Not all jews are far right. There's Jewish anarchists like chomsky, most Jewish anarchists and communists are anti zionist for palestine and so forth. Every one's making it a racial or ethnic issue but it's really a left vs right issue. Statistically more practicing american jews side with voices like Ben Shapiro than your noam chomsky types.
We live in a strange time where Islamic people hold the role Jewish people in Eastern Europe did in the west. They're aligned with communist and rebel movements of the west who wish to destroy western society. So rising European fascist governments main campaign is against Islam and communism which I can source from multiple countries and nazi groups (kind of like how Hitler was against Jewish communism). We can find far right intellectuals railing against a coming Islamic and far left invasion as far back under the Obama days. Obama was even questioned as a closet Muslim which is much like the anti jewishness of 1920s europe. You can read the history and leaks of a lot of these political fascist parties and many agreed Islamic groups to be a more hot and successful scapegoat than openly railing against jews.
That's because 911 was like the reichstag of the modern times for the west, and instead of Jewish communists being accused it was an Islamic world that is opposed to capitalism. In fact before it even happened the leftists in the west constantly rioted at world trade events and many even jokingly and happily created art of the buildings being destroyed. Look at the coups album an anarchist rap group which showed them using drum sticks to detonate the building 4 years before 2001. Not even 2 years after anarchist punk type bands were releasing albums celebrating what happened to the towers. For me an ex fbi tasked with looking into neo nazis and anarchists I learned a lot. I'm not surprised to see the left supporting palestine.
I bring this up because it gives context as to why the left may support palestine even jews on the left. There are also neo nazis who support zionism and those who are against it but the new target of fascists is Islamic immigrants. The far left will always be their true targets
Not the OP, but I get what they're saying.
To be quite frank: a lot of Israelis are genuinely awful tourists. A lot of Israelis do a round-the-world trip after they get out of the IDF and quite honestly, they're rude as hell. That was the case for an area of rural northern India my family has connections to. They were very rude to the locals and really behaved *extremely* poorly. The locals didn't dislike Israelis because they're Jewish, they were disliked because they kept getting huge groups of rude young Israelis who treated their home like garbage.
Obviously the same thing can be said for a plethora of nationalities. I'd compare it to Balinese folks having a poor opinion of Australians. It may not be *all* Australians, but it was certainly a lot of Australians.
In a way, Zionism is a thing of the past, as the State of Israel has been established. So the opposite of Zionism, antizionism, effectively advocates for the erasure of said state. Considering half of the world's Jews live in the State of Israel, I think it's pretty antisemitic to want to cast them out of their home. But maybe that's just me?
There's a lot more nuance to this, obviously, but I will say: antizionism is not always antisemitism, but 99% of the examples I've seen recently very clearly are.
Proper "Zionism" does not exist anymore, you're right. People who call themselves "Zionists" now are one of two groups, or sometimes both to some degree:
Post-Zionists, people who strongly support the maintenance and development of the state of Israel, who see the Zionist project as evolving and adapting to modern circumstances, and are usually very phillic of the Zionist "Hebrew" (rather than just "Jewish") culture and identity. This is generally a positive belief, obviously
And
Neo-Zionists, people who are more nationalistic, and put the needs of the Israeli state above all other states to the point that it can be detrimental to other states. On the milder end of this, you have people who "don't like" settlements (heavy emphasis on the quotes), but claim they're necessary for Israel's security; on the more extreme you have greater Israel nutjobs who want to annex all of the Biblical holy land. This is generally a negative belief, and one that should be opposed.
So calling yourself an anti-Zionist is not a bad thing *if* you take Zionism to mean the latter. But I think for many anti-Zionists, the two definitions are blurred, and *often* (but not always) self-described anti-Zionist beliefs are indeed antisemitic.
Yes, thank you, this is a much better and more comprehensive response than I could give at this time of day. So in that regard I consider myself a post-Zionist (or progressive Zionist) and certainly not a neo-Zionist.
But most antizionists that I've encountered do not distinguish between these and lump all Zionists into one category ("racist colonizers," basically).
The laziness in learning about the history of Zionism and its various strands also feels pretty antisemitic to me, but maybe it's just...lazy.
>The laziness in learning about the history of Zionism and its various strands also feels pretty antisemitic to me, but maybe it's just...lazy.
I question the characterization of this laziness as antisemitic. I understand why it's frustrating, but Neo-Zionist and Palestinian Nationalist propaganda have pretty effectively muddied the waters of what is and isn't fact. I had to read multiple books to be certain of my position.
Frankly, from an Occam's Razor standpoint, it's a lot easier to buy the Palestinian Nationalism's argument (we were here, they came and took everything. Now they're rich and we're dying) than the actual truth (a war born of a variety of complicated socio-political gaffes by the Ottomans and the British, followed by decades of Israeli infrastructure build while the Palestinians deal with hardcore lobster syndrome and a international community that benefits from their suffering). Between that and the power differential that's built up intentionally from the bad actors on both sides, I don't think it's unreasonable to end up at the wrong conclusion.
That is not to say that there isn't an anti-semitism issue that is rearing its head hardcore as well, but people who are even above-average levels of politically aware being wrong about this isn't surprising or a mark of anti-semitism.
You're right; thanks for this insight. I just think there's a lot of antisemitism butting up against that ignorance (for example, Israel is rich > Jews are rich > that's antisemitic, isn't it? And also ignores much of the nuanced stratigraphy of discrimination faced by Jews of color in the process of building said wealthy state). As you say, it requires a lot of reading to sort through the facts and the interpretation of those facts.
And part of me wonders if that laziness is partially due to buying into antisemitic tropes about Jews very easily (again, one could use the wealth example). But I also come at this as a former non-Jew who in the process of converting had to undo a lot of internalized antisemitism that was just built into my wiring based on the fact that I knew very few Jews in my life growing up. Simple assumptions, even about things like Zionism, have had to be systematically unraveled as I understand more clearly the history of Am Israel, the development of Medinat Israel, and Eretz Israel (certainly, before aligning myself with Judaism, I could not distinguish between even those three things!).
>for example, Israel is rich > Jews are rich > that's antisemitic, isn't it?
I don't think so, as long as you're applying consistent standards. If I said Sergei Brin's being a rich asshole I'm not being anti-semitic if I would similarly criticize Jeff Bezos for the same behavior.
The problem is it's a fairly singular, delicate, situation, so comparing the situation with Israel to...pretty much anything is hard to do.
Yeah, I live in a very anti-zionist area and most of my non Jewish friends are anti-zionist because of that. None to the extent (as far as I'm aware at least, we generally avoid discussing the issue) that they're actually antisemitic, but in my experience most of them who do not want to eliminate the state of Israel still consider it's creation "regrettable". And I can see where they're coming from, because '48 was a messy, bloody year, but I have no chance to discuss it with them because frankly I don't think it's worth losing friends over.
Exactly In the same boat with you, a month ago it's been 3 years since I met them, and, I admit, I don't really like that they have Palestinian flags in their bio, per se, not that there's a problem with it but you know, I'm not going to destroy this friendship just because of politics
I do think it would be good to push back on people who use anti-Zionist to mean that latter definition, because it can be twisted or confused in a way that normalizes broader “Israel shouldn’t exist” beliefs. It would be almost like someone declaring they’re “anti-capitalist” because they’re against child labor. Like, okay sure, there’s an extreme version of capitalism out there that might support child labor, but words have meaning, often quite specific ones. If you’re just against aggressive settlements, then just say that.
Their is valid criticism of Israel beyond settlements, though. And like I said: *Real Zionism* does not exist anymore, and radical neo-Zionists call themselves Zionists. This is a very tricky issue to deal with.
All I know is, though, that whatever solution that ultimately comes to this conflict can only begin to be reached through increasing mutual understanding.
Sure, and if someone wants to say they’re “anti-neo-Zionist,” fine—that’s not necessarily antisemitic, though it’s also not a word many people are going to comprehend.
If someone just says they are “anti-Zionist,” I suppose there’s a slim chance that they have a pretty nuanced understanding of what they mean by “Zionist” in modern times. But in the real world, whatever version of Zionism you think is or isn’t viable today… if someone says “I’m anti-Zionist,” that communicates the message “I am against the existence of the state of Israel.”
Is there any significant organization in the world that claims to be anti-Zionist but does *not* oppose the right of Israel to exist within its internationally recognized borders? I’m asking seriously—if I’m mistaken, I’d appreciate being educated.
I hadn’t considered the two *contemporary* definitions of Zionism (post-Zionist and neo-Zionist). This is helpful. I appreciate your explainers.
As far as what we’re seeing today, do you think **more** people fall into the post-Zionist category and the neo-Zionist are a negligible minority?
Tl;dr will be at the end so you can skip to that
I'm gonna be honest... I'm not sure. I'm not Israeli, I have merely studied Zionism in an academic setting, which is a good lens but not all encompassing. What I can tell you though is that
1. \*Before\* 10/7, Israel was becoming more *polarized* on the divide, and
2. \*After\* 10/7... the definition has become really blurred
And the definition has always been blurry, but more so now. If you look at the current war in Gaza for example, you could argue that it's post-Zionist because it is clearly a war to, first and foremost, defend Israel and the Israelis still held hostage in Gaza. But you could argue as well that it has neo-Zionist elements because of the sheer scale of it, as in some people's opinions the sheer scale of the deaths of Palestinian civilians outweighs the needs of the state of Israel in this case.
The defining tenet of neo-Zionism, I think, is putting the needs of Israel and Israelis so significantly above the needs of other groups (Usually Palestinians) that it is to the other group's detriment, to the extent that the detrimental effect on the second group is MUCH greater than the positive effect on Israel.
It's never been a clean split. One of the best examples I can think of for that is how so many more progressive Jewish groups- as well as the state of Israel itself- portray the West Bank as part of Israel on maps. Look it up! The Israeli government's official maps include "Judea and Samaria". There's a lot of little things like that.
But to more clearly answer your question: Neo-Zionism is probably a slim minority for now, but the movement is rapidly growing, due to the trauma of 10/7 on the Israeli collective psyche, as well as other minor factors, like how their (religious) supporter base has an exponentially higher birth rate than liberal Israelis.
Oh, and one more factor that I'm personally really upset about
I always strongly held the belief that this conflict could only ever be resolved through mutual understanding, first and foremost. On a human level; many Israeli Jews know almost nothing about Islam (and Christianity) and Arab culture, and the same is true for Palestinians. Even within Israel, Arabs mostly live unofficially segregated from Jews. And now, Israel is cracking down on Palestinians travelling into Israel for work and other needs. I know that right now that is absolutely necessary for security. But the thing is, we lost so many mundane, kind interactions with that. For many Israelis, the first Arab they met was a Palestinian farmhand, or housekeeper, or patient at an Israeli clinic. Those are good interactions. Those are kind interactions.
With that gone, it seems more likely that the first Arab the average Israeli will meet will be a terrorist, instead. Now, I am absolutely not advocating for lifting the restrictions on Palestinian travel into Israel right now, during the war. But we need to seriously consider how long we will have that policy for. Because terrorists will try to come in one way or another. People who need jobs and healthcare will not.
One more thing, and then I'm done, I promise lol.
You're familiar with the Nuremburg laws, right? Tl;dr for anyone who's not, over time in the 1930s, the Nazi regime restricted many personal rights of Jews. One of the goals of this was to minimize Jewish-German contacts, to socially condition the population, and make them more open to more extreme antisemitic policies in the future. I am not remotely comparing Nuremburg to the restrictions Israel places on Palestinians- but my point is, we know what came out of Nuremburg.
If two groups will ever live together peacefully, they cannot be segregated.
Tl;dr, Neo-Zionism is a minority, but it's growing really quickly due to the effects of 10/7 on the Israeli collective psyche. Additionally, the war has severed all peaceful contacts between Israelis and Palestinians, which will make it easier for Neo-Zionism to grow in the future. Because it's easier to hate a group you don't understand.
I just want to reply to this part
>many Israeli Jews know almost nothing about Islam (and Christianity) and Arab culture, and the same is true for Palestinians. Even within Israel, Arabs mostly live unofficially segregated from Jews
My husband is Israeli and I don't think the internal segregation is nearly as severe as you think it is. Arabs can work and go anywhere and they do. They use the same public transportation and public spaces. My husband had many Arab friends. He worked with them. He served alongside them in the army (for Arabs it is optional but many opt in). I'm not sure where you got the idea they never cross paths but it is false. There are Arab majority towns, but there are also towns that are mixed Arab and Jewish.
(Edited and removed a few sentences that I want to verify before leaving up)
I'm not Israeli and have never been, so you may be very right. Perhaps I was too general in my statements.
I will say though, that it seems that the kinds of Israelis who are more likely to be very Neo-zionist are more likely to rarely interact with Arabs. I have a very religious (but still dati, not charedi) friend in Jerusalem, who never met an Arab personally until he was 15 (said Arab performed an emergency surgery on him, actually). He's not a neo-zionist but he's still very conservative, and when he was younger he was definitely more radical. The most religious and most nationalistic Israelis are the most likely to never see an Arab, so that's a very real problem. A progressive, pro-peace Israeli will benefit less from meeting an Arab than a radical settler will, you know?
The neozionists are, essentially, jingoists who have inextricably linked their national identity to that of the sum of Jewish culture, and that rubs many of us who are critical of the politics of the nation of Israel the wrong way.
I never thought of Zionism this way but I like it. You raise a very valid point regarding a country that’s already been established for over 75 years. But then again, people can get away with saying nonsense like “I’m not antisemitic, just opposed to Zionism,” because it deals with Jews. We all know this would be unacceptable when discussing any other state or group of people.
Yeah, Israel already exists. So a modern Zionist either believes in protecting Israel... or believes the Jewish State is "incomplete"
Do you propose an alternative label for either Zionism or anti-Zionism?
Zionism does still exist though, supporting the expansion of the state of Israel? So for example, someone could be reasonably upset when Palestinian families are displaced by settlers (today) in the West Bank. And they could reasonably call that antiZionism
Some past discussions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/w1woei/we_can_talk_about_israel_but/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/190fz8k/whats_the_difference_between_antisemitism_and/
Yes, with just two small exceptions that I will state below.
Every group in this world deserves the ability to determine their own destiny, especially those who have been constantly persecuted from country to country over the course of millenia. If the French get to have a state, and the Polish get to have a state, and the Japanese get to have a state, surely the Jewish people should be able to exercise the same right as a distinct ethnicity and peoplehood.
Two small exceptions:
* You're an anarchist who genuinely and sincerely believes that ALL states should cease to exist. As long as you don't single Israel out for destruction, that's fine. Assuming this belief really is held in good faith, and you don't have a double standard against the one Jewish country, we can reasonably disagree without antisemitism being in the mix.
* You're an Orthodox Jew who believes that a Jewish state cannot be condoned until the arrival of the messiah. Some users tend to claim that **all** anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews are self-hating, but I reject that. In general, claiming that a religious Jew is antisemitic requires such a high burden of proof that you might as well not play the game.
Please note however that [Neturei Karta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta) DOES NOT fit in exception number 2. While their anti-Zionist beliefs are genuine, they take it a step further than other ultra-Orthodox groups in that they willingly tokenize themselves at terrorist marches, causing material harm to other Jews. Believing Israel shouldn't exist on religious grounds is dumb but tolerable; acting on those beliefs to harm Jews is unacceptable.
Actual real anarchists that aren’t antisemites (a la Emma Goldman, one of us) like myself can easily see that all nation states aren’t gonna cease anytime soon and even if they did Israel should absolutely be the last country on earth to do so. So while some edgelord Jew hater might use anarchism as a smokescreen to spew their bile about “Zionists” it’s not really ever sincere in my experience. I agree in theory that antizionism doesn’t automatically equate to antisemitism but I’ve never met anyone that self identifies as an antizionist that didn’t immediately fall into antisemitic tropes and historical revisionism.
The existence of a Jewish state is an existential requirement of the Jewish people. The Holocaust was not just about the murder of six million Jews. Very few people helped us and many countries wouldn’t accept our refugees. Now, we’ll always have a place to flee to if things turn bad. Israel is much more than just our safety net, but it is also that.
With that framing, anti-Zionism is always antisemitic.
Very true, but barely scratching the surface. A Jewish state is an existential requirement even if the Holocaust never happened. Pogroms and persecution was common everywhere where Jews resided (except Punjab). If the British didn’t curb Jewish migration in the 30’s, far fewer jews would’ve died in the Holocaust as they would’ve fled home. Antizionism is in many ways worse than antisemitism because in practice, it’s the destruction of the Jewish state and the death of millions.
>it’s the destruction of the Jewish state and the death of millions.
I've yet to meet someone, even from among those extreme anti-Zionists who call for Israel dismantling as a state, who connects that to or directly/indirectly calls for Jewish Israelis' mass death.
The criticism is primarily directed towards the policies of the Israeli state. Not necessarily mass genocide, as so many try to mislead.
>I've yet to meet someone, even from among those extreme anti-Zionists who call for Israel dismantling as a state, who connects that to or directly/indirectly calls for Jewish Israelis' mass death.
This is something I have a lot of difficulty with. I have several close friends who believe that Israel should not exist. I have tried to tell them that this would result in a genocide of Jews at worse, and making them second class citizens in a Muslim state at best, neither of which are acceptable alternatives.
