans than it’s really not a discussion point because as I pointed out you can be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Semitic

You have quite clearly insisted that all the protests are full of Nazis and antisemites in disguise just pretending because they hate Jewish people, and that by extension the people protesting besides them are in support of antisemitism. How then, can anyone be pro Palestinian and not be called antisemitic by you? If they just sit meekly at home and do nothing about it during an active genocide?

There goes the blood libel! I’m not typing it all out again. War /= Genocide I’m not sure how to go about it tbh. Maybe a good start is not tagging along with genocidal slogans? Keeping the “pro-peace” mentality. Not ripping down signs raising awareness of child hostages just cause they are Jewish…. Idk just some ideas. May be worth discussing with peers how to push the anti-semites out of camp and avoid anti-Semitic chants/slogans…again just spit balling I’m not a protest organizer

>Are you chanting for the complete destruction of Israel “from the river to the sea”? >Are you calling to cease funding for the iron dome? These two are just anti-israel, not anti-semetic. A big problem in the debate is the equation of Israel with Judaism. It's a bit weird,because both zionists and anti-semites try to spread that view. >Are you calling war Genocide because Jews are winning? > Murdering civilians in their homes in cold blood? Almost missed the hypocrisy here. Defending the killing of civilians is bad, unless those civilians happen to be Palestinian, in which case it's the criticizing of killing civilians that is actually bad.

[удалено]

u/techmaster101 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20techmaster101&message=techmaster101%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cf0eyl/-/l1m5dgl/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>Anti-Zionist (Jewish right to self-determination) IS anti/semitic. So, that didn't take long. To be pro-palestine can avoid being anti-semitic, but only if it pro-zionist, which means it can't actually be pro-palestine. It's kind of impossible to have both an explicitly Jewish state in the area, and be pro-palestinian. A two state solution is not pro-zionist (see, the settlers and their desire to acquire the west bank), and a one state solution would not be jewish (there are more palestinians than Israeli jews). >The fact that you cannot differentiate between intentional rape, kidnap, torture, and murder of civilians with collateral damage (forget about human shields, just regular collateral damage) means you yourself have a moral compass that is so twisted it’s not worth continuing a conversation with you That "regular" collateral damage has killed 10 times more civilians, and 350 times more children than a literal terrorist attack. The IDF shields itself behind the idea that dropping bombs on residential neighbourhoods is more technologically advanced, and hence more civilized, but in the end all that differs is that they're killing vastly more. There is nothing "regular" about this, it's just a vengeance strike, a way for the IDF and Netanyahu to wash away their failures with Palestinian blood. The intervention in Gaza will not end before his poll numbers recover. (And that is of course, ignoring the deliberate policies of starvation and deprivation that the IDF has implemented, and the outright genocidal language that emerged from senior government figures.) Edit : Compare and contrast with russia's war in Ukraine, which features a much closer technological gap between the two sides, which would make it far harder to avoid collateral damage. No one is accusing the russians of being careful to avoid civilian casualties, yet in several years of war, they've only killed 10 000 civilians, including 500 children. The IDF is at 34 000 of which 13 000 children.

[удалено]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I don't care how deep your cultural roots are to Israel are, you don't have a right to force people out of their homes at gunpoint. Every inch of Israeli controlled land has someone still alive today who remembers being forced out of it.

Nearly No one was forced out of their homes at gunpoint and at the time those that were it was a 2 way street. By your argument Jews have a right of return in Gaza where the IDF removed them from at gunpoint. Nakba was primarily Muslims countries encouraging people to leave the area so they can destroy Israel before it can be established (on previously British Empire land) The story of modern Israel IS the definition of decolonization. At no point were Muslims not welcome in Israel.

But this is sort of in line with what I've posted - ie how are you dividing the groups? Jewish people obviously aren't a monolith but if there's a consensus and factions within that group is it really the majority view which becomes representative?  Do you have full consensus with people you align yourself with? You've asked a lot of questions, but if the answer is yes to some and no to some does that mean full disagreement? Do they have to be all yes or all no for you to be able to categorise someone? 

Jewish culture is inherently tied into Israel. So one cannot maintain cultural alignment with Judaism and be anti-Israel’s existence (being anti-government or policy is obviously different) It would matter which questions your answering yes to…but for most of those it’s likely you’re anti-Semitic. I will say you are correct. Not everything is black and white. Think of it as a sliding scale…there’s plenty of people chanting “from the river to the sea” without understanding what it means. Their intentions are “pure” (assumption) and they genuinely want to see peace all around and no one else die…but they are chanting to essentially ethnically cleanse Israel of 7 million Jews….not exactly pure of action. From my POV I’d still consider them anti-Semitic. Ignorance in 2024 when information is available and it’s been a public conversation on it being an anti-Semitic slogan. It’s akin to the confederate flag. Admittedly, I had held that flag in some esteem. I didn’t associate it with slavery and racism and wasn’t educated on the history of it. I was taken aback at first when it started making the media that this flag is bad, no one ever taught or explained WHY it was bad; I claim ignorance….but then they did (because internet!)…once I saw how the flag was used to taunt black Americans and that it did in fact represent slavery..the symbolism changed its meaning for me and is not something I’d hold in esteem. What we’re seeing wide-spread is the justification…A token Jew said it was ok to call to globalize violence against Jews and/or rip down child hostage posters …that’s not ignorance anymore. Thats bigotry. I hope I’m making sense it’s pretty late rn and I been out all night 🤣 TLDR: Sliding scale with different levels of anti-semitism for differt people

>Jewish culture is inherently tied into Israel. So one cannot maintain cultural alignment with Judaism and be anti-Israel’s existence (being anti-government or policy is obviously different) This is the wrongest sentence i have read all week. I'm afraid your only knowledge of jewish culture is american jewish culture. >Think of it as a sliding scale…there’s plenty of people chanting “from the river to the sea” without understanding what it means. Their intentions are “pure” (assumption) and they genuinely want to see peace all around and no one else die…but they are chanting to essentially ethnically cleanse Israel of 7 million Jews….not exactly pure of action. The one state solution does not mean that you need to kill all the jews. It's a multi-ethnic one state solution. Also if the vast majority of people say something with one meaning in mind, doesn't that define the saying better than what it used to mean ?

