NationStates

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:There is a huge distinction here. Israel is a legitimate Jewish state that does care about the Jewish people

But many Jews oppose Israel. This is like saying that since Nazi Germany cared for Germans an attack on them is an attack on all Germans.

East Blepia wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:There is a huge distinction here. Israel is a legitimate Jewish state that does care about the Jewish people

But many Jews oppose Israel. This is like saying that since Nazi Germany cared for Germans an attack on them is an attack on all Germans.

That’s still not the same. Israel is a legitimate state since it is democratic while Nazi Germany existed illegally due to SA intimidation.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:There is a huge distinction here. Israel is a legitimate Jewish state that does care about the Jewish people, hence an attack on Israel IS an attack on the Jewish people. On the other hand China which is illegitimate and authoritarian clearly does not represent the Chinese people hence an attack on China and an attack on Chinese people are very different.

In democracies the people and the policies of the state correlate. The more democratic a state is the more responsible its citizens are for the stuff it has done.

Do you know that if we use your metric we can not criticize any democracy anymore without being labeled as anti-the people of that country, right?

Shitty argument is shitty.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:That’s still not the same. Israel is a legitimate state since it is democratic while Nazi Germany existed illegally due to SA intimidation.

Democracy does not always confer legitimacy. Israel is certainly not democratic with regard to the >5 million Palestinians living under its administration without the right to vote. I consider that as it imposes its administration on them against its will it is undemocratic (not that that means it is somehow 'illegal'). And as I said earlier, Israel absolutely does not represent all Jews, and criticism of Israel is not always antisemitic.

Picairn wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:There is a huge distinction here. Israel is a legitimate Jewish state that does care about the Jewish people, hence an attack on Israel IS an attack on the Jewish people. On the other hand China which is illegitimate and authoritarian clearly does not represent the Chinese people hence an attack on China and an attack on Chinese people are very different.

In democracies the people and the policies of the state correlate. The more democratic a state is the more responsible its citizens are for the stuff it has done.

Do you know that if we use your metric we can not criticize any democracy anymore without being labeled as anti-the people of that country, right?

Shitty argument is shitty.

To some extant it is not entirely wrong. Indians and Pakistanis are definitely way more responsible for the newer Indo-Pakistani conflicts than the average Chinese are for the invasion of Korea (Korean War).

East Blepia wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:That’s still not the same. Israel is a legitimate state since it is democratic while Nazi Germany existed illegally due to SA intimidation.

Democracy does not always confer legitimacy. Israel is certainly not democratic with regard to the >5 million Palestinians living under its administration without the right to vote. I consider that as it imposes its administration on them against its will it is undemocratic (not that that means it is somehow 'illegal'). And as I said earlier, Israel absolutely does not represent all Jews, and criticism of Israel is not always antisemitic.

Criticism of Israel is of course not always antisemitic. Yet gentile criticism of Israel are almost always antisemitic. There are definitely legitimate things about Israel to criticize without antisemitism, such as Olmert pulling out of Gaza Strip being a strategic mistake or that Israel does not have secular marriages. However legitimate criticism of Israel requires one to imagine themselves being a Jewish citizen and sincerely offering suggestion from their point of view. On the other hand subverting Israel is inherently illegitimate and clearly constitutes attack on Israel and its Jewish citizens.

For example people who picked Likud, Labor, Yesh Atid etc in the Israeli politics thread are not anti-Israel while those who picked Joint List are.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:To some extant it is not entirely wrong. Indians and Pakistanis are definitely way more responsible for the newer Indo-Pakistani conflicts than the average Chinese are for the invasion of Korea (Korean War).

Well this is not about Pakistan.

Tell me, why is criticism of Israel antisemitic?

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Criticism of Israel is of course not always antisemitic. Yet gentile criticism of Israel are almost always antisemitic.

> Gentile
> Someone who is not a Jew
Are you implying that all criticisms of Israel coming from non-Jews are "almost always antisemitic"?

Damn, I guess I'm an anti-Semite now.

BS.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Criticism of Israel is of course not always antisemitic. Yet gentile criticism of Israel are almost always antisemitic.

This is what they call 'racial discrimination'.

East Blepia wrote:This is what they call 'racial discrimination'.