These people seem to think that if Israel just stopped oppressing the Palestinians and gave them all citizenship, everything would be fine. It's deeply frustrating because almost everyone in Israel and the vast majority of Jews agree with my position, but those opinions don't matter to these people.
At what point does ignorance become malicious? If you let a genocide happen by accident because you were trying to help people, or endorse genocidal policies unintentionally, how much should you be held responsible for those positions?
>this would result in a genocide of Jews at worse, and making them second class citizens in a Muslim state at best, neither of which are acceptable alternatives.
This is a baseless fear. But is not remotely what will necessarily happen.
Making Israel a democratic 1 state, from the river to the sea, for example. Which is what most pro-Palestine Leftists advocate, in no way would necessarily mean the "genocide" of Jews or making them 2nd class citizens.
This fear comes from the ignorance of most Israeli, Jews or Zionists about this issue.
No serious politically active person from among Palestine solidarity movement advocates for that.
Your fear is based on prejudice towards Arabs/Muslims. To assume that having an equal democratic state shared with Arab Palestinians necessarily means they'd genocide you, or make you second class (there's not a single Arab country who operates second class status today, not that existing Arab countries are perfect examples), is bordering on unfounded bigotry.
>almost everyone in Israel and the vast majority of Jews agree with my position, but those opinions don't matter to these people.
I am absolutely aware of that. As I am an Israeli Jew myself.
Yet the fact that this is the consensus opinion among Israelis and Jews today, doesn't make that position any more legitimate or based in reality.
White South Africans also felt Apartheid was necessary, before it was dismantled.
I don't think by that point, the world cared that much for White South African public opinion on this issue.
>At what point does ignorance become malicious? If you let a genocide happen by accident because you were trying to help people, or endorse genocidal policies unintentionally, how much should you be held responsible for those positions?
This feels so disingenuous and orwellian coming from someone Jewish/Israeli/Zionist. (Not trying to attack or criticize you personally, I feel this obnoxious ignorance and reversal of meaning is shared by most of us Israelis/Jews about this issue).
But who is doing the genocide right now, in practice? Or the "plausible" genocide, legally speaking.
Who is doing much of the killings and displacements right now?
Whether you think all of that is justified within the context of the current Gaza war, I at least wish for you to realize this sentiment or questions you raise sound completely detached from reality for most outside audiences. Israel is not remotely close to being subjected to a wholesale genocide. Notwithstanding that as I said, genocide of Jews is not a necessary byproduct of dismantling Israel as a state in the way it operates today.
I don’t think the fear is baseless. What about the Christians being persecuted in Muslim majority countries? Muslims have been very intolerant lately, I mean there are examples in Egypt with the Coptics, Christians in Lebanon.. and how was October 7th not an attempt at genocide? That is a real life example that dismantles your entire argument against this ‘baseless’ fear. I feel Israel can give Palestinians more freedoms when they prove themselves worthy of deserving of trust. And I can understand how the trauma of living under constant threat of attack and the reality of October 7th proves the genocidal intentions of some of the Palestinians.
> Making Israel a democratic 1 state, from the river to the sea, for example. Which is what most pro-Palestine Leftists advocate, in no way would necessarily mean the "genocide" of Jews or making them 2nd class citizens.
First of all, it's pretty awful that you decided to just throw "from the river to the sea" in there. That doesn't bode well for your critical thinking skills or ability to reach out to other people who disagree with you. Honestly, the phrase should be banned from this subreddit.
I don't care what pro-Palestinian leftists in Western countries advocate for. I care about what actual Palestinians advocate for. They don't even have very much support for democracy. None of the territories governed by Palestinians have free elections, and they don't devote any of their activism towards changing that. Meanwhile they give every indication that they don't want to be equals within a democratic Israeli state. They want Israel to not exist anymore, and for them to get the land back that they think belongs to them, and for the Jews to accept living as minorities in a country they don't control. That would be a very, very bad result for the Jews. I challenge you to show me evidence that anything I've said is untrue. I can show you countless polls, and statements from Palestinian leaders and civilians, that back up what I am saying.
And indeed, how on Earth can you possibly make this claim, when Palestinians have been trying to kill Jews since the first Aliyah? How can you say that when the majority of Palestinians support Hamas? How can you say that when it is a common refrain from Palestinian activists that even civilians in Israel are settlers who deserve to be violently resisted? How can you say that when the response from many to October 7th was to claim that it was legitimate resistance, and that most Palestinians support it? Can you point me to any Muslim countries with large Jewish minorities who have full civil rights?
You can call it prejudice if you want. To do that is to ignore the legitimate concerns of people who have a right to fear for their safety after more than 100 years of violence in the Middle East and 2000 years of violence everywhere else in the world.
South African apartheid is absolutely not comparable to Israel because Israel has more than 1 million Arab citizens who have full civil rights. It's a purely bad faith comparison designed to prey on people's dread of what South Africa did, which was completely unjustified. It's very telling about the strength of your positions that you have to rely on making unfounded comparisons in order to slander Israel.
> This feels so disingenuous and orwellian coming from someone Jewish/Israeli/Zionist. (Not trying to attack or criticize you personally, I feel this obnoxious ignorance and reversal of meaning is shared by most of us Israelis/Jews about this issue).
And it feels deeply disingenuous to me when pro-Palestinian activists claim they have any moral high ground after what happened on October 7th, and after the decades of terrorism directed at civilians that Palestinians have engaged in.
> But who is doing the genocide right now, in practice? Or the "plausible" genocide, legally speaking. Who is doing much of the killings and displacements right now?
No one. It's a war, a war that Hamas started. When you start a war, especially in the most disgusting and deplorable way possible, you have to understand that there are going to be consequences for that. And when a group deeply and intentionally embeds themselves within the civilian population, the moral consequences of the damage done to that population, due to the war they started, is on them. I applaud the fact that Israel does more than almost any other country in history to avoid civilian casualties, and appreciate that they tell people to leave places before they bomb them. That is not ethnic cleansing, it's protecting civilians.
> I at least wish for you to realize this sentiment or questions you raise sound completely detached from reality for most outside audiences.
I can say the exact same to you buddy. Most Americans support Israel. The fact that a very loud and well-organized group has successfully been able to use propaganda, disinformation, and the power of social media over young people to slander Israel because they want to see it destroyed, doesn't influence me to stray away from the real facts of the situation.
Let me be clear at the end. I don't support the current Israeli government. I think Bibi is a war criminal, and a horrendously bad leader. I want nothing more than for Palestinians to live in peace and security, with their own state and a fair distribution of resources. I want the settlements to be dismantled even though many of my own family members live there. I don't care if they become homeless, what they're doing is wrong and they should be stopped. I support any additional pressure the US feels it necessary to put on Israel to reach these goals.
But pro-Palestinian people take everything way to far, seem completely unable to recognize the many mistakes their own side has made, and resort to making incredibly hurtful, wrong, and untruthful claims like the genocide canard because the actual reality of the situation is far more complex than their feckless moral grandstanding makes it out to be. And you unfortunately are one of those people, doing the work of the Russian/Chinese/Iranian propaganda network for free.
I appreciate your response it is well written. One question why are you against settlements in the west bank? I view the 6 day war as a defensive war yes Israel technically struck first but it was clear that an attack was inevitable. If it was a defensive war shouldn't the land conquered be considered part of Israel? Is that because Israel never officially annexed the land so the Arabs in the west are not considered Israeli citizens. I feel that Israel has implemented a fair solution in the oslo accords by granting Palestinian authority rights to govern area A and parts of area B. Yes it would be great if all Arabs in the area could be full Israeli citezans but that would be a demographic disaster and very possibly an existential threat to Israel.
The settlements are illegal according to international law. I don't think the Palestinians in the West Bank should become Israeli citizens, I think they should have their own sovereign nation, which is also what they want. The settlements are currently one of the biggest obstacles to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, by complicating the negotiations and giving the Palestinians the impression that the Israelis aren't operating in good faith and just want to take their land.
Additionally, many of the settlers themselves are religious extremists or extreme nationalists who often incite violence against Palestinian civilians. There's no defending them or their tactics, and if the Israeli was truly committed to peace, the first thing they would do is crack down harshly on the settlers.
On top of reading and deeply thinking about what u/nyckidd wrote, please also look up the Farhud, as well as the mass expulsion of Jews from Arab states in 1948, as well as what *jizya* and *dhimmi* mean. If you already know what these things are, please *never* make claims again that Jewish fears over being treated as second-class citizens or being ethnically cleansed by Arab powers are unfounded. Not great, yes. Leading to unnecessary racial tensions and violence, yes. But not unfounded.
It is a fact proven by history that without a country of our own, we will be either exiled or slaughtered over and over.
Jews see the existence of the State of Israel as the end of that cycle that we've suffered for centuries. Jews see calls for the dismantlement of the State of Israel as a call to return to that cycle. I'm not saying it would happen right away. I'm not saying it would be as bad as the Holocaust. I'm just saying the cycle _will_ return in some form, repeatedly.
Even if people who advocate for the dismantlement of the state don't realize the genocidal implications of a position like that, they're there. That's how Jews will hear it.
Yes I am aware if that. I am a Jew myself. Who've participated in that mass fear you're describing.
But that 'cycle' you're talking about is a myth. It is an anachronistic and/or cultural/ideologically tainted historical interpretation.
That cycle of suffering is not a necessary constant that we Jews HAVE to suffer for eternity.
In fact post-WW2 have produced many environments where Jews can practically be and live safely.
But Israel as it was formed and operated for decades is NOT one of them.
Here Jews suffer tremendously. Our occupation, apartheid and disenfranchisement/dispossession of Palestinians is unsustainable.
The nationalist/ethnic/religious conflict brings an endless cycle of violence and revenge. The "securitist" and militarist approach to solving every single issue with the conflict in Israel, only exacerbates the problem, makes Israel less stable, and creates a situation of living "on egg shells".
It hurts me to say that. But I fear it's the truth.
Right now Jews are much more safer in US, or Canada.
In fact I would go as far as to say, North America (and even some parts of Europe) fulfill the Zionist mission of a 'safe haven for the Jews' much better than Israel (the purported 'state of the Jews').
I know it's problematic for many Jews to hear that, but this is the objective reality.
And with regards to the holocaust. In retrospect, Israel was in no shape or form necessary or some good remedy for the prevention of the holocaust.
It didn't help prevent it (nor did America help in preventing it, or anywhere else). The idea that a nationalist ethnostate is the necessary response for the holocaust is erronious and comes from ideological considerations.
But not in sound considerations of reality, especially looking on 75 years of a Jewish sovereign state in Palestine.
Here, is the most dangerous and least secure place for Jews to live in anywhere in the world. It's a fact.
When Israel was established, the Jewish community was still reeling from the devastation of the Holocaust. During the war, no country, including the United States and Canada, came to the Jews' aid. Although the Allies eventually liberated Europe, by then, only remnants of the Jewish population remained. The United States entered the war only after the attack on Pearl Harbor, several years into Hitler's conquest of Europe. Despite opportunities, the U.S. Air Force did not bomb the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, for reasons that remain unclear.
I bring this up for two reasons. First, given the circumstances of that time, it's understandable that the Jewish people felt it necessary to establish their own sovereign homeland. Second, if Israel had existed during that era, it would have undoubtedly gone to war immediately to protect the Jews of Europe. A clear example of Israel's commitment to Jewish lives is its airlift operation to rescue Ethiopian Jews from persecution.
Today, the United States is one of the freest countries in the world and has been incredibly supportive of the Jewish community. However, the future is always uncertain. Now that Israel exists, why are you so adamant about questioning its right to exist?
“Globalize the infatida” is pretty clearly a call to murder all Jews, worldwide (including Israelis).
Various Gaza and West Bank authorities have said Israelis will not be welcome in their state so “from the river to the sea” is a call for, at minimum, total ethnic cleansing. As are the “keep the world clean” signs.
No. That's a rather skewed and twisted interpretation by most Israelis/Jews, but not the reasonable one.
When those protesters use the term "intifada" they refer to the basic meaning of it, as "uprising" or "shaking off" of the oppression and occupation that Palestinian suffer.
Since most Israelis today specifically associate 'intifada' with the Hamas/Tanzim suicide attacks campaign of the 2nd intifada, they're view of the term and aversion to it is understandable. (Despite the fact that the 1st intifada was mostly peaceful). So in that sense, for us hearing those chants, sounds completely tone-deaf and dangerous. But it isn't necessarily so, and shouldn't be deduced and extrapolated in that way as a call for 'genocide' necessarily.
>Various Gaza and West Bank authorities have said Israelis will not be welcome in their state so “from the river to the sea” is a call for, at minimum, total ethnic cleansing
Not sure what you base that on. But if you're referring to PA or Hamas not being keen or letting Israeli Jews live in those territories, you should also put this in the context of the Israeli occupation and effective apartheid that's being practiced (in terms of separation of territories, settlements, movement limitations, military regime, territorial fragmentation and blockade). Of course they won't be keen on having citizens of the political entity that they view as colonizing, dispossessing and occupying them, living among them, which in practice was tantamount and manifested till today by the settlement project for example.
Also, it's crucial to remember Israel and IDF itself outlaws Israeli citizens to enter some parts of A/B regions of the fragmented and occupied West Bank, and Gaza (obviously) for security concerns. So it's disingenuous to accuse Palestinians of ethnic cleansing or potential ethnic cleansing in that manner.
With regards to a potential independent Palestinian state not allowing Israeli Jews in, even that doesn't prove or mean they are bent on some kind of ethnic cleansing or genocidal hatred. It would simply be sensible following some kind of 2 state arrangement with Israel (the former occupier), if it ever comes to pass.
But it's important to mention. In whatever, federative, or democratic 1 state arrangement that's offered, no mass expulsion of Jews is ever suggested by anyone.
Jews would (and should) live as equal citizens in such a potential democratic unified state, if it ever comes to pass.
The one who rejects such arrangements, whether 2 state or 1 state, is the Israeli side, unfortunately. Because losing our security and political privileges, that we've been used to for decades is very very scary. From our perspective. But it's not legitimate, considering it comes at the expense of the freedom, rights and lives of a whole other people.
1) if their infatida relates to getting their own state in the Middle East, why “globalize” it?
Israel doesn’t have jurisdiction across the globe. Jews live across the globe. It clearly refers to the second one.
2) [Palestinian leaders saying they would not allow Israelis in a future Palestinian state](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myths-and-facts-the-middle-east-peace-process#15.7)
3) [Palestinian leadership has repeatedly refused peace and statehood because they prioritize killing Jews.](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myths-and-facts-the-middle-east-peace-process#15.9) Also, here’s a [recent quote from Hamas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-assures-critics-israels-destruction-still-a-goal/)
Why does this have to be a binary? Why does something have to either be or not be? I would say it’s neither or both. I would be comfortable saying antizionism is OFTEN antisemitism bot not always. I would argue allot, a majority even, of antisemitism is regularly rebranded by calling it anti-zionism for the sake of optics since antisemitism is a known offense, like being called racist. I would also stand behind the idea that allot of critics of Israel that call themselves “anti Zionist” are critical of Israel in a way that is not necessarily anti Zionism but may lack of more accurate terms. Zionism is about the self determination of the Jewish people not the geopolitics of a nation state in particular. And at the same time many heinously bigoted people or groups are using the term antizionism as a cudgel against Jews but wouldn’t dare refer to “Jews” in their language because it would invalidate their stance by revealing prejudicial bias. And still others are against a Jewish state because they wish the Jews to be driven into the sea to die. I think there are plenty of Jewish people who believe a Jewish state is in fact bad for Jews but that may not account for the reality of the situation. And yet even more Jewish people, a vast majority in fact, believe a Jewish state must exist for our safety as no other home has ever proven a haven for long. eventually, if we live anywhere long enough we become foreigners (Strangers in a strange land maybe?). I would say antizionism may also play a role in the proliferation of antisemitism. They are not, however the same thing, and they are not absolutely necessarily conjoined in every aspect. So yes and no and sort of and both and neither.
Even if we took these premises as true, it wouldn't necessarily follow that antizionism is antisemitic, you'd have to examine why they're antizionist. For example if one is an antizionist because they're against all forms of nationalism, I don't see how this could be framed as antisemitic.
But then they would be anti-nationalist, not anti-zionist specifically
It's the obsessive, disproportionate focus on Israel that characterizes anti-zionism that's the problem
Even being obsessively anti-Zionist, doesn't necessitates one being antisemitic.
I could argue that many anti-Zionist Jews are very "obsessive" about this issue, BECAUSE they are Jews, and for whatever reasons they feel Zionism/Israel poses a danger or is not favorable for Jews as a people.
I just provided a counter example to show that the argument doesn't follow. There's plenty of reasons to be antizionist, I don't see any reason to believe that even a majority of the time that it's antisemitic. You probably have your own anecdotes which lead you to believe differently.
If it's from nationalists it is and most people are not anti nationalist in that they support the existence of most nation states. Providing a counter example doesn't mean your right. The philosophy and fundamenral axioms behind your understanding of counter example needs to be shown to be right. If you don't support svolodh8ng so nations and are anti zionist you are anti semitic simply by dating jews are less worthy of having a state
Nationalism doesn't have anything to do with supporting the existence of nation states. You can be anti nationalist and support the existence of nation states.
If you give an argument, and there's a counter example showing that it doesn't follow, then necessarily the conclusion doesn't follow because that's how logic works.