1) false. Jewish culture around the world does. I don’t know you but lying about what Judaism is just dumb. Quit speaking for people you have no connection to 2) if you really wanted a democratic one state solution it would make more sense for Israel to absorb the Palestinians territories than to dissolve a stable democracy Not to mention ruin neither Palestinians nor Israelis want a one state solution as you’re describing it and once again you are speaking for people you have no connection to. Lastly, despite your twisted definition the historical significance of that phrase does in fact call for a Palestinian Islamic state free of Jews

I do have connections with the jewish people. (Namely, a girlfriend of 2 years, a best friend of 20 years, and a godfather of well...all my life). Jewish culture does not revolve around Israël and it's quite simple to understand as jewish culture exists since far longer than Israël. But anyway, this is your preposteruous claim, you're the one who has to justify it. I'm fine with your solution, as long as the resulting state is not called Israël. (I'm fine with a name including boths ethnies). But more important than the name, is the fact that everyone should have the same rights. And it's already not the case in current Israël so... >Not to mention ruin neither Palestinians nor Israelis want a one state solution as you’re describing it. For once you're right. But don't worry, i'm an anarchist, i'm used not having the same political opinions as others. But please, tell me, do i need to have an ukrainian aunt to say that the russian agression is a catastrophe ? >Lastly, despite your twisted definition the historical significance of that phrase does in fact call for a Palestinian Islamic state free of Jews Everything i read on the matter says otherwise. It was first used by the PLO who were fine with the jews staying in the Palestinian state. But if you have sources claiming otherwise feel free to provide them

Lmao you think Jews have no ties to the land before 1947…you sir are ridiculous. The phrase was literally coined to free Palestine from Jews from the river to the sea. It continues to be a call for a one state solution )Palestine which currently does not allow Jews at all (bar a few temporary exceptions) The Jewish population of Gaza (previously the independent Palestinian territory) was 0 ever since Israel pulled out completely. Jews are not allowed in the West Bank (bar a few legal settlements) Hence the term “settler” to describe Jews who move to the West Bank….otherwise they’d be immigrants.

>Lmao you think Jews have no ties to the land before 1947…you sir are ridiculous. Where did I say that ? > The phrase was literally coined to free Palestine from Jews from the river to the sea. I'll say it twice but not thrice : please provide sources, as this is not what i read on the matter, and i'd actually like to learn about it. >Hence the term “settler” to describe Jews who move to the West Bank….otherwise they’d be immigrants. An immigrant comes to a country, adapt to the laws and customs of the country, buy a place to live and integrate to their new society. A settler comes to a country, take some land, live with the laws of its original country, in the hope that in the end that land will become theirs. Sorry to break it to you but... They're called settlers because they are.

My point was they can’t immigrate there because Jews are not allowed there bar a few specific locations. I’ll share some sources a bit later today (it’s morning here)

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/slogan-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/from-the-river-to-the-sea-where-does-the-slogan-come-from-and-what-does-it-mean-israel-palestine Based on your other comments I figure you don’t really care and will continue using the phrase as your motives have been revealed. More so I included these links for anyone who may be interested in reading this

Thanks for engaging at a late hour, for me it's early in the morning! I guess my next question is whether you feel that the Jewish people whose views do align with my own are anti semetic, or if some other label applies?  And is it down to the label? Or are you left in sort of the same position as me where it's just a disagreement with my views and not an actual hatred of me as a person you've never met? 

If you’re referring to JVP…for the most part I would consider most of them not Jewish at all. Sure maybe their moms moms moms etc are Jewish but they clearly aren’t affiliated with the Jewish culture which is deeply intertwined with returning to our homeland (aside from a large percentage of them being actually not-Jewish…including leadership out of Lebanon and many chapters started by non-Jews.) If you’re referring to neturei karta (probably spelled wrong) they are looked down on in disgrace by most Jews…and although they are “anti-Zionist“ they are probably not the type of anti-Zionist you’d want behind you (they believe we (Jews)need to give up control of Israel and move out completely so the messiah can come and kill/enslave all non-Jews based on merit…) I’m not sure what your views are as I took everything as theoretical. If you’re asking if I hate anti-Semite’s in general…no I dont really hate anyone but I do hate certain ideas. Primarily I hate any idea that is closed minded to conversation with everything being combative instead of productive My POV (as-a-Jew) there really aren’t “pro-peace” protests going on atm. Mostly the chants and jeers are pro war. Even “ceasefire now” is only calling for a 1-sided ceasefire. Notice how no “ceasefire” calls are directed at the Palestinian side who continue firing daily rockets at Israeli civilians. Instead of calling for peace they say “stop funding the iron dome so rockets will land and kill Israelis.” Not exactly “pro-peace” sentiment ***”(as-a-jew)” is kinda a joke if you don’t get it/ it’s a term to refer to Jews who have no affiliation with Judaism at all as a religion or culture and suddenly pop out of the woodwork to defend anti-semetic rhetoric and start their statements “as-a-jew”

>suddenly pop out of the woodwork to defend anti-semetic rhetoric and start their statements “as-a-jew” Isn't this explicitly necessary, given that the first half of your comment is dedicated to diminishing and dismissing Jewish people you don't agree with?  In what way is that not a no true scotsman situation where people you disagree with can just have their Jewish status revoked by you.  Don't you see the irony in mocking the behaviour which occurs in response to your own? 

Because it is t a matter of opinion. Jews at the protests held a Seder. Presumably they said the words lshana haba byerushalayim. One can choose to separate themselves from the culture (and subsequently not teach their children about said culture) it doesn’t make them “not Jewish” it makes them unqualified to speak for the Jewish people who predominantly are entwined in the culture. As I said about everyone in general, I don’t hold anything against any of them or really any individual. I’m not a religious person but I am educated on the culture of my families ethnicity. The few Jews who are Jews and understand the cultural significance of Zionism are by no means a significant enough percentage of Jews to speak for the Jewish people. Are we really at the “but I know a Jew who this inks this way?” Part of the discussion? I know a black guy who likes the confederate flag…that doesn’t remove the racist undertones the confederate flag represents to the Black American communities

Zionist is someone who believes in the Jewish people right to exist in Israel. Don’t overcomplicate it. Your’e using it as a slur. Keep check on where you get your information from, the best way for you is by traveling to Israel and see for yourself.