Nekostan is giving me serious Jewish Nazi vibes.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:However legitimate criticism of Israel requires one to imagine themselves being a Jewish citizen and sincerely offering suggestion from their point of view.

I do not have to be an Israeli to have an opinion of Israel, just as you do not have to be Chinese to have an opinion on China. I, as an American, advocate for the total destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian state (tolerant and protective of Jewish and Christian holy sites), though I do not think that our government should enforce this - I prefer a general policy of isolationism. If I were an Israeli, I would not hold this view. Similarly, if you were Chinese, you would probably prefer Tibet to remain under Chinese control, knowing that if it were not Chinese or Chinese-influenced, it would almost certainly fall under the influence of India and present a great threat to Chinese security, being directly adjacent to China's heartland. (And note that I am not arguing for the occupation of Tibet here.)

Picairn wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Criticism of Israel is of course not always antisemitic. Yet gentile criticism of Israel are almost always antisemitic.

> Gentile
> Someone who is not a Jew
Are you implying that all criticisms of Israel coming from non-Jews are "almost always antisemitic"?

Damn, I guess I'm an anti-Semite now.

BS.

Yup. I say “almost always” because there are indeed rare exceptions. For example criticizing the fact that Israel allows Bibi to be in power is definitely not antisemitic. Similarly stating that desalination in Israel can be improved because of some new research at MIT is not antisemitic. Stating that rights of Haredi women need to be protected by the state is not antisemitic either. Such criticism is similar to criticism of your own local government. There is nothing antisemitic about that. However almost all instances of gentile criticism of Israel are of a very different kind. It is always about claiming that Israel must relinquish interests to other people.

Picairn wrote:Nekostan is giving me serious Jewish Nazi vibes.

I wonder if he knows a certain Kahane...

East Blepia wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Criticism of Israel is of course not always antisemitic. Yet gentile criticism of Israel are almost always antisemitic.

This is what they call 'racial discrimination'.

Nah. It is because intentions matter.

But you have to remember that Jordan took some of Israel's land hence: Palestine also Israel is still fighting Jordan so therefor they are not in the position they need to be to help us

East Blepia wrote:I do not have to be an Israeli to have an opinion of Israel, just as you do not have to be Chinese to have an opinion on China. I, as an American, advocate for the total destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian state (tolerant and protective of Jewish and Christian holy sites)

Yikes. Just for the record, I don't support the destruction of the State of Israel. I prefer the two-state solution, with Jerusalem as neutral ground under UN supervision.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:It is always about claiming that Israel must relinquish interests to other people.

I am not saying that Israelis should act against their interests, because I do not like when such statements are made about my people. I am arguing that, without American support, the Arab states would defeat Israel in honorable combat, and that this ought to be allowed to occur.

When most people criticize Nigeria for example they don’t argue that Nigeria shouldn’t exist and that Lagos should actually be a white-only or Indian-only city. Instead it is about stuff such as Boko Haram and rights of Niger Delta peoples, all legitimate topics locals do care about.

Similarly when people criticize Uganda for its authoritarian government, corruption or death penalty for homosexuality they are on the side of local people. Such criticism is legitimate.

However criticism of Israel is almost never of such kinds.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Yup. I say “almost always” because there are indeed rare exceptions. For example criticizing the fact that Israel allows Bibi to be in power is definitely not antisemitic. Similarly stating that desalination in Israel can be improved because of some new research at MIT is not antisemitic. Stating that rights of Haredi women need to be protected by the state is not antisemitic either. Such criticism is similar to criticism of your own local government. There is nothing antisemitic about that. However almost all instances of gentile criticism of Israel are of a very different kind. It is always about claiming that Israel must relinquish interests to other people.

If you are indeed implying that I am an anti-Semite then I can safely write you off as a Jewish Nazi. Criticism of government policies of Israel is not an attack on Jewish people in general. Not one post of mine in this thread has specifically targeted against the Jews, otherwise I would have been rightfully warned for trolling.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:When most people criticize Nigeria for example they don’t argue that Nigeria shouldn’t exist and that Lagos should actually be a white-only or Indian-only city. Instead it is about stuff such as Boko Haram and rights of Niger Delta peoples, all legitimate topics locals do care about.

Because Nigeria is not a new concept. Its dominant class did not all arrive in the country in the past 100 years. One in the past did not have to be British, French, etc. to argue for the destruction of their empires.