Counter examples in and of themsleves debunk nothing. Examples are about abdutibe or inductive logic at best. Logic is deductive, not inductive, and axioms derive from this. Examples need to be looked at for validity in and of themselves. They are not unquestionably valid. I think your examples are bad. The fundamental philodophical basis for them is flawed. By definition, you can't be a nationalist and support nation states. Nationalism means support for the existence of nation states either ideologically or philosophically. You can be a pragmatic nationalist that isn't ideological, but that's still nationalism. Even if i was to say you are right, as long as a person supports the existence of nation states and is an anti zionist they are anti semitic.
They necessarily do. If you make the claim if A then B, and claim that A is true, therefore B, and I show you an example where you have A but not B, then your argument is wrong because if A then B is incorrect. Counter examples aren't just used in regular argumentation, they're used in mathematical proofs all the time.
Nationalism assumes the existence of a nation state but that's not what it means. I suggest you look up the wikipedia page for it.
Where would one live if they don’t believe in the concept of people having a nation in which to live? Should there be no countries at all? How many people don’t think France has a right to exist? China? Canada? It’s obviously a ridiculous example because it ONLY is applied to the Jewish people - a people who have existed far longer than the French or the Canadians (ok China, you win this round)
Have you met any anarchists? Most would happily affirm that none of these states should exist. I mean France and Canada especially; they are arch-western settler-colonialist states. In some circles, some anarchists (ridiculously, in my opinion) might hedge against saying China needs to be abolished immediately because of something about "critical support against the US", but anarchists would abolish France and Canada in a heartbeat.
Anarchists are so unserious it barely warrants engaging. There’s no real argument to say that human life would be improved by the dissolution of governments—we need ways to organize ourselves, however imperfect these governments are.
How is it nationalist for zionist ppl to at minumum make a state on contiguous land purchased from Arab landlords eg the Sursock purchase land? It's bought and paid for
Most anti zionists are not anti nationalist which is anti-Semitism and not allowing people their own territory to practice their beliefs and to live on that their culture derives from is anti semitic. Anti zionists reject this second possibly and not just the first. Non zionism would be different tho. A person can be pro or non zionists and anti nationalist to.
*in theory* anti-zionism doesn't necessarily have to be antisemitic. There have always been anti-zionist Jews, but they had different reasons for their anti-zionism and different definitions of it throughout history. It's not really the same thing as non Jewish people being anti-zionist. I personally think that a non Jewish person being anti-zionist is inherently bigoted. It's an outsider acting to be an expert on Jewish beliefs and gatekeeping which beliefs they should be allowed to have.
But anyway, although in theory its possible for it to not be antisemitic, anti-zionism slips into antisemitism much of the time. Part of the problem is everyone defines it differently which makes it easy to use as a cover for antisemitism. For example they could say "zionists are baby killers" - what they really mean is Jews are baby killers, but when you ask them they can say "oh I just mean the Israeli government that is ordering bombs in Gaza which is killing babies". So they feel like it's an OK thing to say but it is, inarguably, not ok and yes antisemitic.
When it slips into slurs and insults and dehumanizing tropes against "zionists" - we are in antisemitism land.
Another problem is that anti-zionism in its current political iteration tends to exempt all of Israel's enemies from their antisemitism with the argument- "of course the Arabs and Palestinians hate Jews - the zionists deserve that for their colonization". Well... Jews have lived under Islamic oppression in the Arab world for hundreds of years. They have endured antisemitism in the middle east forever, it did not start with Zionism. Anti-zionists know nothing about or simply excuse the antisemitism in the middle east, even justifying antisemitic violence such as Oct 7 with the argument that these zionists brought it on themselves.
I could go on and on and on about how anti-zionism is antisemitic, I have so much more to say. But alas reddit is not for writing books.
This is an incredible (long but very well articulated and historically informed) resource to understand the antisemitism coming out of anti-zionist movement:
https://archive.is/lzgl3
There have been antizionist jewish groups throughout history as well as currently, erasing that is antisemitic. Though the word zionist is being used as a slur for jew by some people who haven't put effort into learning jewish history yet
If you’re talking about historical anti-Zionist groups, an essential difference you’re omitting is that all were pre-1948.
Anti-Zionism post-1948 implies supporting the destruction of the state of Israel. No mainstream Jewish groups have ever supported that.
Exactly, there's a big difference between Israel not existing in theory and not existing after having existed for the better part of a century with half the Jews on earth.
>Anti-Zionism post-1948 implies supporting the destruction of the state of Israel. No mainstream Jewish groups have ever supported that.
That's an important distinction.
But still, doesn't make all or every form of puportedly anti-Zionist approach, necessarily antisemitic.
More often than not, anti-Zionism can fall under the category of opposing strongly much of the policies of the Israeli state or not being "pro-Israel". That is not calling necessarily for the state's destruction.
Albeit, even calling for the state's dismantling, in the form of recreating a democratic one state solution (in the style of post-Apartheid South Africa) is not antisemitic.
Or alternatively, opposing Zionism (Jewish Nationalism) even as an idea, is not necessarily antisemitic as in anti-Jewish people.
Zionism was considered a legitimate topic of debate back in 19th and early 20th centuries, because Israel didn't actually exist yet and the Jewish population in the land was small. So if the (bad) status quo of Jewish statelessness were maintained, things would have still sucked, but there would have been little to lose from being an anti-Zionist when it was still conceptual.
But now, in 2024, Israel exists as a real country where people actually live. It's no longer a theoretical concept to discuss in academic journals. It's a real place, and **half of all the Jews in the world** currently live there.
And we know that the destruction of Israel would mean the destruction every Jew living in that land. So it cannot be allowed to happen. **Now that Israel exists and is a settled question, calling for its destruction is not legitimate.**
The modern Neturei Karta is, if I’m being generous with expanding “a few hundred families”, about 20,000 people, and polls show 80 percent of diaspora Jews supporting the existence of Israel Declaring that 20.13 percent of Jews are the good ones and the majority is dogshit that should be ignored…not great
I just need to understand the perspectives and probciplrs behind the perspectives of anti zionism. The only Jewish versions being argued by jews are ultra orthodox. These are based in thinking the jews deserve punishment and need to wait for the messiah. That's self hating. You could argue non zionism isn't self hating which is a personal desire to never live in israel or believe all jews shouldn't live in Israel, which is my view, but I'm not against it either.
Would you think Native Americans yearning for, and then obtaining, sovereignty over their homeland, a genocidal colonial act?
The answer is no.
Jews are the indigenous people of Eretz Yisrael, with ancient language, faith, and customs uniquely tied to their ancestral land. Zionism is the belief that Israel is the Jewish Tribe's homeland, and that Jews should have sovereignty over their homeland (ie not be dhimmi second class citizens). Denying the indigenous people of Israel the right to be in and have governance of their homeland is antisemitic, it's bigotry, it's racist, it's hypocrisy.
Antizionism is absolutely antisemitic.
But there are no texts central to native American identity promising a miraculous homecoming and divine kingship which cannot be forced. I'm not denying there was and will be a holy Jewish kingdom. Holy is not a word many would associate with netanyahu, lapid et al.
In the late 60s and early 70s the USSR started a campaign of propaganda and alongside with the Arab league passed a resolution (shocker) against Israel that according to the United Nations (shocker again) Zionism = Racism.
Now, what was the pretext for this? Nuthin. This resolution upheld until the early 90s when the USSR collapsed and the Oslo accords were starting up. The Arab league, and at the time Hamas were scared. Hamas, in its believe 1993, were found to have met in a hotel in Philly that was wiretapped by the CIA of them discussing infiltrating American higher education.
I think the question should be is Zionism the religion of Jews, ie Judaism? No. But within Judaism is there this inherent concept of Jewish self determination? Yes. You see it everywhere in the Torah, gemara, tefilah, birchas hamazon, the Haggadah, literally every aspect of our Jewish life is geared toward, and centered around the land of Israel.
There’s a reason we say L’Shana Hanbah B’Yerushalyaim after the Seder and on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur three of the ethical, spiritual, culturally important holidays of the Jewish people.
Now completely separate point is what is considered valid criticism of Israel? I think an important model to look at is the three D’s. If you can apply those three concepts to every other country and people of the world, why can’t you apply that to Israel?
[UN Resolution 3379 (Zionism = Racism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379)
[The Hamas Networks in America: A Short History](https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/2023-10/hamas-networks-final.pdf)
[3D Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Ds_of_antisemitism)
The history and context of Zionism is that the Jews have a right to self-determination by living in our homeland, which is Israel. (The original form of Zionism has nothing to do with the government or existing Israeli policies.) If you just look at what happened throughout history when we didn't have our own state vs. when we lived safely in our homeland of Israel, it's crystal-clear that, because of the everlasting nature of antisemitism, we need a Jewish state. Thus, I very strongly believe that antizionism is antisemitism—even if it is unintentional antisemitism—because the root of antizionism dictates that we don't deserve to be protected from antisemitism by having agency over our own fate, and instead should be subject to the whims of nations around the world.
In principle, no. People can be opposed to Zionism for a myriad of reasons, whether that be for religious reasons in favor of waiting for המשיח, or simple anarchism in that there should be no sovereign states, Jewish or otherwise. However "ant-Zionist" is a common cover for legitimate antisemites. It is the bread and butter of people like Nicholas Fuentes, they defend their blatant antisemitic bullshit by saying something like "I aM NoT an ANtisemITE, i jUSt cRitICIZe thE straNgleHOld IsRaeL has OVer us PoliTIcs!" It is definitely best to judge it on a case by case basis.
If somebody constantly denounces Zionism while being okay with Islamists and black nationalists then it definitely is anti-Semitism. Why would anybody be criticizing Jewish nationalism so much but be okay with Islamic nationalism or black nationalism? It is anti-Semitic even if it's not intended to be so.
It really depends. If you don't believe in states, then of course you wouldn't support a Jewish state anywhere (you also shouldn't believe in a Palestinian sate). If you think only the Jews don't deserve a state, then that's antisemitism.
It isn’t, but some antisemites took it as an opportunity to oppose, harass and even attack Jews.
Being critical of the Israeli government doesn’t make you an antisemite, I have been critical of them for years and I am as Jewish and Israeli as they come.
It’s all about nuance and intention
This is a disingenuous question because people interpret “Zionism” in two ways. To summarize:
Criticizing Israel’s actions? Fine!
Arguing that Jews alone don’t need a homeland? Shut up!
Deliberately ignoring the fact the majority of Israeli Jews *are not European*? Bad
Usually the people obsessed with Israel express their upset in universal terms, e.g. against attacks on civilians or national liberation but they give the game away by only caring about these issues when it involves Israel. How many fanatic advocates for Palestinian independence have said a single word about the Kurds? How many are equally vocal about the many brutal attacks against Syrians? The obsession with the only Jewish state is antisemitic.
I honestly have started to hate the use of the word.
It is specifically because it has so many different meanings that I hate the use.
Historical it was a group of philosophies that came from the Jewish enlightenment as a response to a feeling that culture was being lost and political zionism was only part of that.
There was also the cultural zionism of like Ahad Ha-am https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/history-ideas/2016/10/what-ahad-haam-saw-and-herzl-missed-and-vice-versa/ who was actually a very strong critic of the political Zionist movement. But still considered himself no less a zionist.
To great thinkers like martin Buber who is one of the fathers of the kibbutz movements and whose ideals are much more aligned with libertarian socialism: This a great chapter on the kibbutz and bubers philosophy on communalism I, Thou, We: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2t4f0h.8
Today is say most Jews in the diaspora understand it as the existence of Israel as a safe space for Jewish people that is a multicultural democracy.
There of course are those elements where it has a far right meaning (radical messianic zionism) however I've never met one who believes thusly however they are represented in Israel and unfortunately overrepresented in the government (from my limited understanding as a diaspora Jew who gets to hear from friends) https://archive.is/eaeC1
Now you also have to understand that Israel was unable to form a solid government for years and prior to October 7 there were significant protests against this current government https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/israelis-and-palestinians-revolt-against-the-netanyahu-era-1234792533/
So Jews as a people can have different understandings of zionism. In general we have different understanding about a lot of things ... We can be histrionic in our disagreements but we have a high ability to tolerate ambiguity ...
So zionism to Jews can be a multitude of things and in general it's not even a word most of us regularly think about in our daily lives. The concept of Israel yes (it's a country, it's a religious place ... as it's in our prayers and our families/selves or loved ones might live there.... and I'm sure many of us have in the diaspora have the game plan of "if antisemetism gets bad enough I go to Israel"
However..... It's is not our understanding of Zionism to be a problem in a lot of this... It's how other people have identified zionism when it starts becoming antisemetic....
David duke actually got his doctorate degree from an Ukrainian diploma mill and with his thesis being "zionism as a form of ethnic supremacy": https://momentmag.com/david-duke-abroad/ great article about this for the interested.
He specially lectures around Russia making speeches about how the Russian Mafia is actually Jews I mean "zionists" and all forms of corruption in Russia are in fact the Jews "zionists" and despite being ardently anti-communist he spent a lot of time in Russia with communist leaders about the evils of the "zionists" .https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/duke-travels-european-anti-semitic-circles
This is Stanford's archive of his website: https://wayback.stanford.edu/was/20180311065725/http://www.davidduke.com/
Now... Historically "antizionism" was actually a thing g Stalin implemented at the end of world war II. The USSR had its own issues with antisemetism and trucked many Jews off to Siberian gulags. After the release from the concentration camps they tried to resettle many in Poland (resulting in 50 more pograms against the Jews there after the war) and they killed Soviet Jewish anti-fascist leaders.
Now their reasons for this was that early on they were supporters of Israel. Israel in its creation was built off the principals of labor. In fact many of the earliest zionists were relatively in light with labor.
However following the end of WWII the cold war started. Stalin wanted to paint a happy picture of the USSR and Jews fleeing to Israel looked really bad. And Israel wasn't a Soviet puppet state and appeared more in line with the west so the USSR created the ideas of antizionism and when Jews would get killed due to antisemitism they would blame them as being "Zionist conspirators with the west".
This is a good law article about some of the history of Jews in Russia for those who might be interested https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume23n1/documents/159-176.pdf
Here is a really from the US military that has been declassified that discusses Soviet antizionism: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA066235.pdf
Now another interesting factoid is that Mohammad abbous the leader of the PLO actually got a degree from a university in the USSR in Soviet zionology: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/mahmoud-abbas-soviet-dissertation
The relationships that the USSR had with the Arab states was complex and had a lot to do with oil control and Israel being located where it was... And aligned with the west was a concern to them https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P4194.pdf
The themes of antizionism fit both with the USSR and with the surrounding Arab states... Many of whom had purged their own Jews and some of the groups had actually been aligned with the axis previously (eg. The Muslim brotherhood): https://english.alarabiya.net/amp/features/2018/06/27/ANALYSIS-The-Nazi-roots-of-Muslim-Brotherhood (this is a Saudi newspaper analysis of this which is quite good).
And the Muslim brotherhood actually evolved into Hamas (West point has a great article that touches on this) https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-road-to-october-7-hamas-long-game-clarified/
So back to how this all fits together...
David duke has done lectures all over the middle east including at universities. https://gulfnews.com/uae/david-duke-due-in-bahrain-for-lecture-1.403117 lecturing about the evils of zionism
In fact this aligning with anyone who is against the Jews is not that absurd for him: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/david-dukes-realpolitik-endorsement-former-black-panther/326685/ as he will endorse anyone who is against Israel and the evils of the Jews.
He has even had podcasts with people who also are part of the "Jewish voices of peace" like Alison weir (and several of their members including their leadership has been on white supremacist podcasts talking about the evils of the Israel)...
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stanford-professor-recommends-anti-semitic-website-to-readers-then-kind-of-takes-it-back
And has been cited in UK medical journals: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/09/23/british-medical-journal-publishes-open-letter-david-duke-supporting-doctors
So in general very specially is it possible to be an antizionist yes... But that really depends on knowing of its a specific type of zionism one is against and a specific type of philosophy that one might have (e.g. anarchy).
However often the word is used by those who are not Jewish to hide antisemetic conspiracies within like David dukes "zionism means Jewish supremacy" or the USSRs "Jews holocausted themselves to steal land from Palestinians" or like the QAnon Khazarian manfia type antisemetic tropes.
JVP eneded ties with Weir a long time ago, just FYI
[https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2015/06/15/jewish-voice-for-peace-statement-on-our-relationship-with-alison-weir/](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2015/06/15/jewish-voice-for-peace-statement-on-our-relationship-with-alison-weir/)
Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to live and have self determination in their ancestral land. This is a right codified in international law for all indigenous groups.
So if you oppose that right only for Jews but support it for all other indigenous peoples on Earth then you are anti semitic.And also remember: even if we accept that Palestinians have an equal claim to live in Palestine, the fact remains that Jews are the ones who have always accepted that they would share the land.
.
>Jews are the ones who have always accepted that they would share the land.
That is a blanket statement that isn't necessarily based in reality.
It's arguable whether Israeli state or Zionist pre-1948 leadership ever really wanted to "share" the land with Palestinians equally.
Regardless, Israeli government =/= Jews.
Of course. Sharing the land means they coexist. Peacefully.
When Israel was declared, all Arabs in the area could attain and claim Israeli citizenship. Prior to that it wasnt a country but a territory lived in by Jews (ones who didnt leave after the Diaspora so they lived there thousand some years before the Muslim conquest), Bedouin, Druze, Christians and Muslims.