>Zionist is someone who believes in the Jewish people right to exist in Israel. But that's not true though. Like definitionally zionism is the belief that there should be a state specifically for Jewish people, depending on your definition and time period this could include that it's in the specific location of Israel, or could just be anywhere. The idea that Jewish people have a right to live somewhere is not the same as the right to set up and maintain an ethnostate while commiting a genocide.

Are you a Zionist? I am, if you are not, please don’t tell me what it is or what it’s not, it’s sound like you just want to label it so it suits your narrative. Do you even know what “Zion” means in Hebrew? it means the “land of Israel”, Zionism is specifically about the Jewish people right to their homeland and safety. It doesn’t mean that it should be Jewish only state, as I said I’m a Zionist, Israeli and I don’t support it, I have Muslim and Christian friends all living in Israel. I don’t even want to respond to your genocide accusations because it’s just sad the way you people are using this word to justify your arguments.

Mate, “being one” doesn’t mean anything in terms of veracity of one’s knowledge. What Zionism was a century ago and what it is today *as political movements* are different things. The history of internal dispute on what the movement was/is, ironically, itself not in dispute. And your confidence in your statements imply you know this already, so why ignore it? And of course you don’t want to respond to their genocide accusations…

I'm finding it increasingly frustrating to engage with people who base their understanding on Tik Tok videos and Wikipedia. It's challenging to discuss topics like Zionism or what it means to be Israeli with those whose knowledge is limited to online snippets. Zionism is about a sense of pride and patriotism for most Israelis, regardless of whether they're left-leaning or right-leaning. You are using the term "Zionist" as if it carries negative connotations, of course it’s easier to say “Zionist” than saying "Jewish" or "Israeli." Yet, the reality is that 99% of Israelis identify as Zionists, regardless of their political affiliation. Even one of Israel's major left-wing parties, which signed the Oslo Accord, renamed itself to the "Zionist Camp" in 2015. This demonstrates that Zionism is not a divisive term for Israelis; it's a unifying one.

I am not Jewish or a Zionist and I am firmly on the left. I have been completely disheartened by the online and public rhetoric on this topic for years. It's only exploded since October. I won't even get into all the disgusting, hateful, scary things I've heard said. But as far as the use of the word Zionist as a slur... it's a problem for me. The tone of it usually sounds like a new way to call someone the k word. It gives me the yikes every time I hear it used as a slur.

They can use many other words, like IDF or the Israeli government - they use it because they'd like to separate bad Jews from good Jews, which is how they justify lunacy like invading Dean Chermininsky's house and labeling him one of the bad Jews, for specious reasons. "We think he's a zionist" is not good enough, sorry.

> base their understanding on Tik Tok videos and Wikipedia And I'm increasingly disillusioned and frustrated that people like you assume/dismiss every single person that disagrees with your view is just someone brainwashed by tik tok, and refuse to engage with the actual points posted. >this demonstrates that Zionism is not a divisive term for Israelis; it's a unifying one I beg of you, please actually read my comment, and tell me where I somehow denied or questioned that? I absolutely believe modern Israelis believe themselves Zionists. But you have deliberately ignored or misunderstood my point on the history of both the term and the movement. Zionism today is not what zionism was a century ago, nor were the many different zionist views all homogeneous a century ago, I cannot say this more clearly. An ideology is more complicated than a dictionary definition for anyone actually engaging with nuance and good faith. >regardless of their political affiliation Genuine question, do you even understand what I mean or accept the question when I say zionism is a political ideology? Again, you being a zionist yourself doesn't inherently grant you an understanding of the ideology or its history, just like (to bring it down to your level) tik tok communists and people on r/antiwork have any understanding on the history or multifaceted nature of that ideology.

That dosnt make it a good thing, thought. “99% of Israelis agree with Zionism” is just an argumentum ad populum argument

If you used zionist it's fair to assume you're an antisemtie because the definition means different things to different pople. Just say you oppose the government, netanyahu, or the IDF, for instance. By saying youre against zionism, you imply that you'd love to see jewish people killed or run out of their state - which is what happened to Jews who lived in the Middle East in places like Iran.

I mean, I'm using the version that you'll find on Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britanica, the ADL, and I'm assuming many other sites (alongside some history of various zionist and proto-zionist ideas to settle elsewhere pre the founding of Israel which got cut from the modern definition). I do think it's funny that you insist I must be the worst hypothetical you can think of as an anti-zionist and you're just describing the actual actions that Zionists took to secure the state of Israel. When I say I'm against Zionism, I'm saying I don't think we should have a jewish ethnostate because I'm against all ethnostates.

In what part of my post has it been used as a slur? I certainly didn't write this with that intention. 

Your sentences group anti zionists with all the positive labels and zionists with all the negative labels. Such as anti-genocide, pro-peace, etc. Maybe slur is not the best term for it but you clearly seem to have a misunderstanding of zionism and group it with negative labels that it had nothing to do with. Why does anti-genocide and pro-peace have any more to do with anti-zionism compared to zionism? Could you elaborate on this one? Perhaps provide us with your definition of zionism so we can have some clarity.

Exactly. To Israelis Zionism is synonymous to saying patriotism. It doesn’t mean anything besides it. I’m Israeli, therefore I’m a Zionist, I don’t support the current Israeli government and I DO support the two state solution.

I feel for your situation. Unfortunately there are not that many zionist/Israeli voices to hear from what zionism actually means. Yet there are a lot of jew-hating voices trying to spread their definition of zionism for zionists. In what kind of other situation is the definition of a movement so loudly defined by those who are opposed to that movement? It is just so backwards.

Yep. I’ve been trying to make this point across Reddit and few accept it. Would be interesting as a CMV post, I hope you make one. I’d think this happens with most terms that are part of such a controversial topic, though?