East Blepia wrote:This is a very cheap joke but it is not funny. 'Antisemite' nowadays is just a cheap attack against any opponent of Israel. Consider this: If somebody opposed China, as many here do and for legitimate reasons (occupation of East Turkestan and Tibet, authoritarianism, censorship, nine dash line, etc.), would your first assumption be that his real motive was hatred of Chinese people? No; that would be ridiculous. Just as the current Chinese government is not synonymous with Chinese people as a whole, Israel is not synonymous with Jews as a whole. (Both have only existed for about 70 years.) Many Orthodox Jews oppose Israel as a whole, believing that it ought to have been restored by God and not men. So anti-Zionism is not necessarily inseparable from, or even caused by, anti-Semitism.

Bruh, I think you're an Antisemite because believing that Israel is responsible for all American entanglements in the Middle East is horribly misinformed and because it parrots older Antisemitc tropes about Jews being responsible for all the world's wars. You're also grasping at straws to dismiss Israeli accomplishments when American support for Israel is explained in terms of concrete geopolitical, humanitarian, and technological advantages. We've also glossed over the fact that Arab nations receive even more foreign aid than Israel despite providing comparatively less. If your criticisms of Israel were more rooted in geopolitical realities or in the morality of, say, Israel's settlement policy, I'd likely be far more inclined to take your arguments seriously.

In any case, you responded with this tirade when I pointed out that the old Voltaire quote has some pretty strange implications. I did accuse you of not perhaps bringing this subject up in good faith for the reasons elaborated on above, but wew.

East Blepia wrote:

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:When most people criticize Nigeria for example they don’t argue that Nigeria shouldn’t exist and that Lagos should actually be a white-only or Indian-only city. Instead it is about stuff such as Boko Haram and rights of Niger Delta peoples, all legitimate topics locals do care about.

Because Nigeria is not a new concept. Its dominant class did not all arrive in the country in the past 100 years. One in the past did not have to be British, French, etc. to argue for the destruction of their empires.

Nigeria is actually a pretty new concept. It is named after Niger River and historically there has been no polity as large as that in the region before Anglos showed up. This doesn’t change the fact that when people criticize it it is usually in good faith. People don’t try to reduce Nigeria so that they can start a South Vinland, Reichkommissariat Westafrika or West India there.

Israel on the other hand is actually a very old concept. Most people who criticize it unlike critics of Nigeria who want to improve life of Nigerians clearly don’t want Israelis to live happy lives. They criticize Israel and hope to make it largely Judenfrei either through war or through treachery and replace it by a hostile polity.

Non-British arguing for an end of British Empire is almost always anti-British (as in being against the state). It is also often anti-English and anti-white.

One contemporary form of criticism comparable to anti-Zionism is criticism of Armenia. Armenia can of course be legitimately criticized. For example it doesn’t invest enough in tech, is too undemocratic and does not have a very good military. However an argument that Armenia needs to relinquish Stepanakert is anti-Armenian since this will almost certainly result in ethnic cleansing of ethnic Armenians who live in Artsakh. People arguing that are enemies of Armenians.

East Blepia wrote:Because Nigeria is not a new concept. Its dominant class did not all arrive in the country in the past 100 years. One in the past did not have to be British, French, etc. to argue for the destruction of their empires.

Nigeria is a new concept and the direct product of colonialism.

Nekostan-e Gharbi wrote:Israel is actually a very old concept.

If Israel is an old concept why was the Zionist movement necessary? It goes without saying that Greece should exist, that Poland should exist, etc. But conventions had to be held and books had to be written to advocate for Zionism. So the modern Israel is clearly not the same as most other states.

Also, yes, Nigeria itself is new, but there was no great migration or political movement that caused it to come into existence, it was simply the result of decolonialization.

I know this isn’t what your post was implying, but to those posters who are saying that Israel shouldn’t have a right to exist, they have as much a right as Palestine or any other country. Any group of considerable size has a right to self-determination, no matter what, if a majority wish for independence.

And as for the US supporting Israel, it’s likely because it’s not a dictatorship (though with Bibi it is getting closer and closer), not a monarchy, and generally pro-West.

And for perspective, I am an American Zionist Jew who believes that Palestinians have a right to a state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem and who is also very much against Netanyahu and pretty progressive and left-wing.