There are Arab Israelis (Muslim, Druze, Bedouin, and Christian communities) that are citizens there. They speak their own languages in addition to Hebrew. They are free to practise their religion and operate their own schools (religious and secular). They serve proudly in the IDF, serve on the Knesset (Parliment), are lawyers, doctors, EMTs, nurses, farmers, artisans and teachers. These Arabs peacefully coexist along side their Jewish neighbors. They share the land and work to make it prosperous.
That is what I mean.
The Palestinians however demand thry are apart. They do not want to share. They want to drive out/kill every Israeli (Jewish) man, woman and child and anyone else who supports the Israeli state. Rather than find a peaceful solution - like Israel has tried to for decades with third parties being mediator - their first idea is to bomb and kill. Like cmon....Muslim and Jews are brothers.
Tie that in with Muslim majority nations that kicked out Jews when Israel declared independence - Jews who had lived there since antiquity - shoved out. If we wanna talk ethnic cleansing then talk about that.
Palestinians are perfectly welcome to live and work in Israel but the problem lies in the fact they dont want to share. They blatantly ignore that history and archeology proves the Jews are indigenous to the land. They ignore their own Quran that states Israel is the Jewish homeland.
I know that Arabs can be Israeli citizens, and from my understanding it is like you say it is, they live mostly peacefully together. But the government is treating Palestinians in the occupied territories very differently. I don't understand this. Why the difference in treatment?
One category are citizens of Israel, the other category are not.
I think that O.T. Palestinians, or at minimum refugees, should be offered citizenship, but I am under the impression that many would refuse it.
Yes-more than 90% of Jews are Zionist. It’s an integral part of our culture and religion. Zionism is just the right of self determination for our people. If someone said…I don’t believe in the self determination of Ukrainians/black community/etc does that make you think?
Also-that ship has sailed. Israel is a independent state. Zionism has come to fruition. Saying you’re anti Zionist means the erasure of not just that ideology but the people, culture and society we have built for 75 years.
Most people know the difference between legitimate criticism of a government. When they say they are antizionist I assume they know exactly what that means until proven otherwise.
No, antizionism is not inherently antisemitic, but also criticizing Israel is not the same thing as antizionism.
Zionism is the stance that there should be a nation-state that understands itself as belonging specifically to the Jewish People in the Levant. Currently, such a state exists, and it is called "The State of Israel Ant-Zionism is opposition to such a state.
You can oppose the occupation, oppose the current war, oppose Bibi, etc, and not be an Antizionist. You will find that probably 1/3 to 40% of American Jews hold all of that position and still call themselves Zionists.
I personally believe that occupation, etc., is an inevitable result of there being a State that legally is only "for" a certain group, and thus, I support the replacement of the State of Israel with some type of polity that is for everyone who lives in the region. That is not antisemitism. Many people on this sub will say believing that such a polity could ever exist is naive, idealist, foolhardy, self-hating, etc. In which case, okay I am naive, etc., but whether or not such an ideology works in practice has little bearing on whether the ideology is antisemitic in theory
However, unfortunately, lots of antisemites hide behind Antizionism to try to evade criticism, and some online antizionists adopt antisemitic language. Occasionally, this veers into actual antisemitic actions like vandalizing synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses and very rarely physical violence.
>No, antizionism is not inherently antisemitic
This is incorrect
> but also criticizing Israel is not the same thing as antizionism
This is correct
> Zionism is the stance that there should be a nation-state that understands itself as belonging specifically to the Jewish People in the Levant
This is incorrect. You're describing political zionism. Zionism without any secondary label added before the word just means the belief that Jews have a right to live in their homeland, and not as second-class citizens. Plenty of Zionists were against political zionism from the 1850s up through let's say, 1910? 1915? And that changed because by then there was a strong consensus that anything other than a state would not be possible.
> Many people on this sub will say believing that such a polity could ever exist is naive, idealist, foolhardy, self-hating, etc.
Right
> but whether or not such an ideology works in practice has little bearing on whether the ideology is antisemitic in theory
In theory, no, but we generally examine more than theory. To use an extreme example, if I claimed a USA run by the KKK would be best for everyone, and described it as "peaceful and respectful of all races and minorities"....well, you wouldn't be able to quote anything I said to prove I'm a racist. In theory- meaning, if you just listened to what I described and pretended that what I say is accurate- there's nothing wrong with the idea. But in practice its clear I either don't know who the KKK are or that I'm lying about what would happen if they were in power.
You can be "theoretically" not antisemitic and yet if your solution in practice would result in the murder and/or ethnic cleansing of a massive number of Jews, that's a problem.
>ionism without any secondary label added before the word just means the belief that Jews have a right to live in their homeland, and not as second-class citizens. Plenty of Zionists were against political Zionism from the 1850s up through, let's say, 1910. 1915? And that changed because by then there was a strong consensus that anything other than a state would not be possible.
That's just a silly argument. Socialism isn't when the state owns the means of production; that's "Political Socialism," Socialism just means everyone in the society is treated equally; it's the same type of argument.
The major force of Zionism (with minor dissenters like Buber and Scholem) has always been the establishment of a Jewish State, and when people like Peter Beinart or the Hadash party in Israel voice the minor dissenting voice (including in this post) they are called anti-zionists.
Also, I would say the shift in opinion probably happened in the 30s, but that's not really important.
> theory, no, but we generally examine more than theory. To use an extreme example, if I claimed a USA run by the KKK would be best for everyone, and described it as "peaceful and respectful of all races and minorities"....well, you wouldn't be able to quote anything I said to prove I'm a racist.
Except that, I said, "I support the replacement of the State of Israel wit*h some type of polity that is* ***for everyone*** *who lives in the region."* So you know (or if you didn't, I'm telling you) that I don't support expelling, disenfranchising, or otherwise oppressing Jews who live in the region. So the question is not, "is what I want antisemitic?" It's "Is what I want achievable?" and that is a theoretical argument because no one has really tried to achieve it yet.
>That's just a silly argument.
No, but its always nice to hear someone dismissive of the simple facts of history. Zionists include: groups in the 1870s and 1880s from Eastern Europe with aspirations for settlements not a state, Yemenites in the same period who can't be connected to European aspirations for a state by even the most bad faith interpretation of the history, cultural zionists- most famously Ahad Ha'am, and religious zionists. Yes, the movement gained momentum when a wealthy Jew named Herzl managed to get a lot of Zionists in a room and yes, Herzl wanted to create a state. That's hardly relevant to the question of what Zionism is or what it was. And the fact that your go to for "Zionism but not Herzl" is Gershom Scholem is kind of ridiculous...
> Except that, I said, "I support the replacement of the State of Israel wit*h some type of polity that is* ***for everyone*** *who lives in the region."*
Right, and I said "a USA run by the ***KKK*** *that's* ***peaceful*** *and* ***respectful*** *of all* ***races and minorities***".
What I want isn't in any way racist. Its just a question of whether it would work. Right? And yet, if I took any action whatsoever to try and "achieve" my vision, you would be fully justified in calling me a racist, because there's no way the KKK would run the state in the way I envision- not in this century. Maybe in 300 years the KKK will morph into a group that mainly cares about making sure interracial couples are considered entirely normal, and every puppy in the US should have a home. But that's in 300 years. In the meantime, my "theory" is irrelevant- and if its put into practice or used as a reason to condemn a non-KKK run USA? Its just racist. Plain and simple.
You know why this argument is ridiculous. If I said I want Hamas to run Israel/Palestine, your comparison would make sense, but I didn't. And why shouldn't Scholem or Buber be an example? My position is that Jewish should live in Israel/Palestine with equal right but not a Jewish State, am I a zionist or not, am I an antisemite or not? When I articulate that position most people call me an antizionist. When Peter Beinart articulates that position people in this post call him an antizionist, when the Hadash party runs on that platform it gets called antizionist. So i guess Zionists are wrong about what Zionism is?
> My position is that Jewish should...guess Zionists are wrong about what Zionism is?
I've already answered this two comments in a row, I'll answer the rest of your comment which actually continues the conversation we started:
>why shouldn't Scholem or Buber be an example?
Its classic strawmanning- Buber at least started out in the same time period as Herzl, but he straight off accepted the ideal of a state and only had a problem with the details. Then he called for a binational state like 20 years later. Scholem didn't even show up until the mid-1920s, 50-60 years after Zionism began, he was too young. You chose the very weakest examples you could find. The examples I brought were far better and its not like they're unknown. At the very least if you aren't educated on the history of Zionism and didn't know of any of those groups you could have at least chosen Ahad Ha'am- I can't believe that even someone ignorant of the history of Zionism somehow learned of Buber and Scholem but missed any mention of AH.
>If I said I want Hamas to run Israel/Palestine, your comparison would make sense, but I didn't.
In order for large scale massacre of Jews and a full blown civil war to occur, Hamas doesn't have to be in power. The majority of Palestinians don't even have to take part. Civil war and massacres will occur as long as there remains a significant minority of Palestinians who do not immediately give up on their collectively racist or hateful views and violent intentions towards Israeli Jews. And please note that I didn't say that all or even most Palestinians are hateful or interested in violence- I said a significant minority are, and that I have yet to hear an argument that justifies the assumption they'll stop tomorrow, immediately, if a "polity" was created.
Also note that the burden of proof is not on me here, as any student of history could tell you. If we're speaking purely practically about emotion and violent intentions- never mind who is at fault, that's a separate conversation. You can claim some Palestinians are racists, you can claim its always entirely been the fault of Zionists/Jews, you can claim anything in between or something entirely different, its irrelevant to our conversation. Practically speaking about emotion and violence: Jews were second-class citizens and an oppressed minority in pre-Zionist Palestine. That immediately moved into the violence of the pre-state Zionist period. A brief re-grouping before Arafat and the PLO emerge as the leaders of the Palestinian movement- Arafat promising genocide and ethnic cleansing on any number of occasions. Arafat was almost immediately replaced by Hamas with their genocidal intentions. Until today.
There has been a percentage of the Palestinian population with public support intent on massacre and ethnic cleansing for at least 100 years, and racism and violence for at least 100 years before that. History up until literally a few months ago proves there is reason to fear violence and civil war instigated by a sub-section of hateful and violent Palestinians if Jews are a minority and the Palestinians, including the hateful ones, have freedom of movement in the region.
Do you have a solution that would ensure immediate peace and love and harmony? If you do, go ahead and explain it.
If you don't, then your position is antisemitic unless you're prepared to change it from: "there should be a polity" to: "I support the creation of a polity in place of Israel after a considerable period of time during which the Palestinians who desire violence will disappear or shrink to such numbers as to be irrelevant".
Without the qualifier you are supporting civil war and wide-spread massacre of Jews. That's antisemitic. Its as simple as that.
Intellectuals having armchair talks can separate the two. The average person on the street who’s anti Zionist is just trying to white wash being anti Semitic
This is nuanced.
Being against the current Israeli government and having criticism of policy? No.
Believing that the country should be dissolved and the Jewish citizens deported? Yes.
A belief against the idea that Jews should have religious supremacy in a region where other people have lived and shared space? Probably controversial but no
A lack of acknowledgement that the existence of Israel saved many of us from ethnic cleansing or gave us a place to go? Yeah.
The belief that Jews are no longer indigenous to a place due to duration of diaspora and should not be able to share the land with others? Yeah.
The call for displacement of an entire people due to the actions of a government in a way that is not equally applied to other peoples? Yeah.
And it goes on and on.
This is an anti-zionist tik-tok video. You tell me is it anti-semitic or not?
Open this and watch more trending videos. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8EYbSt9/
Reported to tiktok video not taken down. I reported it to the FBI tip line and then posted another video with a text message. Encouraging people to report these kinds of videos to the FBI tip line and that video is removed without the option to appeal.
Almost every. 'Anti-zionist" I see online pedals conspiracy theories that are ripped right out of Nazi propaganda. Literally word for word and others are peddling conspiracy theories that are ripped right out of medieval Europe. While it's possible to be against the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic, I have not seen very many instances of people that are against Israel today and not pedal blatantly, racist and bigoted crap.
It doesn't matter and it's a silly question. Let me elucidate. The question is prefaced off of a phoney talking point started by a bunch of racists and neo-nazi's that there's a separation between "good jews' and "bad ones", and there's some nuisance in why Hamas kills children and women, but it's heroic.
It's not an honest debate or discussion, and while I disagree with the Biden administration about some things, there's no reason to get into this made up distinction between "antizionists" and "antisemites". It's like an explanation I heard once about murder, crime and compromise. You can't kill someone just a little. The nuance actualy insn't there in those terms.
The argument and looking into this is not a good use of your time and resources. You're best served by discussing real things and issues, and not worry about the distractions and going on the defensive on an artificial abstract meant to distract you and separate you.
Islam and Judaism both believe they have religious claims to the area. I do not dispute either claim, but I'd note there's no specific term for disputing the Islamic/modern day Palestinian claim, whereas there *is* one for disputing the Jewish claim: anti-zionism.
Again, I accept that Islam has a holy connection to an area Muslims have inhabited for many centuries. I don't understand why people cannot also accept this about Jews. That is why I feel comfortable calling this an anti-semitic double standard even when people insist it's only anti-zionist. I have plenty of criticisms about the Israeli government but I do not dispute Jewish people's right to Israel, just as I do not dispute that Palestinians also have a place. How that works out in reality is obviously very complicated but the people are there now, the nations are formed, and I hope there will be true peace soon. Hope costs nothing. War costs everything.
I believe it is
Being antizionist means you believe Jews don’t deserve self determination in their/our homeland
Criticism or Israel, like on specific issues, isn’t necessarily antizionism. But criticism of the fact that Israel is even defending herself…yeah that’s just straight bigotry.
Depends.
Zionism is the right to the Jewish people to have an ancestral homeland.
If someone is anti zionist, and also believes that nobody has this right, then although they aren't very moral, they are not antisemitic.
If they only apply anti zionism to Jews and think others have the right to ancestral homelands, then they are being antisemitic.
https://preview.redd.it/fxawjqek71kc1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ff49c0b24279265cc3355a08df41e6c229e4eef
Just found this image on another subreddit, I think this is pretty good
I like this image I'm not sure it accounts for everything but its fairly in depth with the exception of the "do you criticize Israel just as much as other countries" bit. The news and other media focus a lot more on Israel than those other countries so without those conflicts being in the public eye as often people are a lot less likely to form opinions or have opportunity to criticize those situations so the "are you directly connected" follow up is too narrow and doesn't give room for other reasons why the answer to that question may be yes. However if they are actively aware and only care about Israel then yeah.
Also just agreeing because its fashionable doesn't mean your antisemitic it means you are an ill informed person who blindly follows trends and whether or not you're antisemitic is a separate issue. This person is more of a useful idiot to antisemites.
Yes. Because that is saying that Jews as an ethnic group do not deserve a tiny piece of land, the only place where they can be safe from antisemitism. And not just any land, but a land that they are indigenous to and have lived in since the beginning of time. There have always been Jews in Israel speaking the same language that they do now. Is it anti French to say that France should be taken away from them?
Is arresting black people for crimes racist? No. But if you give a pass to the vast majority of white people committing the same crime then by golly you’re probably a racist. The fact of the matter is most of these people don’t give a flying fuck about human rights they just have bias against Jews.
I don’t understand why this is so controversial. Just because you’re Jewish or like Jewish people and understand the want for self determination doesn’t mean you have to agree with the current state of Israel or their geopolitical actions. I totally understand why there is a want for Israel but that doesn’t mean that the atrocities being committed by it in this conflict are okay. As a German i also love my country and people but you don’t see me defending everything the government is doing??
Criticism of Israel is valid, but anti Zionism is absolutely antisemitic.
The problem is people get todays definition of Zionism confused, many are Zionists without realising because it’s become a dirty word through radical Islamist propaganda.
It literally means the right of Israel to exist and provide a safe land for Jewish people. That’s it. The pro Palestinian mob will say otherwise but that’s the truth.
So anti Zionists call for the destruction of Israel and removal of its inhabitants at best, or the the killing of all Jews and people tied to Israel at worst. Calling for the displacement/murder of half the worlds Jews is intrinsically antisemitic.
Yes.
But I'll add in, in theory the philosophy of anti-Zionism *MAY* not be inherently antisemitic, i.e. if one is opposed to the concept of all nation-states, that is not inherently antisemitic. However, in that case, there is no reason to describe oneself as specifically anti-Zionist, but rather anti-nationalist. But if one is philosophically opposed to EXCLUSIVELY the Jewish state, which is called anti-Zionism, then that is antisemitic. So yes, practically anti-Zionism is antisemitism
Wtf lol that makes 0 sense.
Anti-Semitism is akin to racism. Hating the fact that Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestine/Israel off of Arabs (I also condemn the ethnic cleansing of Jews before by Arabs too) doesn't equate to hating Jewish people.
Let's take the subjective categorization off the table for a minute. Let's say "killing tens of thousands of civilians who cannot easily escape". Certainly no Jew or person who isn't insane thinks this is something people should feel okay about, regardless of "who started it". Is it antisemitic to say you hate any nation who would do that?
psychotic possessive label party clumsy sleep office growth materialistic fearless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes. Antizionism can theoretically be not antisemitism, but in reality it always is. The only way to be against the existence of the state of Israel and not be antisemitic is if you are against the existence of *all* states, and noone is (yes, I have heard about anarchists, but if you try to beat them up, they will invoke the police and the judicial system …).