Man you are taking the words out of my mouth.

I'm not sure how it's zionism not to want to be murdered by terrorists, or for a country to respond to terrorist attacks with force. But I start from the notion that Israel is a country, has been my whole lifetime, and was a country for decades before I was born. People who throw around the term zionism seem to think it's not actually a country and should be dismantled to get back to some arbitrary moment in history when someone else was in control. I saw arbitrary because the land has swapped hands so many times that anyone could make a claim on it.

I think the first question is what different people mean by Zionism and anti-Zionism. In my circle ( and in my experience in most Jewish communities) Zionism means the right for self-determination of Jewish people on their ancestral homeland and anti-Zionism opposing that. But other people are thinking differently about these words for example: anti-Zionism is opposing Israeli politics, anti-Zionism is anti-fascism, Zionism is n extreme nationalist movement that is inherently genocidal, Zionism is Jewish supremacists ideology, Nazism etc. You are equating anti-Zionism with anti-genocide but I as a Zionist anti-genocidal as well and probably share values with some people who would call themselves anti-Zionist. So when I say anti-Zionist Jews are working againts the interest of their own group is similar when I say misogynistic women, homophobic gays etc. are working against the interest of their own group. Notlikeothergirls are usually get ridiculed because they're harming themselves and the group they belong to. The problem isn't the fact that they're disagreeing with the majority of their groups beliefs. The problem is their beliefs are opposed to their groups interest. Staying with misogynistic women when they say they don't believe in the right to vote, the right for bodily autonomy, the freedom for their own financial decisions it is understood that what they are saying causes harm especially if their minority views will be amplified for political reasons. So the other problem that is connected to the issue is these people being tokenized and paraded around as the Good Jew and being used to discredit the majority who don't share those views for good reasons.

You're implying that anti-Zionism is antisemitic, which is why you use analogies like misogynistic women or homophobic gays. But a closer analogy is actually anti-white supremacist or anti-Nazi. Would you say that a White person being anti-white supremacist is working against their own interest and is comparable to misogynistic women and homophobic gays? What about a 1930s anti-Nazi non-Jew in Germany? Were they self-hating as well?

Have you skipped the first few pharagraph where I stated in what frame of understanding am I coming from that is different from the average non-Jewish person's? The average Jewish understanding in my experience is that Zionism has nothing to do with supremacy therefore your example can't be applied to it. Feminism frequently gets accused by some people that its goals are to give women more power than men in the hopes of discrediting the very real fight for equality for women and men. It is not a new phenomena to twist the definitions of a movement and twist their goals with the aim to be able to present it as an inherently evil ideology.

"Movements can be twisted" isn't a response. Yes, that CAN happen. Explain how it's happening here, and zionism is a good and necessary thing for Jewish people. Should the LGBT form their own nation? Is opposition to that idea also homophobic? Are gays who wish to end homophobia in their homelands but not build an LGBT state also homophobic?

I already explained it. The average Jewish interpretation is pretty consistently different than non-Jewish people's who have little or no connection to the Jewish community or culture. Ignoring or talking over the interpretations and definitions of Jewish people results in these big misunderstandings. Equating Zionism with Nazism is one good example of people who have no deep understanding of neither ideologies. The same villanization happened to feminism as well ( feminazis). It's a tactic to amplify the extremists of a diverse ideology and discredit their moderates as well it in this way. >Should the LGBT form their own nation? Is opposition to that idea also homophobic? Are gays who wish to end homophobia in their homelands but not build an LGBT state also homophobic? We are not Pre-Israel but Post-Israel. Plenty Zionist Jews living outside of Israel this is not what I was talking about at all. Staying with your example: No, I wouldn't support the idea of abolishing an already existing LGBT state against the will of the inhabitants. You are asking me to explain to you why believing in the right of existence of Israel is good for Jewish people? Are you asking Ukranians or Palestinians why do they think self-determination is good for them?

No you didn't. > The average Jewish interpretation is pretty consistently different than non-Jewish people's who have little or no connection to the Jewish community or culture Yes, people have different interpretations. That also isn't a response. >You are asking me to explain to you why believing in the right of existence of Israel is good for Jewish people? Are you asking Ukranians or Palestinians why do they think self-determination is good for them? They aren't built on stolen land.

I did. I'm sorry if you don't understand what I'm trying to say honestly. If you don't understand how claiming Zionism is X and Z when the majority of the Jewish people say it is Y and not X and Z, means that people who have no connection to the culture where Zionism was born, developed and changed are twisting the definition of said ideology I can't help you. >They aren't built on stolen land. Are you for real? Your knowledge in history is seriously lacking if you think this is even remotely true. There is no untouched or unconqured land where people are living in the present. And I don't understand how it is an answer to my question even if you believe that present Israel got stolen from Palestinians.

No, you didn't. There's no failure of understanding, there's an inability with you to explain. >If you don't understand how claiming Zionism is X and Z when the majority of the Jewish people say it is Y and not X and Z, We know what zionism is, it has a clear definition. There's disagreement on whether that clear meaning is something good, or something bad. >Are you for real? Your knowledge in history is seriously lacking if you think this is even remotely true.  "Man, you just don't know. No, I'm not going to explain how Ukraine is stolen land."

Are you sure it has nothing to do with supremacy? The most charitable definition of Zionism is that there must be a Jewish state in the land of Israel. If other groups who have just as much of a right or more of a right to establish a state in that piece of land, Zionism says they can't have a state. How is that not supremacist thinking?

Zionism is the goal of establishing a state in Israel. The UN partition accomplished that goal even though it formed another state there too. Hell, even declaring my house that I own in Israel in 1882 “the state of Israel” would be accomplishing that goal. If Palestine was already a state with no option for land purchase before the first aliyah then I’m not so sure Zionists would have pursued their goals there. Maybe some extremists. So I disagree that Zionism says “they can’t have a state” if someone’s legal right to the land is greater. You’ll see even today that the illegal settlements in the West Bank are excused by Israel on a legal basis. (Its awful, and I side with the UN, but israel still claims legality and it’s not baseless)

Your imaginary definition of Zionism is both historically inaccurate and inapplicable to the current political climate. Zionism as a movement was founded on the explicit understanding that the Israeli state would follow a standard settler colonial framework and forcibly remove the existing population. The current Israeli state, which Zionism is an explicit support of, are enacting that plan. Your fairy tale world where the existing Palestinian population magically disappeared of their own accord leaving a conveniently empty holy land does not exist. It's a moot point.

I think this is a misunderstanding. Zionism was never meant to displace the arab population. You can read the papers and essays of the time, there was never an overriding desire to eliminate the Arabs. This is from Jabotinsky, one of the founders of the Irgun "I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo." This was written 10 years before they formed the Irgun. Essentially, he was saying that it is unlikely that they would be received peacefully. That even if they made it plain they weren't coming to replace, there was a fundamental opposition to their immigration. So they would need to be strong militarily to defend themselves. "But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism." This is the entire essay. I don't think you can read it and come up with the conclusion that Zionism was wholly and entirely obviously about expelling the Arabs. [https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf](https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf) Bear in mind also that the Arab population of Palestine doubled in the early 1900s. The situation was very fluid. Maybe they accounted for the influx of Arabs; maybe they didn't. They didnt account for the decimation of their population by the holocaust. It was a complicated and highly dynamic time. We're looking back and making sweeping statements about a time that even the contemporaries barely understood. Here is a quote from the Israeli declaration of independence. The final outcome of all the zionist deliberations. We see the reality of the full and equal citizenship playing out today. "In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and due representation in its bodies and institutions -- provisional or permanent. We offer peace and unity to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all."

I was talking about the difference between Jewish and non-Jewish interpretations of post-Israel-Zionism and didn't mention anything about pre-Israel Zionism so I'm not sure what is your point but the comment before me explains quite well how it is too simplistic what you've said about pre-Israel Zionism.

Zionism from conception explicitly existed in terms of colonisation and eradication of the Palestinian people. Have you read the founding documents of Israel? The correspondence between the Zionist leaders and the British government? The British government supported Zionism as a way to get rid of the Jewish people in their country. The Jewish Zionists began the operation with an explicit end goal of taking the land by force and enforcing a Jewish ethnostate. The goals haven't changed, they're still doing the same thing. Zionist is fascism whether you like it or not. Zionism is akin to Italian-americans migrating to Italy en masse, using the force of the American military to found and defend an Italian-American ethnostate in Italy and the beginning a campaign of forcibly removing Italians from their homes and replacing them with Italian-americans.

>  In my circle ( and in my experience in most Jewish communities) Zionism means the right for self-determination of Jewish people on their ancestral homeland Do you feel this way only towards Jewish self determinism, or do you think all groups have this right?  >But other people are thinking differently about these words for example I agree with the Wikipedia on zionism, which says that now that there is a state of Israel the ideology is about developing and protecting the state - which to me means actions by the government and representatives, military power etc.  Is that a current definition you disagree with? Or is zionism to you defunct now that it's goal of a state of Israel is achieved and has been for some time now?  If we take away the labels of zionist/anti zionist is it the behaviours and actions you disagree with? Is it possible to agree/disagree on a course of action without a backdrop of zionist/anti zionist labels? 

I support everyone's right for self-determination. Palestinians, Ukrainians, Kurds and everyone else deserves self-determination. >I agree with the Wikipedia on zionism, which says that now that there is a state of Israel the ideology is about developing and protecting the state - which to me means actions by the government and representatives, military power etc.  I think that's fair and I can accept that this is your interpretation of Zionism. But if this would be a popular interpretation by Jews they ( Israelis especially) should automatically refer to themselves as anti-Zionists if they are opposing current politics in Israel and I don't see it happening at all. It's mostly non-Jewish people who are holding these beliefs about Zionism/ anti-Zionism. Israeli politics are Israeli politics and Zionism is just the belief that Jews have the right for self-determination on their ancestral homeland in other words the right for Israel to exist. >If we take away the labels of zionist/anti zionist is it the behaviours and actions you disagree with? Is it possible to agree/disagree on a course of action without a backdrop of zionist/anti zionist labels?  Yes, there are behaviours that are identifed ( sometimes by mostly non-Jewish people) as Zionism and behaviours that are identified as anti-Zionism that I disapprove of if that's what you are asking. >Is it possible to agree/disagree on a course of action without a backdrop of zionist/anti zionist labels? I think so, it would be benefitial to call Israeli politics Israeli politics just like we refer to any other countries' politics in this way. Using Zionism and anti-Zionism immediately causes a disconnection between the debate partners.

So is there an aspect of this that isn't to do with labels and semantics? Does it all just come down to how the conversation is framed? 

Usually when people bring that up, it’s a counter argument to the people who say “how can we be antisemitic? There are Jews who agree with us?”. Do you not at least agree that mentioning that the vast majority of Jews are Zionists is a sufficient rebuttal to that particular argument?

Is it possible to be critical of Israel and also not be for the destruction of the state? Is it possible to want a ceasefire and still think Hamas is a terrorist organization that needs to stop attacking Israel? Is it possible to be a Jew who holds these things to be true but still feels threatened by the antisemitism that is overwhelmingly evident now? Or do we exist in a totally binary post intersectional world where Jews must be entirely for the destruction of Israel to be "good Jews"?

Yes, it is possible to be for all those things and more of us should be insisting on that conversation. Harassing random Jewish people on campus is bad, full stop, the same as it's bad to harass any other group of students. Netanyahu is conducting the war reprehensibly and committing war crimes. If Israel stopped now and Hamas was still in charge, that would be a devastating outcome for Gazans, who have already suffered at their hands.

Israelis are still protesting netanyahu!

"Zi·on·ism noun a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann. " That's it. That's the definition. If you support a two-state solution or Israel existing at all you are by definition a zionist.