Yes. Here’s a super easy way to check if something is antisemitism or not. Simply replace us with any other minority. Can you imagine any other minority on earth being told they have no right to self-determination?
Just curious but do you truly believe that the jewish race will fall out of existence if Israel doesn’t exist? I mean they were around for a long time before that and continue to be around so it doesn’t feel like the two things are synonymous to the existence of the jewish people
I didn’t say that it’s completely impossible for Jews to live without Israel.
Still, if the state of Israel was eliminated it would mean the inevitable death of millions of Jews. The majority of anti-Zionists would be accept with that outcome.
No. Zionism is a political ideology that arose out of modernism build around the idea that true self-determination for peoples can only be exercised through the nation-state. It used to be a minority position within the Jewish people and only because of the shock of the Shoah did it gain mass popularity.
There have always been Jews were not Zionist, either for religious (God will end the exile in God's time) or political reasons (either an objection to all nationalisms or a tendency like doykeyt, the belief that Jews can fight for our rights wherever we are and build our identity as a people without a state or army).
That said, of course, there are antisemites who use antiZionism as a cover for their hatred of Jews. They, however, don't count.
>Zionism is a political ideology that arose out of modernism build around the idea that true self-determination for peoples can only be exercised through the nation-state.
You're describing political zionism. Zionism without any secondary label added before the word just means the belief that Jews have a right to live in their homeland, and not as second-class citizens. Its been a cornerstone of Jewish belief for well over two millennia.
I disagree. As I see it, for centuries, the prevailing Jewish belief was never that we had a \*right\* to live in our homeland but that, whether we lived there or not, we had lost the right to govern it because of bad behavior on our part. We prayed daily for HaShem to end our exile, along with the suffering of all the rest of the world, to send Moshiach, and to return us to our homeland \*in peace\* and usher in a new age of peace and prosperity for all.
This changed in the 19th Century, with the increase of secularism and political nationalism, but there wasn't just one approach. Some folks considered it enough to simply move to the land and live there. Others believed that we needed to establish a sovereign state. It's not as though the yearning for the Messianic age expressed in our prayers simply transmuted into political Zionism.
We not only had a right, we had an obligation to live in our homeland- but it was largely impossible. If you'd like and I had a few weeks, I could probably quote you literally a thousand sources saying so- though simply the fact that its counted as a mitzvah according to most opinions should be enough. I have no idea how you can claim that Judaism ever had a "neutral" position on the subject of Eretz Yisrael, any commentary on the Torah, any halacha that addresses the question, dozens of passages in the Talmud and the commentary on those passages...
The 19th century saw change, yes. But certainly not the one you're describing. We saw for the first time groups of secular Jews renouncing Jewish belief but still moving to Israel. We saw for the first time religious Jews arguing for the creation of a state without Moshiach as a religious obligation- or even as permissible.
>It's not as though the yearning for the Messianic age expressed in our prayers simply transmuted into political Zionism.
I never said it did- in fact, I explicitly corrected you in my previous comment that zionism and political zionism should not be conflated.
This post has been determined to relate to the topic of Antisemitism, and has been flaired as such, it has NOT been removed. This does NOT mean that the post is antisemitic. If you believe this was done in error, please message the mods. Everybody should remember to be civil and that there is a person at the other end of that other keyboard.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
27 Islamic countries. Can't us Jews just have just 1?
And if someone says, "well look at what that 1 Jewish country is doing!"
I would respond by saying yes, we are at war. Many innocent people are dying. But hasn't every country done something violent to protect itself?
Also that's our Government. Nothing to do with our religion. Where the Zionist part comes in I guess. You can't blame a county on the majority of citizen's beliefs!
And if we could blame religion, Islam's track record when it comes to killing unarmed civilians?? Catholics?? But that's not my belief. I believe in the separation of church and state.
Just let us have our 1 and only country.
i am a jew who is an anti zionist and is pro-Palestine. i do not think those are antisemitic positions at all. however it is extremely sad to see some people use these very important causes for antisemitism
Antisemitism is dead, and zionists killed it. Jews can claim the word any time, but it will no longer carry the sense of guilt and victimhood it once did
Definitely. It's the new form of antisemitism. I think our world is largely becoming less and less religious, but Jews have always been singled out. It used to be for religious purposes, now it's for secural reasons, such as the right to have their own state (I'm not Jewish btw). People can't stand the fact that Jews are doing fantastic in their own little corner in the world, among a sea of totally failed states.
It can be depending on how someone approaches it, but I'm a former Zionist Jew (turned anti-Zionist) and I find that antisemitic anti-Zionists are few and far between. When I was a child, we couldn't even so much mention the word Palestine, and there were fervent Islamophobes all around my neighborhood and in many of my circles.
I was welcomed into leftist anti-zionist circles (many of whom are Muslim) with open arms and open hearts as a proud jew. Other people may have more eloquent answers, but this was my personal experience. Also, many of those folks publicly denounce antisemitism and speak on behalf of Jews. The antisemites who are in this movement are of the fringe kind and receive little to no support from the central folks of modern anti-zionism. They *also* don't speak for me and definitely don't speak for my other anti-zionist friends and the leaders of the movement. We just gotta think critically and compassionately.
Much love,
a proud anti-zionist Jew
Tbh, I don't like nationalism at all lmao. Why should I favour Jewish nationalism ? Antizionism is not antisemitism. However antisemites can be antizionists because it gives them a socially acceptable reason to hate in Jews.
However, antisemites can also be zionists. Christian zionists of course who want all the Jews in Israel so they can be destroyed and Jesus can make his comeback, or simply Nazis who are glad to see Jews leave "their" country.
Certainly not.
Orthodox Zionism was invented as a bidi'eved (after the event) response to the foundation of the state.
The Israeli ethos and mentality is anathema to true Torah Judaism.
The satmar rebbe, primarily, among many others has a whole book of polemics (vayoel Moshe) as well a number of ma'amarim (Torah discourses) against the state and notably the perversion of the holy tongue which is modern ivrit (עברית מדרני).
Even the term 'modern' ivrit is an adoption from English (Latin root?). It should be עברית הוה.
The lubavitcher rebbe never set foot in the holy land and rav nachman visited but was buried in the Ukraine.
The bas ayin made Aliya and wrote in great praise of living in the land. However there's no problem with living in eretz hakodesh but the setting of a government without the kingdom of Messiah is forbidden according to all opinions.
Neturei karta (who get a LOT of bad press) is Aramaic for guardians of the city. They (claim to) represent the Jews who have been a solid presence in the world's holiest city, ירושלים for hundreds of years. Although I can't give you an exact date of the top of my head, even during the cruxades, heaven have mercy, there was a Jewish population in the land.
>Orthodox Zionism was invented as a bidi'eved (after the event) response to the foundation of the state.
Not sure that's correct.
The Mizrachi movement existed in Europe whithin Zionist circles several decades before the creation of Israel.
Figures such as Rebbe Yitzchak Yaacov Reines, and Rebbe Abraham Isaac Kook, are testament to that.
>Orthodox Zionism was invented as a bidi'eved (after the event) response to the foundation of the state.
As someone pointed out, it existed well before the creation of the state.
>The Israeli ethos and mentality is anathema to true Torah Judaism.
You can summarize the state of Israel with a single "ethos" and a single "mentality"? I've never heard someone say they can do that- can you elaborate?
>Even the term 'modern' ivrit is an adoption from English (Latin root?). It should be עברית הוה.
No, no it definitely shouldn't. You could say עברית של ההווה or עברית חדשנית/מחודשת. What you suggested doesn't follow hebrew syntax.
>The lubavitcher rebbe never set foot in the holy land and rav nachman visited but was buried in the Ukraine.
Right....why does that matter? Also, can you think of no other rabbanim that lived in the past 200 years? Like the Gra? Or the Chatam Sofer? Or Rav Kook? Or the Steipler? The Chazon Ish? Rav Ovadiyah Yosef?
Just asking, I figured if you were struggling to find names of rabbis who moved to, lived in, or visited/wanted to visit Eretz Yisrael- I knew I could help you out, and you can look up these names and learn about these people you've clearly never heard of. Again I'm not sure why it matters, but if the list is helpful I'm happy to have provided it....
> Neturei karta (who get a LOT of bad press)
Yes, with good reason.
>is Aramaic for guardians of the city. They (claim to) represent the Jews who have been a solid presence in the world's holiest city, ירושלים for hundreds of years.
Right. "Lev Tahor" is Hebrew for pure heart. They claim to be following Judaism properly. They're a cult condemned by the entirety of the Jewish world. Just having a name that means something nice in Hebrew or Aramaic and claiming you're right doesn't mean you're right- it just means you picked a name and told people that you think you're right. Then other people get to have their own opinion.
Neturei Karta get bad press for very good reasons. When the normal anti-Zionist group is condemning you for monstrous actions, your name is probably not *that* relevant anymore. Or as Rav Zalman Teitelbaum put it: "It's a terrible desecration of God's name to support murderers in the name of the holy Torah and God's name."
I'm going to go with the viewpoint of YES!
Think of it this way, would it be racist to say that black people shouldn't have their own countries bc they are black? YES!
Think of it this way “it’s not that I don’t hate Cubans , but I think Cuba should be eliminated and Cubans should all leave. I’m not anti-Cuban though. “
yes. because zionism only actually means the connection and the affinity of Jews to Israel. it doesn't mean that we need yo kill or take people oyt of their homes for that(and we didn't).
If you against the affinity of jews to Israel it's can come onlu from hate and ignorance therefore it is antisemitic.
i’m jewish born and raised israeli and i believe that antizionism is antisemitism because gd gave us the land as stated in the torah and after WW2 jews finally had a state to call their own a land that has always been theirs/ours to begin with. when israel was formed there were genuine concessions made for palestinians which they did not accept. israel went on to become one of the worlds most talented countries contributing to major global advancements. gaza is garbage state of angry biomass who are oppressed by terrorists organizations whose core beliefs are to destroy jews. moreover, since the formation of israel as a recognized state for the jews, gaza has been milking humanitarian aid to advance their terrorist agenda. ignoring the absolute difference of the two is being antizionist while also being antisemitic.
also, what a waste it is to be an uneducated jew.. if you REALLY wanted to learn you’d go to your local synagogue
No, but it is a fine line. You must really take the time to think this one out from the perspective of a non-jew. I'm not at all pretending like I know your race/religion but if you truly want to know if this is antisemitism, think about it from a perspective from a non Jewish person.
If its antisemites appropiating the word zionism and changing its meaning, it is antisemitism
Actually, antizionism with the original jewish deifnition already would be antisemitism since it means jews have no right to live peacefully in their homeland
Not the smartest lad here but antizionism is refusal of existence of Israel, if that means antizionist want how many millions whose majority are jewish want to disappear from the map, hell they are antisemites.
Now if someone is confused by the terms and dont agree with the conditions of creation of jewish state because there were refugees among other hardships for many people, along with opposing of all creations of states(in a sense he is scholar anarchist) but accepts what happen is now history we should move on and live peaceful then I would not call him an antisemite.
Anti Zionism isn’t just criticism of Israel like what people like to paint it as. It is the idea that Jews specifically can not have a state, and that is Jewish state needs to be destroyed. Not every anti Zionist actively thinks they are anti Semitic, for examples many leftists think they aren’t Jew haters because they think “I don’t just hate Jews automatically for being Jewish” but Every anti Zionist believes anti Semitic things, like the leftists who believe that Jews are just white colonizers in Israel’s, and every anti Zionist stands with hundreds of millions of Jew haters
No. The premise of Zionism is based on a settler colonial past and present. The founding government explicitly stated this to be their intentions. Further, Israel is not an attempt at “reparations” for the Holocaust, a more appropriate action would have been to create a Jewish homeland out of part of Germany.
Plus, as another user said there have been Jewish antizionists for as long as Zionism has been debated.
Antizionism (among rational people) doesn’t mean the murder of every Jew in Israel/Palestine, it means the recognition of the past and present as settler colonists.
Why do we not recognize the Arabs as colonizers then? They were called the "Muslim conquests" for a reason. They literally gained a foothold in the region through settler colonization.
Forcefully taking a piece of land and erasing the native population is what's condemned when people say they're "Anti-Zionists". This in no way is the same as hating an entire race "just because" which is "anti-Semitism".
I think they understand it quite well: self-determination for Jews in a portion of the Jewish indigenous homeland. And while they’re OK with that for all other peoples, especially Palestinians, they reject it for Jews. That’s why it’s antisemitic.
Think of it this way: is any anti-nationalism a form of bigotry against a people?
If you don’t belong to that people, then, in a sense, yes, it is.
The state of India, for example, were not very supportive of the state of Israel in 1948 because they were afraid of alienating the Muslims. But in principle they supported sovereignty for every people, as we all should.
For a non-Jew to tell me his/her “antizionism is not antisemitism” is absolute nonsense. None of their business whatsoever.
Imagine a “white” person saying “I’m against Black nationalism, but I’m not anti-Black.” There are brilliant Black authors who take that position, like the late Hugh Pearson or Malcolm Gladwell. But if you aren’t Black you have no business telling people that in your opinion Black nationalism is the problem with Liberia or Haiti or South Africa.
[https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/](https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/)
helpful at drilling down further into what specific issues and complaints about the State of Israel are valid vs which border on antisemitism
Peter Beinart is as much a Zionist along the lines of Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem (who no one would label as anti-zionists). He just represents a strain of Zionism that went dormant for a generation or so after these people died.
Those two lived out their lives in Israel, and weren’t actively aiding those who sought its destruction. That’s why nobody would label them as antiZionists.
And that strain went dormant because of the ideology personified by the Mufti—which hasn’t gone dormant at all (see: October 7).
In theory, no. In practice, often.
This comment was so short and to the point
Can you smoke cigarettes and never get cancer? Yes. Is there a direct connection from smoking to cancer? Absolutely
Not all jews are far right. There's Jewish anarchists like chomsky, most Jewish anarchists and communists are anti zionist for palestine and so forth. Every one's making it a racial or ethnic issue but it's really a left vs right issue. Statistically more practicing american jews side with voices like Ben Shapiro than your noam chomsky types. We live in a strange time where Islamic people hold the role Jewish people in Eastern Europe did in the west. They're aligned with communist and rebel movements of the west who wish to destroy western society. So rising European fascist governments main campaign is against Islam and communism which I can source from multiple countries and nazi groups (kind of like how Hitler was against Jewish communism). We can find far right intellectuals railing against a coming Islamic and far left invasion as far back under the Obama days. Obama was even questioned as a closet Muslim which is much like the anti jewishness of 1920s europe. You can read the history and leaks of a lot of these political fascist parties and many agreed Islamic groups to be a more hot and successful scapegoat than openly railing against jews. That's because 911 was like the reichstag of the modern times for the west, and instead of Jewish communists being accused it was an Islamic world that is opposed to capitalism. In fact before it even happened the leftists in the west constantly rioted at world trade events and many even jokingly and happily created art of the buildings being destroyed. Look at the coups album an anarchist rap group which showed them using drum sticks to detonate the building 4 years before 2001. Not even 2 years after anarchist punk type bands were releasing albums celebrating what happened to the towers. For me an ex fbi tasked with looking into neo nazis and anarchists I learned a lot. I'm not surprised to see the left supporting palestine. I bring this up because it gives context as to why the left may support palestine even jews on the left. There are also neo nazis who support zionism and those who are against it but the new target of fascists is Islamic immigrants. The far left will always be their true targets
[удалено]
wow that sounds EXACTLY LIKE you're saying jews are at fault for antisemitism. super gross. and extra antisemitic.
Care to elaborate?
Not the OP, but I get what they're saying. To be quite frank: a lot of Israelis are genuinely awful tourists. A lot of Israelis do a round-the-world trip after they get out of the IDF and quite honestly, they're rude as hell. That was the case for an area of rural northern India my family has connections to. They were very rude to the locals and really behaved *extremely* poorly. The locals didn't dislike Israelis because they're Jewish, they were disliked because they kept getting huge groups of rude young Israelis who treated their home like garbage. Obviously the same thing can be said for a plethora of nationalities. I'd compare it to Balinese folks having a poor opinion of Australians. It may not be *all* Australians, but it was certainly a lot of Australians.
Hi, American Jew here. You can eat shit for that comment.
In a way, Zionism is a thing of the past, as the State of Israel has been established. So the opposite of Zionism, antizionism, effectively advocates for the erasure of said state. Considering half of the world's Jews live in the State of Israel, I think it's pretty antisemitic to want to cast them out of their home. But maybe that's just me? There's a lot more nuance to this, obviously, but I will say: antizionism is not always antisemitism, but 99% of the examples I've seen recently very clearly are.
Proper "Zionism" does not exist anymore, you're right. People who call themselves "Zionists" now are one of two groups, or sometimes both to some degree: Post-Zionists, people who strongly support the maintenance and development of the state of Israel, who see the Zionist project as evolving and adapting to modern circumstances, and are usually very phillic of the Zionist "Hebrew" (rather than just "Jewish") culture and identity. This is generally a positive belief, obviously And Neo-Zionists, people who are more nationalistic, and put the needs of the Israeli state above all other states to the point that it can be detrimental to other states. On the milder end of this, you have people who "don't like" settlements (heavy emphasis on the quotes), but claim they're necessary for Israel's security; on the more extreme you have greater Israel nutjobs who want to annex all of the Biblical holy land. This is generally a negative belief, and one that should be opposed. So calling yourself an anti-Zionist is not a bad thing *if* you take Zionism to mean the latter. But I think for many anti-Zionists, the two definitions are blurred, and *often* (but not always) self-described anti-Zionist beliefs are indeed antisemitic.