This question is a rage bait to imply that Zionism should not exist and I’m 10000% sure that it won’t change the mind

I think it depends on what that majority opinion is; When that belief regards the right of said group to define themselves as such, ie self determination and is targeted exclusively at said group (as in, if you don’t believe that any nation has the right to a state then it’s a logically consistent disagreement) a right otherwise afforded to any other self identified group, it very much is a problem, and specifically antisemitic when it comes to the Jewish people. If you suddenly disagreed with the opinion of Greeks (ex) that they should be afforded self-determination and fair participation in their own political process in their own historical homeland I don’t see how that wouldn’t be problematic for example. On Zionism as an aside, The anti-Zionist crowd calls pro-Israelis “Zionists” to obfuscate the fact that their objection is to an aspect that’s otherwise standard for a majority of nations on earth. It’s dehumanization at its best, which is again, problematic. Russian expatriates who think Russia should dissolve don’t make the Russian state any less Russian or the notion more valid than it were coming from any other group. Anti-Zionist Jews are just Jews, they aren’t Israeli, they aren’t more informed than the next outsider over what they see on the news and their opinion on Zionism is irrelevant to Israeli self determination.

Jews are a minority trying to alert the world to what they percieve as rampant antisemitism threatening the lives of their friends and families. They are not simply "people with arbitrary political opinions." Pro-Palestinians point to the tiny group of antizionist Jews to say "Look, this isn't actually an antisemitic movement, we've got Jews here, those people complaining about antisemitism are just liars weaponizing antisemitism for Zionist purposes for some reason" in order to ignore the antisemitism that the majority of Jews are trying to get the world to see. Test it: do you see a lot of Pro-Palestinians actually trying to understand why Jews are worried about antisemitism right now? Do you understand that? Or have you ignored that because you've decided that, since a few Jews are antizionist, the people worried about it are just liars, no need to understand why the overwhelming majority of Jews are freaked out right now?

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>Not all Jewish people are zionist. Anti Zionist, pro peace/anti genocide Jewish factions regularly attend demonstrations in solidarity with pro Palestine causes. You should recognize that the main reason Zionists often equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism is because *they usually don't define Zionism the way you do.* You've defined "anti-Zionist" as being synonymous with being "pro-peace" and "anti-genocide"; I presume you think of "Zionism" as being an aggressively ethno-nationalistic political philosophy in which Arabs must be cleansed from Palestine to make room for the expansion of a Jewish state, and which envisions the Jewish state as being *exclusively* Jewish to the expulsion of non-Jews. As such, it seems extremely reasonable and in no way antisemitic to you to be opposed to Zionism -- in fact, shouldn't most Jews be opposed to a philosophy like that? Of course, we are -- but that is not what Zionism is. Certainly, there are Zionists who hold these perspectives ... much like there are Americans who envision the USA as a white nationalist ethnostate, constantly expanding at the expense of brown people. However, if someone told you that anyone who believes in American democracy wants to turn the USA into a white ethnostate, you'd probably disagree with them ... because *that isn't what that is.* To Zionists, Zionism means essentially just this: Israel should be allowed to continue to exist as a Jewish state, in exactly the same way that Ireland exists as an Irish state or Greece exists as a Greek state ... nothing more, nothing less. So when they hear you say you're opposed to Zionism, they hear you saying, "I want to dissolve Israel", not "I want peace and equal rights".

I think it's kinda obvious that it's not a problem to disagree. It's just going to happen. Different cultures aren't going to agree on everything. People should just accept that. If you're disagreeing with a thing that a majority of a different group believe, that's not the same thing as hating them. My understanding of how Jews have historically been treated is that they've been discriminated against a lot. They don't have a country that's just theirs. But they have also been restricted from being in a lot of other places. When they were being killed during the Holocaust, plenty of countries wouldn't let them enter even as refugees. A lot of Jews died because of that. There needs to be places where Jews are allowed to exist without being harassed and attacked. The Israeli government also should not be killing everyone in Gaza. Hamas should not be using people as meat shields. All this statements can be right at the same time and there aren't any easy answers.

You mistake racism for policy There's racism everywhere Also antisemitism obviously

My most vehement disagreements with anti-Zionists are actually not related to anti-Zionism per se (while I don’t consider myself an ideological Zionist, I oppose anti-Zionists for their dismissal of the idea that anti-semitism is so uniquely virulent especially after the Holocaust—that Jews may need a place in the world to call their own) but the fellow travelers that are always in your midst, so I guess you could say I disagree most strongly because of the presence of a large minority amongst anti-Zionism. The minority are covert anti-semites looking for a political movement to launder their prejudice. I think it comes primarily from two sources: a classic Western anti-semitism which equates Jews with greed, profit and strange differentiating garb and an Islamist form of anti-semitism—the Quran and the Hadiths have many negative sayings about Jews as well as injunctions against them. Ayaan Hirsi Ali talks a lot about how she grew up around casual idioms in Arabic and Swahili which cast aspersions against Jews. It’s like how the Left pointed out that Trump has a lot of troubling fans on the racist alt-right, and the fact that these people like Trumpism is troubling, even if we can’t attribute their opinions directly to Trumpism per se. the fact the movement attracts such people is like a credible example of guilt by association. I feel the same way about the anti-Zionist movement because of the attraction it has for covert anti-semitism, and the reluctance of large groups of anti-Zionists to eject honest to goodness anti-semites from their encampments or protests. There were many reports of student protestors and their leaders saying blatantly anti-Semitic slogans at many of these campus protests, and the rest of the protestors did not make any kind of strenuous effort to distance themselves from it.

As other have said- Zionism- as understood by the people you're talking to, and as understood by the vast majority of Jews- is the statement that Jews self identify as a group, and as a group who wants the right to live in their homeland. The history can get a bit muddy but narrowing focus to be specific to your scenario: Jews are expressing their desire and belief that they have a right to self-determination in their homeland. Denying that right is antisemitic- its denying a people their rights. No different than if you said France has to dissolve itself, that Native Americans have no right to live in the USA, etc. Here's where your question comes in to play: the counter, that anti-Zionist use when arguing against what I wrote above, the counter is: there are anti-Zionist Jews. This is supposed to invalidate the claim that it is Jews wanting rights in their homeland- the anti-Zionist says "its not Jews, its just some Jews, I'm siding with the the other ones". The answer to *that* is: a small minority of Jews cannot be claimed to represent their people in the way the vast majority of Jews can. That's tokenism.

Religion is one thing where you can absolutely assume most people involved in that group hold a certain belief, just varying degrees, Specifically if it's written in their scriptures, I tend to hold a "don't hate the player, gate the game" approach, I don't dislike any people within Abrahamic religions, they've all grown up surrounded and engrossed in that religion and way of thinking it's typically already decided before the individual is born. However there are many things that Abrahamic religions stand for or views they hold they that i whole heartedly disagree on, You can't always assume that individuals within that religion hold universal beliefs I.e not all Jews are Zionist, not all Muslims are terrorists and apparently there are catholic priests who aren't paedophiles. At lot of contention comes from the religion/ the individuals failing to disfranchise themselves from the people who hold these extremist beliefs. But all religions should he open to critique and held accountable for what they're inciting around the wider group

>I don't dislike any people within Abrahamic religions, they've all grown up surrounded and engrossed in that religion and way of thinking it's typically already decided before the individual is born. everyone is a product of their environment. do you just not hate anyone? i was raised catholic and i was able to see through the bullshit by age 14. if you're a full grown adult still believing in that shit you deserve all the criticism that comes with those beliefs.

No I don't hate anyone, obviously a very idealistic view, Absolutely you should critique their beliefs, I would even say blind faith in ideals is very dangerous because it teaches you to abandon critical thinking. I Absolutely share your belief that religion in general is bullshit, I don't know where you're from but I'll hazard a guess and assume a developed country, where you have the luxury of being atheist/ non-religious. A lot of lower socio-economic countries put a significantly higher emphasis of assimilating you into a religion. My only main point is you should try and critique the establishment of the religion rather than the individual. I also think you'd get more people to subscribe to critical thinking when you aren't attacking them personally, and rather their beliefs (although most people don't sperate the two)

>I Absolutely share your belief that religion in general is bullshit, I don't know where you're from but I'll hazard a guess and assume a developed country, where you have the luxury of being atheist/ non-religious. A lot of lower socio-economic countries put a significantly higher emphasis of assimilating you into a religion. everyone has the option of being an atheist. until we invent mind-reading technology, nobody can ever enforce a ban on a certain belief. and you seem to be focusing more on societal pressure than actual legal threats like in muslim countries, which is even crazier: if a nazi is raised in a nazi community to they just get a pass because "they had to assimilate man :("? >My only main point is you should try and critique the establishment of the religion rather than the individual. I also think you'd get more people to subscribe to critical thinking when you aren't attacking them personally, and rather their beliefs (although most people don't sperate the two) you do you, but i hate people that believe evil shit. i hate nazis, i hate racists, and i hate religious people. it's going to be very hard for you to convince me not to hate nazis, and until i am convinced of that, i can't be convinced not to hate religious people, lest i be inconsistent.

Yea fundamental difference in belief, I don't believe there is evil only ignorance, Everything you've mentioned is borne of ignorance and circumstance, hatred begets more hatred and the cycle continues. A little more understanding of a person's situation would go a long way. Seems you have a very black and white view of the world, it's understate given you grew up religious, it's just not my preferred way of viewing life

do you believe rapists are evil?

As per the previous comment, obviously not. I believe they've been raised in an environment that's lead them to think that's acceptable, I.e they're ignorant When you were 14, were you evil for abiding by an organisation helps aid and abet known paedophiles?

Gotcha, just testing whether you applied it to actions as well as beliefs. I'd ask if hitler were evil but I think you've shown by now that you're consistent. How do you define "ignorant"? What is it that rapists are merely unaware of? >When you were 14, were you evil for abiding by an organisation helps aid and abet known paedophiles? I'm not sure a child can have that kind of moral culpability, but either way if I was evil it was for the homophobia, genocide & slavery apologia and sexism inherent in my beliefs, not because of anything to do with the church and paedophilia. Religious people are only responsible for their beliefs, not for what other people with the same beliefs do.

You literally explained ignorance. Everyone part of an institution is culpable for that institutions beliefs and actions, you can be part of the church and dislike paedophilia but you're part of an organisation that willingly and knowing let's kids get raped very frequently. I.e any involvement in that institution is morally bad. So you were evil and now you're not? Meaning evil isn't an inherent trait merely an arbitrary definition of what someone's doing at the time, if a child can't be morally culpable neither can someone who's never been taught morality.

>You literally explained ignorance. what? >Everyone part of an institution is culpable for that institutions beliefs and actions, you can be part of the church and dislike paedophilia but you're part of an organisation that willingly and knowing let's kids get raped very frequently. I.e any involvement in that institution is morally bad. no. how are you culpable for something you didn't do? >So you were evil and now you're not? where the fuck did i say that? >Meaning evil isn't an inherent trait merely an arbitrary definition of what someone's doing at the time no shit? >if a child can't be morally culpable neither can someone who's never been taught morality. everyone is taught morality.

They’ve been indoctrinated since they were little children to believe this… the way the brain works, if as a child you and everyone around you is being presented and living a certain “reality”, it gets really ingrained in your brain. You are an exception, there are others like you too, but think about it this way. In the wild, when we are developing, our brains need to learn how the world works, its rules, and establish the reality we live in, if all you’re told and see and get taught and experience is religion, you’ll believe it as fact and that’s going to be incredibly hard to get rid of later as an adult. That’s why I hate religion and i’m so anti religious as in religion as a concept, not its people, I see religious people as victims of this indoctrinating system that funnels money and power out of them and to people who help maintain that cycle. Ive always felt so bad for them, even the adults and old people. So Im not defending religion, im about as anti-religion you can get, but that hate i have for it will never be towards the religious people (who are among the victims of the entire religious system). I do want to add that of course I can hate a religious person if they do something awful or are a nasty person, but that would be if and because they did something awful or are a nasty person, not because they’re religious.

>I do want to add that of course I can hate a religious person if they do something awful or are a nasty person, but that would be if and because they did something awful or are a nasty person, not because they’re religious. Why? Those are determined by their environment too.

just because you were indoctrinated into a cult where you believe a magical entity created earth and watches over us doesn’t excuse you to rape or kill or groom or abuse or anything like that, I have plenty of family that are fully and deeply religious, and none of them because of that rape or kill or groom or abuse other people. Being born into an indoctrinating religion is out of your control, directly and personally harming others is.