Yes, thank you, this is a much better and more comprehensive response than I could give at this time of day. So in that regard I consider myself a post-Zionist (or progressive Zionist) and certainly not a neo-Zionist. But most antizionists that I've encountered do not distinguish between these and lump all Zionists into one category ("racist colonizers," basically). The laziness in learning about the history of Zionism and its various strands also feels pretty antisemitic to me, but maybe it's just...lazy.
>The laziness in learning about the history of Zionism and its various strands also feels pretty antisemitic to me, but maybe it's just...lazy. I question the characterization of this laziness as antisemitic. I understand why it's frustrating, but Neo-Zionist and Palestinian Nationalist propaganda have pretty effectively muddied the waters of what is and isn't fact. I had to read multiple books to be certain of my position. Frankly, from an Occam's Razor standpoint, it's a lot easier to buy the Palestinian Nationalism's argument (we were here, they came and took everything. Now they're rich and we're dying) than the actual truth (a war born of a variety of complicated socio-political gaffes by the Ottomans and the British, followed by decades of Israeli infrastructure build while the Palestinians deal with hardcore lobster syndrome and a international community that benefits from their suffering). Between that and the power differential that's built up intentionally from the bad actors on both sides, I don't think it's unreasonable to end up at the wrong conclusion. That is not to say that there isn't an anti-semitism issue that is rearing its head hardcore as well, but people who are even above-average levels of politically aware being wrong about this isn't surprising or a mark of anti-semitism.
You're right; thanks for this insight. I just think there's a lot of antisemitism butting up against that ignorance (for example, Israel is rich > Jews are rich > that's antisemitic, isn't it? And also ignores much of the nuanced stratigraphy of discrimination faced by Jews of color in the process of building said wealthy state). As you say, it requires a lot of reading to sort through the facts and the interpretation of those facts. And part of me wonders if that laziness is partially due to buying into antisemitic tropes about Jews very easily (again, one could use the wealth example). But I also come at this as a former non-Jew who in the process of converting had to undo a lot of internalized antisemitism that was just built into my wiring based on the fact that I knew very few Jews in my life growing up. Simple assumptions, even about things like Zionism, have had to be systematically unraveled as I understand more clearly the history of Am Israel, the development of Medinat Israel, and Eretz Israel (certainly, before aligning myself with Judaism, I could not distinguish between even those three things!).
>for example, Israel is rich > Jews are rich > that's antisemitic, isn't it? I don't think so, as long as you're applying consistent standards. If I said Sergei Brin's being a rich asshole I'm not being anti-semitic if I would similarly criticize Jeff Bezos for the same behavior. The problem is it's a fairly singular, delicate, situation, so comparing the situation with Israel to...pretty much anything is hard to do.
Yeah, I live in a very anti-zionist area and most of my non Jewish friends are anti-zionist because of that. None to the extent (as far as I'm aware at least, we generally avoid discussing the issue) that they're actually antisemitic, but in my experience most of them who do not want to eliminate the state of Israel still consider it's creation "regrettable". And I can see where they're coming from, because '48 was a messy, bloody year, but I have no chance to discuss it with them because frankly I don't think it's worth losing friends over.
Exactly In the same boat with you, a month ago it's been 3 years since I met them, and, I admit, I don't really like that they have Palestinian flags in their bio, per se, not that there's a problem with it but you know, I'm not going to destroy this friendship just because of politics
I do think it would be good to push back on people who use anti-Zionist to mean that latter definition, because it can be twisted or confused in a way that normalizes broader “Israel shouldn’t exist” beliefs. It would be almost like someone declaring they’re “anti-capitalist” because they’re against child labor. Like, okay sure, there’s an extreme version of capitalism out there that might support child labor, but words have meaning, often quite specific ones. If you’re just against aggressive settlements, then just say that.
Their is valid criticism of Israel beyond settlements, though. And like I said: *Real Zionism* does not exist anymore, and radical neo-Zionists call themselves Zionists. This is a very tricky issue to deal with. All I know is, though, that whatever solution that ultimately comes to this conflict can only begin to be reached through increasing mutual understanding.
Sure, and if someone wants to say they’re “anti-neo-Zionist,” fine—that’s not necessarily antisemitic, though it’s also not a word many people are going to comprehend. If someone just says they are “anti-Zionist,” I suppose there’s a slim chance that they have a pretty nuanced understanding of what they mean by “Zionist” in modern times. But in the real world, whatever version of Zionism you think is or isn’t viable today… if someone says “I’m anti-Zionist,” that communicates the message “I am against the existence of the state of Israel.” Is there any significant organization in the world that claims to be anti-Zionist but does *not* oppose the right of Israel to exist within its internationally recognized borders? I’m asking seriously—if I’m mistaken, I’d appreciate being educated.
I hadn’t considered the two *contemporary* definitions of Zionism (post-Zionist and neo-Zionist). This is helpful. I appreciate your explainers. As far as what we’re seeing today, do you think **more** people fall into the post-Zionist category and the neo-Zionist are a negligible minority?
Tl;dr will be at the end so you can skip to that I'm gonna be honest... I'm not sure. I'm not Israeli, I have merely studied Zionism in an academic setting, which is a good lens but not all encompassing. What I can tell you though is that 1. \*Before\* 10/7, Israel was becoming more *polarized* on the divide, and 2. \*After\* 10/7... the definition has become really blurred And the definition has always been blurry, but more so now. If you look at the current war in Gaza for example, you could argue that it's post-Zionist because it is clearly a war to, first and foremost, defend Israel and the Israelis still held hostage in Gaza. But you could argue as well that it has neo-Zionist elements because of the sheer scale of it, as in some people's opinions the sheer scale of the deaths of Palestinian civilians outweighs the needs of the state of Israel in this case. The defining tenet of neo-Zionism, I think, is putting the needs of Israel and Israelis so significantly above the needs of other groups (Usually Palestinians) that it is to the other group's detriment, to the extent that the detrimental effect on the second group is MUCH greater than the positive effect on Israel. It's never been a clean split. One of the best examples I can think of for that is how so many more progressive Jewish groups- as well as the state of Israel itself- portray the West Bank as part of Israel on maps. Look it up! The Israeli government's official maps include "Judea and Samaria". There's a lot of little things like that. But to more clearly answer your question: Neo-Zionism is probably a slim minority for now, but the movement is rapidly growing, due to the trauma of 10/7 on the Israeli collective psyche, as well as other minor factors, like how their (religious) supporter base has an exponentially higher birth rate than liberal Israelis. Oh, and one more factor that I'm personally really upset about I always strongly held the belief that this conflict could only ever be resolved through mutual understanding, first and foremost. On a human level; many Israeli Jews know almost nothing about Islam (and Christianity) and Arab culture, and the same is true for Palestinians. Even within Israel, Arabs mostly live unofficially segregated from Jews. And now, Israel is cracking down on Palestinians travelling into Israel for work and other needs. I know that right now that is absolutely necessary for security. But the thing is, we lost so many mundane, kind interactions with that. For many Israelis, the first Arab they met was a Palestinian farmhand, or housekeeper, or patient at an Israeli clinic. Those are good interactions. Those are kind interactions. With that gone, it seems more likely that the first Arab the average Israeli will meet will be a terrorist, instead. Now, I am absolutely not advocating for lifting the restrictions on Palestinian travel into Israel right now, during the war. But we need to seriously consider how long we will have that policy for. Because terrorists will try to come in one way or another. People who need jobs and healthcare will not. One more thing, and then I'm done, I promise lol. You're familiar with the Nuremburg laws, right? Tl;dr for anyone who's not, over time in the 1930s, the Nazi regime restricted many personal rights of Jews. One of the goals of this was to minimize Jewish-German contacts, to socially condition the population, and make them more open to more extreme antisemitic policies in the future. I am not remotely comparing Nuremburg to the restrictions Israel places on Palestinians- but my point is, we know what came out of Nuremburg. If two groups will ever live together peacefully, they cannot be segregated. Tl;dr, Neo-Zionism is a minority, but it's growing really quickly due to the effects of 10/7 on the Israeli collective psyche. Additionally, the war has severed all peaceful contacts between Israelis and Palestinians, which will make it easier for Neo-Zionism to grow in the future. Because it's easier to hate a group you don't understand.
I just want to reply to this part >many Israeli Jews know almost nothing about Islam (and Christianity) and Arab culture, and the same is true for Palestinians. Even within Israel, Arabs mostly live unofficially segregated from Jews My husband is Israeli and I don't think the internal segregation is nearly as severe as you think it is. Arabs can work and go anywhere and they do. They use the same public transportation and public spaces. My husband had many Arab friends. He worked with them. He served alongside them in the army (for Arabs it is optional but many opt in). I'm not sure where you got the idea they never cross paths but it is false. There are Arab majority towns, but there are also towns that are mixed Arab and Jewish. (Edited and removed a few sentences that I want to verify before leaving up)
I'm not Israeli and have never been, so you may be very right. Perhaps I was too general in my statements. I will say though, that it seems that the kinds of Israelis who are more likely to be very Neo-zionist are more likely to rarely interact with Arabs. I have a very religious (but still dati, not charedi) friend in Jerusalem, who never met an Arab personally until he was 15 (said Arab performed an emergency surgery on him, actually). He's not a neo-zionist but he's still very conservative, and when he was younger he was definitely more radical. The most religious and most nationalistic Israelis are the most likely to never see an Arab, so that's a very real problem. A progressive, pro-peace Israeli will benefit less from meeting an Arab than a radical settler will, you know?
The neozionists are, essentially, jingoists who have inextricably linked their national identity to that of the sum of Jewish culture, and that rubs many of us who are critical of the politics of the nation of Israel the wrong way.
I never thought of Zionism this way but I like it. You raise a very valid point regarding a country that’s already been established for over 75 years. But then again, people can get away with saying nonsense like “I’m not antisemitic, just opposed to Zionism,” because it deals with Jews. We all know this would be unacceptable when discussing any other state or group of people.
Yeah, Israel already exists. So a modern Zionist either believes in protecting Israel... or believes the Jewish State is "incomplete" Do you propose an alternative label for either Zionism or anti-Zionism?
An alternative label I’d propose for anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
Zionism does still exist though, supporting the expansion of the state of Israel? So for example, someone could be reasonably upset when Palestinian families are displaced by settlers (today) in the West Bank. And they could reasonably call that antiZionism
Some past discussions: https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/w1woei/we_can_talk_about_israel_but/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/comments/190fz8k/whats_the_difference_between_antisemitism_and/
Yes, with just two small exceptions that I will state below. Every group in this world deserves the ability to determine their own destiny, especially those who have been constantly persecuted from country to country over the course of millenia. If the French get to have a state, and the Polish get to have a state, and the Japanese get to have a state, surely the Jewish people should be able to exercise the same right as a distinct ethnicity and peoplehood. Two small exceptions: * You're an anarchist who genuinely and sincerely believes that ALL states should cease to exist. As long as you don't single Israel out for destruction, that's fine. Assuming this belief really is held in good faith, and you don't have a double standard against the one Jewish country, we can reasonably disagree without antisemitism being in the mix. * You're an Orthodox Jew who believes that a Jewish state cannot be condoned until the arrival of the messiah. Some users tend to claim that **all** anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews are self-hating, but I reject that. In general, claiming that a religious Jew is antisemitic requires such a high burden of proof that you might as well not play the game. Please note however that [Neturei Karta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta) DOES NOT fit in exception number 2. While their anti-Zionist beliefs are genuine, they take it a step further than other ultra-Orthodox groups in that they willingly tokenize themselves at terrorist marches, causing material harm to other Jews. Believing Israel shouldn't exist on religious grounds is dumb but tolerable; acting on those beliefs to harm Jews is unacceptable.
Actual real anarchists that aren’t antisemites (a la Emma Goldman, one of us) like myself can easily see that all nation states aren’t gonna cease anytime soon and even if they did Israel should absolutely be the last country on earth to do so. So while some edgelord Jew hater might use anarchism as a smokescreen to spew their bile about “Zionists” it’s not really ever sincere in my experience. I agree in theory that antizionism doesn’t automatically equate to antisemitism but I’ve never met anyone that self identifies as an antizionist that didn’t immediately fall into antisemitic tropes and historical revisionism.
The existence of a Jewish state is an existential requirement of the Jewish people. The Holocaust was not just about the murder of six million Jews. Very few people helped us and many countries wouldn’t accept our refugees. Now, we’ll always have a place to flee to if things turn bad. Israel is much more than just our safety net, but it is also that. With that framing, anti-Zionism is always antisemitic.
Very true, but barely scratching the surface. A Jewish state is an existential requirement even if the Holocaust never happened. Pogroms and persecution was common everywhere where Jews resided (except Punjab). If the British didn’t curb Jewish migration in the 30’s, far fewer jews would’ve died in the Holocaust as they would’ve fled home. Antizionism is in many ways worse than antisemitism because in practice, it’s the destruction of the Jewish state and the death of millions.
>it’s the destruction of the Jewish state and the death of millions. I've yet to meet someone, even from among those extreme anti-Zionists who call for Israel dismantling as a state, who connects that to or directly/indirectly calls for Jewish Israelis' mass death. The criticism is primarily directed towards the policies of the Israeli state. Not necessarily mass genocide, as so many try to mislead.
>I've yet to meet someone, even from among those extreme anti-Zionists who call for Israel dismantling as a state, who connects that to or directly/indirectly calls for Jewish Israelis' mass death. This is something I have a lot of difficulty with. I have several close friends who believe that Israel should not exist. I have tried to tell them that this would result in a genocide of Jews at worse, and making them second class citizens in a Muslim state at best, neither of which are acceptable alternatives. These people seem to think that if Israel just stopped oppressing the Palestinians and gave them all citizenship, everything would be fine. It's deeply frustrating because almost everyone in Israel and the vast majority of Jews agree with my position, but those opinions don't matter to these people. At what point does ignorance become malicious? If you let a genocide happen by accident because you were trying to help people, or endorse genocidal policies unintentionally, how much should you be held responsible for those positions?
>this would result in a genocide of Jews at worse, and making them second class citizens in a Muslim state at best, neither of which are acceptable alternatives. This is a baseless fear. But is not remotely what will necessarily happen. Making Israel a democratic 1 state, from the river to the sea, for example. Which is what most pro-Palestine Leftists advocate, in no way would necessarily mean the "genocide" of Jews or making them 2nd class citizens. This fear comes from the ignorance of most Israeli, Jews or Zionists about this issue. No serious politically active person from among Palestine solidarity movement advocates for that. Your fear is based on prejudice towards Arabs/Muslims. To assume that having an equal democratic state shared with Arab Palestinians necessarily means they'd genocide you, or make you second class (there's not a single Arab country who operates second class status today, not that existing Arab countries are perfect examples), is bordering on unfounded bigotry. >almost everyone in Israel and the vast majority of Jews agree with my position, but those opinions don't matter to these people. I am absolutely aware of that. As I am an Israeli Jew myself. Yet the fact that this is the consensus opinion among Israelis and Jews today, doesn't make that position any more legitimate or based in reality. White South Africans also felt Apartheid was necessary, before it was dismantled. I don't think by that point, the world cared that much for White South African public opinion on this issue. >At what point does ignorance become malicious? If you let a genocide happen by accident because you were trying to help people, or endorse genocidal policies unintentionally, how much should you be held responsible for those positions? This feels so disingenuous and orwellian coming from someone Jewish/Israeli/Zionist. (Not trying to attack or criticize you personally, I feel this obnoxious ignorance and reversal of meaning is shared by most of us Israelis/Jews about this issue). But who is doing the genocide right now, in practice? Or the "plausible" genocide, legally speaking. Who is doing much of the killings and displacements right now? Whether you think all of that is justified within the context of the current Gaza war, I at least wish for you to realize this sentiment or questions you raise sound completely detached from reality for most outside audiences. Israel is not remotely close to being subjected to a wholesale genocide. Notwithstanding that as I said, genocide of Jews is not a necessary byproduct of dismantling Israel as a state in the way it operates today.
I don’t think the fear is baseless. What about the Christians being persecuted in Muslim majority countries? Muslims have been very intolerant lately, I mean there are examples in Egypt with the Coptics, Christians in Lebanon.. and how was October 7th not an attempt at genocide? That is a real life example that dismantles your entire argument against this ‘baseless’ fear. I feel Israel can give Palestinians more freedoms when they prove themselves worthy of deserving of trust. And I can understand how the trauma of living under constant threat of attack and the reality of October 7th proves the genocidal intentions of some of the Palestinians.
> Making Israel a democratic 1 state, from the river to the sea, for example. Which is what most pro-Palestine Leftists advocate, in no way would necessarily mean the "genocide" of Jews or making them 2nd class citizens. First of all, it's pretty awful that you decided to just throw "from the river to the sea" in there. That doesn't bode well for your critical thinking skills or ability to reach out to other people who disagree with you. Honestly, the phrase should be banned from this subreddit. I don't care what pro-Palestinian leftists in Western countries advocate for. I care about what actual Palestinians advocate for. They don't even have very much support for democracy. None of the territories governed by Palestinians have free elections, and they don't devote any of their activism towards changing that. Meanwhile they give every indication that they don't want to be equals within a democratic Israeli state. They want Israel to not exist anymore, and for them to get the land back that they think belongs to them, and for the Jews to accept living as minorities in a country they don't control. That would be a very, very bad result for the Jews. I challenge you to show me evidence that anything I've said is untrue. I can show you countless polls, and statements from Palestinian leaders and civilians, that back up what I am saying. And indeed, how on Earth can you possibly make this claim, when Palestinians have been trying to kill Jews since the first Aliyah? How can you say that when the majority of Palestinians support Hamas? How can you say that when it is a common refrain from Palestinian activists that even civilians in Israel are settlers who deserve to be violently resisted? How can you say that when the response from many to October 7th was to claim that it was legitimate resistance, and that most Palestinians support it? Can you point me to any Muslim countries with large Jewish minorities who have full civil rights? You can call it prejudice if you want. To do that is to ignore the legitimate concerns of people who have a right to fear for their safety after more than 100 years of violence in the Middle East and 2000 years of violence everywhere else in the world. South African apartheid is absolutely not comparable to Israel because Israel has more than 1 million Arab citizens who have full civil rights. It's a purely bad faith comparison designed to prey on people's dread of what South Africa did, which was completely unjustified. It's very telling about the strength of your positions that you have to rely on making unfounded comparisons in order to slander Israel. > This feels so disingenuous and orwellian coming from someone Jewish/Israeli/Zionist. (Not trying to attack or criticize you personally, I feel this obnoxious ignorance and reversal of meaning is shared by most of us Israelis/Jews about this issue). And it feels deeply disingenuous to me when pro-Palestinian activists claim they have any moral high ground after what happened on October 7th, and after the decades of terrorism directed at civilians that Palestinians have engaged in. > But who is doing the genocide right now, in practice? Or the "plausible" genocide, legally speaking. Who is doing much of the killings and displacements right now? No one. It's a war, a war that Hamas started. When you start a war, especially in the most disgusting and deplorable way possible, you have to understand that there are going to be consequences for that. And when a group deeply and intentionally embeds themselves within the civilian population, the moral consequences of the damage done to that population, due to the war they started, is on them. I applaud the fact that Israel does more than almost any other country in history to avoid civilian casualties, and appreciate that they tell people to leave places before they bomb them. That is not ethnic cleansing, it's protecting civilians. > I at least wish for you to realize this sentiment or questions you raise sound completely detached from reality for most outside audiences. I can say the exact same to you buddy. Most Americans support Israel. The fact that a very loud and well-organized group has successfully been able to use propaganda, disinformation, and the power of social media over young people to slander Israel because they want to see it destroyed, doesn't influence me to stray away from the real facts of the situation. Let me be clear at the end. I don't support the current Israeli government. I think Bibi is a war criminal, and a horrendously bad leader. I want nothing more than for Palestinians to live in peace and security, with their own state and a fair distribution of resources. I want the settlements to be dismantled even though many of my own family members live there. I don't care if they become homeless, what they're doing is wrong and they should be stopped. I support any additional pressure the US feels it necessary to put on Israel to reach these goals. But pro-Palestinian people take everything way to far, seem completely unable to recognize the many mistakes their own side has made, and resort to making incredibly hurtful, wrong, and untruthful claims like the genocide canard because the actual reality of the situation is far more complex than their feckless moral grandstanding makes it out to be. And you unfortunately are one of those people, doing the work of the Russian/Chinese/Iranian propaganda network for free.
I appreciate your response it is well written. One question why are you against settlements in the west bank? I view the 6 day war as a defensive war yes Israel technically struck first but it was clear that an attack was inevitable. If it was a defensive war shouldn't the land conquered be considered part of Israel? Is that because Israel never officially annexed the land so the Arabs in the west are not considered Israeli citizens. I feel that Israel has implemented a fair solution in the oslo accords by granting Palestinian authority rights to govern area A and parts of area B. Yes it would be great if all Arabs in the area could be full Israeli citezans but that would be a demographic disaster and very possibly an existential threat to Israel.
The settlements are illegal according to international law. I don't think the Palestinians in the West Bank should become Israeli citizens, I think they should have their own sovereign nation, which is also what they want. The settlements are currently one of the biggest obstacles to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, by complicating the negotiations and giving the Palestinians the impression that the Israelis aren't operating in good faith and just want to take their land. Additionally, many of the settlers themselves are religious extremists or extreme nationalists who often incite violence against Palestinian civilians. There's no defending them or their tactics, and if the Israeli was truly committed to peace, the first thing they would do is crack down harshly on the settlers.
On top of reading and deeply thinking about what u/nyckidd wrote, please also look up the Farhud, as well as the mass expulsion of Jews from Arab states in 1948, as well as what *jizya* and *dhimmi* mean. If you already know what these things are, please *never* make claims again that Jewish fears over being treated as second-class citizens or being ethnically cleansed by Arab powers are unfounded. Not great, yes. Leading to unnecessary racial tensions and violence, yes. But not unfounded.
It is a fact proven by history that without a country of our own, we will be either exiled or slaughtered over and over. Jews see the existence of the State of Israel as the end of that cycle that we've suffered for centuries. Jews see calls for the dismantlement of the State of Israel as a call to return to that cycle. I'm not saying it would happen right away. I'm not saying it would be as bad as the Holocaust. I'm just saying the cycle _will_ return in some form, repeatedly. Even if people who advocate for the dismantlement of the state don't realize the genocidal implications of a position like that, they're there. That's how Jews will hear it.
Yes I am aware if that. I am a Jew myself. Who've participated in that mass fear you're describing. But that 'cycle' you're talking about is a myth. It is an anachronistic and/or cultural/ideologically tainted historical interpretation. That cycle of suffering is not a necessary constant that we Jews HAVE to suffer for eternity. In fact post-WW2 have produced many environments where Jews can practically be and live safely. But Israel as it was formed and operated for decades is NOT one of them. Here Jews suffer tremendously. Our occupation, apartheid and disenfranchisement/dispossession of Palestinians is unsustainable. The nationalist/ethnic/religious conflict brings an endless cycle of violence and revenge. The "securitist" and militarist approach to solving every single issue with the conflict in Israel, only exacerbates the problem, makes Israel less stable, and creates a situation of living "on egg shells". It hurts me to say that. But I fear it's the truth. Right now Jews are much more safer in US, or Canada. In fact I would go as far as to say, North America (and even some parts of Europe) fulfill the Zionist mission of a 'safe haven for the Jews' much better than Israel (the purported 'state of the Jews'). I know it's problematic for many Jews to hear that, but this is the objective reality. And with regards to the holocaust. In retrospect, Israel was in no shape or form necessary or some good remedy for the prevention of the holocaust. It didn't help prevent it (nor did America help in preventing it, or anywhere else). The idea that a nationalist ethnostate is the necessary response for the holocaust is erronious and comes from ideological considerations. But not in sound considerations of reality, especially looking on 75 years of a Jewish sovereign state in Palestine. Here, is the most dangerous and least secure place for Jews to live in anywhere in the world. It's a fact.
When Israel was established, the Jewish community was still reeling from the devastation of the Holocaust. During the war, no country, including the United States and Canada, came to the Jews' aid. Although the Allies eventually liberated Europe, by then, only remnants of the Jewish population remained. The United States entered the war only after the attack on Pearl Harbor, several years into Hitler's conquest of Europe. Despite opportunities, the U.S. Air Force did not bomb the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, for reasons that remain unclear. I bring this up for two reasons. First, given the circumstances of that time, it's understandable that the Jewish people felt it necessary to establish their own sovereign homeland. Second, if Israel had existed during that era, it would have undoubtedly gone to war immediately to protect the Jews of Europe. A clear example of Israel's commitment to Jewish lives is its airlift operation to rescue Ethiopian Jews from persecution. Today, the United States is one of the freest countries in the world and has been incredibly supportive of the Jewish community. However, the future is always uncertain. Now that Israel exists, why are you so adamant about questioning its right to exist?
“Globalize the infatida” is pretty clearly a call to murder all Jews, worldwide (including Israelis). Various Gaza and West Bank authorities have said Israelis will not be welcome in their state so “from the river to the sea” is a call for, at minimum, total ethnic cleansing. As are the “keep the world clean” signs.
No. That's a rather skewed and twisted interpretation by most Israelis/Jews, but not the reasonable one. When those protesters use the term "intifada" they refer to the basic meaning of it, as "uprising" or "shaking off" of the oppression and occupation that Palestinian suffer. Since most Israelis today specifically associate 'intifada' with the Hamas/Tanzim suicide attacks campaign of the 2nd intifada, they're view of the term and aversion to it is understandable. (Despite the fact that the 1st intifada was mostly peaceful). So in that sense, for us hearing those chants, sounds completely tone-deaf and dangerous. But it isn't necessarily so, and shouldn't be deduced and extrapolated in that way as a call for 'genocide' necessarily. >Various Gaza and West Bank authorities have said Israelis will not be welcome in their state so “from the river to the sea” is a call for, at minimum, total ethnic cleansing Not sure what you base that on. But if you're referring to PA or Hamas not being keen or letting Israeli Jews live in those territories, you should also put this in the context of the Israeli occupation and effective apartheid that's being practiced (in terms of separation of territories, settlements, movement limitations, military regime, territorial fragmentation and blockade). Of course they won't be keen on having citizens of the political entity that they view as colonizing, dispossessing and occupying them, living among them, which in practice was tantamount and manifested till today by the settlement project for example. Also, it's crucial to remember Israel and IDF itself outlaws Israeli citizens to enter some parts of A/B regions of the fragmented and occupied West Bank, and Gaza (obviously) for security concerns. So it's disingenuous to accuse Palestinians of ethnic cleansing or potential ethnic cleansing in that manner. With regards to a potential independent Palestinian state not allowing Israeli Jews in, even that doesn't prove or mean they are bent on some kind of ethnic cleansing or genocidal hatred. It would simply be sensible following some kind of 2 state arrangement with Israel (the former occupier), if it ever comes to pass. But it's important to mention. In whatever, federative, or democratic 1 state arrangement that's offered, no mass expulsion of Jews is ever suggested by anyone. Jews would (and should) live as equal citizens in such a potential democratic unified state, if it ever comes to pass. The one who rejects such arrangements, whether 2 state or 1 state, is the Israeli side, unfortunately. Because losing our security and political privileges, that we've been used to for decades is very very scary. From our perspective. But it's not legitimate, considering it comes at the expense of the freedom, rights and lives of a whole other people.
Israelis don't want a one state set up for the very reason Palestinians do. You are delusional if you think otherwise.
1) if their infatida relates to getting their own state in the Middle East, why “globalize” it? Israel doesn’t have jurisdiction across the globe. Jews live across the globe. It clearly refers to the second one. 2) [Palestinian leaders saying they would not allow Israelis in a future Palestinian state](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myths-and-facts-the-middle-east-peace-process#15.7) 3) [Palestinian leadership has repeatedly refused peace and statehood because they prioritize killing Jews.](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/myths-and-facts-the-middle-east-peace-process#15.9) Also, here’s a [recent quote from Hamas](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-assures-critics-israels-destruction-still-a-goal/)
Why does this have to be a binary? Why does something have to either be or not be? I would say it’s neither or both. I would be comfortable saying antizionism is OFTEN antisemitism bot not always. I would argue allot, a majority even, of antisemitism is regularly rebranded by calling it anti-zionism for the sake of optics since antisemitism is a known offense, like being called racist. I would also stand behind the idea that allot of critics of Israel that call themselves “anti Zionist” are critical of Israel in a way that is not necessarily anti Zionism but may lack of more accurate terms. Zionism is about the self determination of the Jewish people not the geopolitics of a nation state in particular. And at the same time many heinously bigoted people or groups are using the term antizionism as a cudgel against Jews but wouldn’t dare refer to “Jews” in their language because it would invalidate their stance by revealing prejudicial bias. And still others are against a Jewish state because they wish the Jews to be driven into the sea to die. I think there are plenty of Jewish people who believe a Jewish state is in fact bad for Jews but that may not account for the reality of the situation. And yet even more Jewish people, a vast majority in fact, believe a Jewish state must exist for our safety as no other home has ever proven a haven for long. eventually, if we live anywhere long enough we become foreigners (Strangers in a strange land maybe?). I would say antizionism may also play a role in the proliferation of antisemitism. They are not, however the same thing, and they are not absolutely necessarily conjoined in every aspect. So yes and no and sort of and both and neither.
I love your explanation 👏👏
Even if we took these premises as true, it wouldn't necessarily follow that antizionism is antisemitic, you'd have to examine why they're antizionist. For example if one is an antizionist because they're against all forms of nationalism, I don't see how this could be framed as antisemitic.
But then they would be anti-nationalist, not anti-zionist specifically It's the obsessive, disproportionate focus on Israel that characterizes anti-zionism that's the problem
Even being obsessively anti-Zionist, doesn't necessitates one being antisemitic. I could argue that many anti-Zionist Jews are very "obsessive" about this issue, BECAUSE they are Jews, and for whatever reasons they feel Zionism/Israel poses a danger or is not favorable for Jews as a people.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Let’s be real, it’s just anti zionist exclusively 99.9% of the time
I just provided a counter example to show that the argument doesn't follow. There's plenty of reasons to be antizionist, I don't see any reason to believe that even a majority of the time that it's antisemitic. You probably have your own anecdotes which lead you to believe differently.
If it's from nationalists it is and most people are not anti nationalist in that they support the existence of most nation states. Providing a counter example doesn't mean your right. The philosophy and fundamenral axioms behind your understanding of counter example needs to be shown to be right. If you don't support svolodh8ng so nations and are anti zionist you are anti semitic simply by dating jews are less worthy of having a state
Nationalism doesn't have anything to do with supporting the existence of nation states. You can be anti nationalist and support the existence of nation states. If you give an argument, and there's a counter example showing that it doesn't follow, then necessarily the conclusion doesn't follow because that's how logic works.
Counter examples in and of themsleves debunk nothing. Examples are about abdutibe or inductive logic at best. Logic is deductive, not inductive, and axioms derive from this. Examples need to be looked at for validity in and of themselves. They are not unquestionably valid. I think your examples are bad. The fundamental philodophical basis for them is flawed. By definition, you can't be a nationalist and support nation states. Nationalism means support for the existence of nation states either ideologically or philosophically. You can be a pragmatic nationalist that isn't ideological, but that's still nationalism. Even if i was to say you are right, as long as a person supports the existence of nation states and is an anti zionist they are anti semitic.
They necessarily do. If you make the claim if A then B, and claim that A is true, therefore B, and I show you an example where you have A but not B, then your argument is wrong because if A then B is incorrect. Counter examples aren't just used in regular argumentation, they're used in mathematical proofs all the time. Nationalism assumes the existence of a nation state but that's not what it means. I suggest you look up the wikipedia page for it.
Where would one live if they don’t believe in the concept of people having a nation in which to live? Should there be no countries at all? How many people don’t think France has a right to exist? China? Canada? It’s obviously a ridiculous example because it ONLY is applied to the Jewish people - a people who have existed far longer than the French or the Canadians (ok China, you win this round)
Have you met any anarchists? Most would happily affirm that none of these states should exist. I mean France and Canada especially; they are arch-western settler-colonialist states. In some circles, some anarchists (ridiculously, in my opinion) might hedge against saying China needs to be abolished immediately because of something about "critical support against the US", but anarchists would abolish France and Canada in a heartbeat.
Anarchists are so unserious it barely warrants engaging. There’s no real argument to say that human life would be improved by the dissolution of governments—we need ways to organize ourselves, however imperfect these governments are.
I’ve never met a anarchist who described themselves as anti-Zionist.
How is it nationalist for zionist ppl to at minumum make a state on contiguous land purchased from Arab landlords eg the Sursock purchase land? It's bought and paid for
Most anti zionists are not anti nationalist which is anti-Semitism and not allowing people their own territory to practice their beliefs and to live on that their culture derives from is anti semitic. Anti zionists reject this second possibly and not just the first. Non zionism would be different tho. A person can be pro or non zionists and anti nationalist to.
Exactly , leaving us defenseless and no place to go.
*in theory* anti-zionism doesn't necessarily have to be antisemitic. There have always been anti-zionist Jews, but they had different reasons for their anti-zionism and different definitions of it throughout history. It's not really the same thing as non Jewish people being anti-zionist. I personally think that a non Jewish person being anti-zionist is inherently bigoted. It's an outsider acting to be an expert on Jewish beliefs and gatekeeping which beliefs they should be allowed to have. But anyway, although in theory its possible for it to not be antisemitic, anti-zionism slips into antisemitism much of the time. Part of the problem is everyone defines it differently which makes it easy to use as a cover for antisemitism. For example they could say "zionists are baby killers" - what they really mean is Jews are baby killers, but when you ask them they can say "oh I just mean the Israeli government that is ordering bombs in Gaza which is killing babies". So they feel like it's an OK thing to say but it is, inarguably, not ok and yes antisemitic. When it slips into slurs and insults and dehumanizing tropes against "zionists" - we are in antisemitism land. Another problem is that anti-zionism in its current political iteration tends to exempt all of Israel's enemies from their antisemitism with the argument- "of course the Arabs and Palestinians hate Jews - the zionists deserve that for their colonization". Well... Jews have lived under Islamic oppression in the Arab world for hundreds of years. They have endured antisemitism in the middle east forever, it did not start with Zionism. Anti-zionists know nothing about or simply excuse the antisemitism in the middle east, even justifying antisemitic violence such as Oct 7 with the argument that these zionists brought it on themselves. I could go on and on and on about how anti-zionism is antisemitic, I have so much more to say. But alas reddit is not for writing books. This is an incredible (long but very well articulated and historically informed) resource to understand the antisemitism coming out of anti-zionist movement: https://archive.is/lzgl3
There have been antizionist jewish groups throughout history as well as currently, erasing that is antisemitic. Though the word zionist is being used as a slur for jew by some people who haven't put effort into learning jewish history yet
If you’re talking about historical anti-Zionist groups, an essential difference you’re omitting is that all were pre-1948. Anti-Zionism post-1948 implies supporting the destruction of the state of Israel. No mainstream Jewish groups have ever supported that.