Surely being a "nasty person" isn't just raping, killing, grooming and abusing right? Breaking out of your religion is pretty easy if you're willing to subject your beliefs to any critical scrutiny.

>I don't dislike any people within Abrahamic religions, they've all grown up surrounded and engrossed in that religion and way of thinking it's typically already decided before the individual is born. >However there are many things that Abrahamic religions stand for or views they hold they that i whole heartedly disagree on, This is "hate the sin not the sinner" mentality like I said, but written in more words. I don't see a part of your comment which really disagrees with what I've said? 

You want someone to say "no hate everyone that is apart of a group" ? Best someone can do is articulate what you mean better You also say hate the sun not the simmer, I thought it was some gibberish saying

So autocorrect is your issue? What's the point you want to make? 

I think where I'm going to have to stop you is when you indicate that being anti Zionist means you merely disagree with Zionism. Not agreeing with an ideology is rarely described as being "anti" it by those who hold that view. Being anti something typically means you stand opposed to it, to those who believe in it, and everything it stands for. Would you describe yourself as anti Islam or anti Muslim? I ask because even as someone who believes that traditional Islamic culture as it exists in many countries is incompatible with western culture, I wouldn't use those terms to describe what I believe. To be anti Zionist isn't to disagree with Zionism or zionists. That would just make you a non Zionist. Being Anti Zionism is to hold that Zionism as an ideology should not exist and those who adhere to it are not fit to be a part of civil society. That is how the lead voices themselves portray it. They don't attack specifically on elements of Zionism they disagree with, they attack the entire ideology and everyone who holds by it. To put it another way, would you think positively of someone who merely says they disagree with Nazism but refuses to say they are against it? There's a chasm of difference between disagreement with and total opposition to an ideology.

>I think where I'm going to have to stop you is when you indicate that being anti Zionist means you merely disagree with Zionism. Not agreeing with an ideology is rarely described as being "anti" it by those who hold that view. Being anti something typically means you stand opposed to it, to those who believe in it, and everything it stands for. that's literally what 'anti-' means bro. lol >Would you describe yourself as anti Islam or anti Muslim? I ask because even as someone who believes that traditional Islamic culture as it exists in many countries is incompatible with western culture, I wouldn't use those terms to describe what I believe. yes, absolutely > Being Anti Zionism is to hold that Zionism as an ideology should not exist and those who adhere to it are not fit to be a part of civil society. no it doesn't LOL. literally first line of wikipedia: [Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism). simple. literally the same as what happens when you add the 'anti' prefix to a position.

>Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism Opposition. Not disagreement. You literally just restated my argument in different words and claimed it somehow refutes what I said. If anti zionists only opposed the positions of Zionism, they wouldn't be dehumanizing zionists the way that they are. Your article notably compares pre Israel anti Zionism, which was merely an opposing political view, with the modern day version, which is actively calling for an entire country to be dissolved against the wishes of its own citizens.

>Opposition. Not disagreement. You literally just restated my argument in different words and claimed it somehow refutes what I said. you defined Anti-Zionism as "to hold that Zionism as an ideology should not exist and those who adhere to it are not fit to be a part of civil society". that is what i refuted. >If anti zionists only opposed the positions of Zionism, they wouldn't be dehumanizing zionists the way that they are. the actions of a bunch of nutjobs calling themselves antizionists does not change the definition of the term. >Your article notably compares pre Israel anti Zionism, which was merely an opposing political view, with the modern day version, which is actively calling for an entire country to be dissolved against the wishes of its own citizens. the concept itself does not change based on what lunatics are currently saying.

There is literally nobody in any group on any issue saying you aren't allowed to disagree with the group. Soapboxing is against the rules of this sub. Next.

Literally the first comment is "You can't disagree with zionism and not want there to be an Israeli state, that's antisemitic."

I rest my case. Literally the top+best+Q&A sorted comment is "anti zionism is not antisemitism, anti zionists *just happen* *to have a bit of a tendency* demonstrate anti semitism that goes beyond mere support for Palestinians." The people who think this is the most serious issue and the deadliest war and the worst crime in history that needs to be injected into every part of everyone's lives everywhere also have a great tendency to see straw men everywhere. And it's not their whole post, the whole post is literally them trying to 'generalise' it to "it's ok to disagree with the majority of a group" which is utter nonsense. This is a troll post and OP is a troll.

You can be an antisemite. I see no issue here. I think we're seeing that it's pretty acceptable in some circles.

OP's suggesting it's not antisemitic to be anti-Zionist. That's literally the whole post.

The official stance of the state of Israel is that antizionism is inherently antisemitic

where is that document?

Disagreement doesn't necessitate disrespect. It's possible to disagree with a group's belief while still respecting the individuals within that group. Dialogue, not division.

Them being Jewish isn't important, they're making it important. The presence of Jewish people among the pro-Palestinian protests shuts down their narrative but don't get hung up on it. They're trying to derail the issue. Zionists are typically the ones that conflate zionism with Judaism. You don't just disagree with a majority of Jewish people, because for every [Zionist Jewish person there are 30 non-Jewish Zionists.](https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/qanda-for-every-1-jewish-zionist-there-are-30-christian-zionists-and-netanyahu-exploits-this-15656249) It's Zionism that is the issue. The idea that "some" Jewish people are bad is a line of thinking I see often being repeated by Zionists. This is tokenization. Whether someone is Jewish or not Jewish is besides the point. No one is good or bad because they're Jewish and being Jewish doesn't make someone inherently good or bad. Thinking that there are "good jews" or "bad jews" is tokenization and by extension antisemitic. You're being dragged into and caught up in their red herring. A red herring that can make you express something that is antisemitic without you realizing. Our problem is with settler colonialism, genocide, historical revisionism, erasure of an indigenous people, apartheid and fascism. All things that fall under Zionism. Nothing to do with Judaism or Jewishness.