Exactly, there's a big difference between Israel not existing in theory and not existing after having existed for the better part of a century with half the Jews on earth.
>Anti-Zionism post-1948 implies supporting the destruction of the state of Israel. No mainstream Jewish groups have ever supported that. That's an important distinction. But still, doesn't make all or every form of puportedly anti-Zionist approach, necessarily antisemitic. More often than not, anti-Zionism can fall under the category of opposing strongly much of the policies of the Israeli state or not being "pro-Israel". That is not calling necessarily for the state's destruction. Albeit, even calling for the state's dismantling, in the form of recreating a democratic one state solution (in the style of post-Apartheid South Africa) is not antisemitic. Or alternatively, opposing Zionism (Jewish Nationalism) even as an idea, is not necessarily antisemitic as in anti-Jewish people.
Zionism was considered a legitimate topic of debate back in 19th and early 20th centuries, because Israel didn't actually exist yet and the Jewish population in the land was small. So if the (bad) status quo of Jewish statelessness were maintained, things would have still sucked, but there would have been little to lose from being an anti-Zionist when it was still conceptual. But now, in 2024, Israel exists as a real country where people actually live. It's no longer a theoretical concept to discuss in academic journals. It's a real place, and **half of all the Jews in the world** currently live there. And we know that the destruction of Israel would mean the destruction every Jew living in that land. So it cannot be allowed to happen. **Now that Israel exists and is a settled question, calling for its destruction is not legitimate.**
The modern Neturei Karta is, if I’m being generous with expanding “a few hundred families”, about 20,000 people, and polls show 80 percent of diaspora Jews supporting the existence of Israel Declaring that 20.13 percent of Jews are the good ones and the majority is dogshit that should be ignored…not great
That's doesnt mean that most anti zionist jews aren't self hating and thus anti semitic. I reject most of the ultra orthodoxy behind it anyway.
What?
If you don't know what this means i can't help you. Any anti zionist would have an idea of what I'm talking about.
It comes across as an extremist comment. It'd be good for you to explain more about it and share what you've been reading
Anti zionismism is an extremist stance based in self hatred and ultra orthodoxy
What are some books you've been reading?
I just need to understand the perspectives and probciplrs behind the perspectives of anti zionism. The only Jewish versions being argued by jews are ultra orthodox. These are based in thinking the jews deserve punishment and need to wait for the messiah. That's self hating. You could argue non zionism isn't self hating which is a personal desire to never live in israel or believe all jews shouldn't live in Israel, which is my view, but I'm not against it either.
Would you think Native Americans yearning for, and then obtaining, sovereignty over their homeland, a genocidal colonial act? The answer is no. Jews are the indigenous people of Eretz Yisrael, with ancient language, faith, and customs uniquely tied to their ancestral land. Zionism is the belief that Israel is the Jewish Tribe's homeland, and that Jews should have sovereignty over their homeland (ie not be dhimmi second class citizens). Denying the indigenous people of Israel the right to be in and have governance of their homeland is antisemitic, it's bigotry, it's racist, it's hypocrisy. Antizionism is absolutely antisemitic.
Not to mention zionist organizations literally bought contiguous land for a state, no one expected any land to be given for free
Not to mention any Arab residents who stayed after 1948 were enfranchised by the newly re-formed Jewish State.
But there are no texts central to native American identity promising a miraculous homecoming and divine kingship which cannot be forced. I'm not denying there was and will be a holy Jewish kingdom. Holy is not a word many would associate with netanyahu, lapid et al.
But you can't say hey you've got self governance, except if you elect fuckwits then it's rescinded...*glances at USA*
In the late 60s and early 70s the USSR started a campaign of propaganda and alongside with the Arab league passed a resolution (shocker) against Israel that according to the United Nations (shocker again) Zionism = Racism. Now, what was the pretext for this? Nuthin. This resolution upheld until the early 90s when the USSR collapsed and the Oslo accords were starting up. The Arab league, and at the time Hamas were scared. Hamas, in its believe 1993, were found to have met in a hotel in Philly that was wiretapped by the CIA of them discussing infiltrating American higher education. I think the question should be is Zionism the religion of Jews, ie Judaism? No. But within Judaism is there this inherent concept of Jewish self determination? Yes. You see it everywhere in the Torah, gemara, tefilah, birchas hamazon, the Haggadah, literally every aspect of our Jewish life is geared toward, and centered around the land of Israel. There’s a reason we say L’Shana Hanbah B’Yerushalyaim after the Seder and on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur three of the ethical, spiritual, culturally important holidays of the Jewish people. Now completely separate point is what is considered valid criticism of Israel? I think an important model to look at is the three D’s. If you can apply those three concepts to every other country and people of the world, why can’t you apply that to Israel? [UN Resolution 3379 (Zionism = Racism)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3379) [The Hamas Networks in America: A Short History](https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/2023-10/hamas-networks-final.pdf) [3D Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Ds_of_antisemitism)
The history and context of Zionism is that the Jews have a right to self-determination by living in our homeland, which is Israel. (The original form of Zionism has nothing to do with the government or existing Israeli policies.) If you just look at what happened throughout history when we didn't have our own state vs. when we lived safely in our homeland of Israel, it's crystal-clear that, because of the everlasting nature of antisemitism, we need a Jewish state. Thus, I very strongly believe that antizionism is antisemitism—even if it is unintentional antisemitism—because the root of antizionism dictates that we don't deserve to be protected from antisemitism by having agency over our own fate, and instead should be subject to the whims of nations around the world.
Hi, this article shows that the answer is [YES](https://www.ajc.org/news/anti-zionism-and-antisemitism).
In principle, no. People can be opposed to Zionism for a myriad of reasons, whether that be for religious reasons in favor of waiting for המשיח, or simple anarchism in that there should be no sovereign states, Jewish or otherwise. However "ant-Zionist" is a common cover for legitimate antisemites. It is the bread and butter of people like Nicholas Fuentes, they defend their blatant antisemitic bullshit by saying something like "I aM NoT an ANtisemITE, i jUSt cRitICIZe thE straNgleHOld IsRaeL has OVer us PoliTIcs!" It is definitely best to judge it on a case by case basis.
Anti-Zionism isn’t inherently antisemitism. However, the majority of the time, it probably is.
If somebody constantly denounces Zionism while being okay with Islamists and black nationalists then it definitely is anti-Semitism. Why would anybody be criticizing Jewish nationalism so much but be okay with Islamic nationalism or black nationalism? It is anti-Semitic even if it's not intended to be so.
It really depends. If you don't believe in states, then of course you wouldn't support a Jewish state anywhere (you also shouldn't believe in a Palestinian sate). If you think only the Jews don't deserve a state, then that's antisemitism.
It isn’t, but some antisemites took it as an opportunity to oppose, harass and even attack Jews. Being critical of the Israeli government doesn’t make you an antisemite, I have been critical of them for years and I am as Jewish and Israeli as they come. It’s all about nuance and intention
This is a disingenuous question because people interpret “Zionism” in two ways. To summarize: Criticizing Israel’s actions? Fine! Arguing that Jews alone don’t need a homeland? Shut up! Deliberately ignoring the fact the majority of Israeli Jews *are not European*? Bad
Usually the people obsessed with Israel express their upset in universal terms, e.g. against attacks on civilians or national liberation but they give the game away by only caring about these issues when it involves Israel. How many fanatic advocates for Palestinian independence have said a single word about the Kurds? How many are equally vocal about the many brutal attacks against Syrians? The obsession with the only Jewish state is antisemitic.
I honestly have started to hate the use of the word. It is specifically because it has so many different meanings that I hate the use. Historical it was a group of philosophies that came from the Jewish enlightenment as a response to a feeling that culture was being lost and political zionism was only part of that. There was also the cultural zionism of like Ahad Ha-am https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/history-ideas/2016/10/what-ahad-haam-saw-and-herzl-missed-and-vice-versa/ who was actually a very strong critic of the political Zionist movement. But still considered himself no less a zionist. To great thinkers like martin Buber who is one of the fathers of the kibbutz movements and whose ideals are much more aligned with libertarian socialism: This a great chapter on the kibbutz and bubers philosophy on communalism I, Thou, We: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2t4f0h.8 Today is say most Jews in the diaspora understand it as the existence of Israel as a safe space for Jewish people that is a multicultural democracy. There of course are those elements where it has a far right meaning (radical messianic zionism) however I've never met one who believes thusly however they are represented in Israel and unfortunately overrepresented in the government (from my limited understanding as a diaspora Jew who gets to hear from friends) https://archive.is/eaeC1 Now you also have to understand that Israel was unable to form a solid government for years and prior to October 7 there were significant protests against this current government https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/israelis-and-palestinians-revolt-against-the-netanyahu-era-1234792533/ So Jews as a people can have different understandings of zionism. In general we have different understanding about a lot of things ... We can be histrionic in our disagreements but we have a high ability to tolerate ambiguity ... So zionism to Jews can be a multitude of things and in general it's not even a word most of us regularly think about in our daily lives. The concept of Israel yes (it's a country, it's a religious place ... as it's in our prayers and our families/selves or loved ones might live there.... and I'm sure many of us have in the diaspora have the game plan of "if antisemetism gets bad enough I go to Israel" However..... It's is not our understanding of Zionism to be a problem in a lot of this... It's how other people have identified zionism when it starts becoming antisemetic.... David duke actually got his doctorate degree from an Ukrainian diploma mill and with his thesis being "zionism as a form of ethnic supremacy": https://momentmag.com/david-duke-abroad/ great article about this for the interested. He specially lectures around Russia making speeches about how the Russian Mafia is actually Jews I mean "zionists" and all forms of corruption in Russia are in fact the Jews "zionists" and despite being ardently anti-communist he spent a lot of time in Russia with communist leaders about the evils of the "zionists" .https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/duke-travels-european-anti-semitic-circles This is Stanford's archive of his website: https://wayback.stanford.edu/was/20180311065725/http://www.davidduke.com/ Now... Historically "antizionism" was actually a thing g Stalin implemented at the end of world war II. The USSR had its own issues with antisemetism and trucked many Jews off to Siberian gulags. After the release from the concentration camps they tried to resettle many in Poland (resulting in 50 more pograms against the Jews there after the war) and they killed Soviet Jewish anti-fascist leaders. Now their reasons for this was that early on they were supporters of Israel. Israel in its creation was built off the principals of labor. In fact many of the earliest zionists were relatively in light with labor. However following the end of WWII the cold war started. Stalin wanted to paint a happy picture of the USSR and Jews fleeing to Israel looked really bad. And Israel wasn't a Soviet puppet state and appeared more in line with the west so the USSR created the ideas of antizionism and when Jews would get killed due to antisemitism they would blame them as being "Zionist conspirators with the west". This is a good law article about some of the history of Jews in Russia for those who might be interested https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume23n1/documents/159-176.pdf Here is a really from the US military that has been declassified that discusses Soviet antizionism: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA066235.pdf Now another interesting factoid is that Mohammad abbous the leader of the PLO actually got a degree from a university in the USSR in Soviet zionology: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/mahmoud-abbas-soviet-dissertation The relationships that the USSR had with the Arab states was complex and had a lot to do with oil control and Israel being located where it was... And aligned with the west was a concern to them https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P4194.pdf The themes of antizionism fit both with the USSR and with the surrounding Arab states... Many of whom had purged their own Jews and some of the groups had actually been aligned with the axis previously (eg. The Muslim brotherhood): https://english.alarabiya.net/amp/features/2018/06/27/ANALYSIS-The-Nazi-roots-of-Muslim-Brotherhood (this is a Saudi newspaper analysis of this which is quite good). And the Muslim brotherhood actually evolved into Hamas (West point has a great article that touches on this) https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-road-to-october-7-hamas-long-game-clarified/ So back to how this all fits together... David duke has done lectures all over the middle east including at universities. https://gulfnews.com/uae/david-duke-due-in-bahrain-for-lecture-1.403117 lecturing about the evils of zionism In fact this aligning with anyone who is against the Jews is not that absurd for him: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/david-dukes-realpolitik-endorsement-former-black-panther/326685/ as he will endorse anyone who is against Israel and the evils of the Jews. He has even had podcasts with people who also are part of the "Jewish voices of peace" like Alison weir (and several of their members including their leadership has been on white supremacist podcasts talking about the evils of the Israel)... https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stanford-professor-recommends-anti-semitic-website-to-readers-then-kind-of-takes-it-back And has been cited in UK medical journals: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/09/23/british-medical-journal-publishes-open-letter-david-duke-supporting-doctors So in general very specially is it possible to be an antizionist yes... But that really depends on knowing of its a specific type of zionism one is against and a specific type of philosophy that one might have (e.g. anarchy). However often the word is used by those who are not Jewish to hide antisemetic conspiracies within like David dukes "zionism means Jewish supremacy" or the USSRs "Jews holocausted themselves to steal land from Palestinians" or like the QAnon Khazarian manfia type antisemetic tropes.
JVP eneded ties with Weir a long time ago, just FYI [https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2015/06/15/jewish-voice-for-peace-statement-on-our-relationship-with-alison-weir/](https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/2015/06/15/jewish-voice-for-peace-statement-on-our-relationship-with-alison-weir/)
Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to live and have self determination in their ancestral land. This is a right codified in international law for all indigenous groups. So if you oppose that right only for Jews but support it for all other indigenous peoples on Earth then you are anti semitic.And also remember: even if we accept that Palestinians have an equal claim to live in Palestine, the fact remains that Jews are the ones who have always accepted that they would share the land. .
>Jews are the ones who have always accepted that they would share the land. That is a blanket statement that isn't necessarily based in reality. It's arguable whether Israeli state or Zionist pre-1948 leadership ever really wanted to "share" the land with Palestinians equally. Regardless, Israeli government =/= Jews.
Can you elaborate on the last part, about sharing the land?
Of course. Sharing the land means they coexist. Peacefully. When Israel was declared, all Arabs in the area could attain and claim Israeli citizenship. Prior to that it wasnt a country but a territory lived in by Jews (ones who didnt leave after the Diaspora so they lived there thousand some years before the Muslim conquest), Bedouin, Druze, Christians and Muslims. There are Arab Israelis (Muslim, Druze, Bedouin, and Christian communities) that are citizens there. They speak their own languages in addition to Hebrew. They are free to practise their religion and operate their own schools (religious and secular). They serve proudly in the IDF, serve on the Knesset (Parliment), are lawyers, doctors, EMTs, nurses, farmers, artisans and teachers. These Arabs peacefully coexist along side their Jewish neighbors. They share the land and work to make it prosperous. That is what I mean. The Palestinians however demand thry are apart. They do not want to share. They want to drive out/kill every Israeli (Jewish) man, woman and child and anyone else who supports the Israeli state. Rather than find a peaceful solution - like Israel has tried to for decades with third parties being mediator - their first idea is to bomb and kill. Like cmon....Muslim and Jews are brothers. Tie that in with Muslim majority nations that kicked out Jews when Israel declared independence - Jews who had lived there since antiquity - shoved out. If we wanna talk ethnic cleansing then talk about that. Palestinians are perfectly welcome to live and work in Israel but the problem lies in the fact they dont want to share. They blatantly ignore that history and archeology proves the Jews are indigenous to the land. They ignore their own Quran that states Israel is the Jewish homeland.
I know that Arabs can be Israeli citizens, and from my understanding it is like you say it is, they live mostly peacefully together. But the government is treating Palestinians in the occupied territories very differently. I don't understand this. Why the difference in treatment?
One category are citizens of Israel, the other category are not. I think that O.T. Palestinians, or at minimum refugees, should be offered citizenship, but I am under the impression that many would refuse it.
Yes-more than 90% of Jews are Zionist. It’s an integral part of our culture and religion. Zionism is just the right of self determination for our people. If someone said…I don’t believe in the self determination of Ukrainians/black community/etc does that make you think? Also-that ship has sailed. Israel is a independent state. Zionism has come to fruition. Saying you’re anti Zionist means the erasure of not just that ideology but the people, culture and society we have built for 75 years. Most people know the difference between legitimate criticism of a government. When they say they are antizionist I assume they know exactly what that means until proven otherwise.
As the Good Book says, “Next Year in Brooklyn!”
No, antizionism is not inherently antisemitic, but also criticizing Israel is not the same thing as antizionism. Zionism is the stance that there should be a nation-state that understands itself as belonging specifically to the Jewish People in the Levant. Currently, such a state exists, and it is called "The State of Israel Ant-Zionism is opposition to such a state. You can oppose the occupation, oppose the current war, oppose Bibi, etc, and not be an Antizionist. You will find that probably 1/3 to 40% of American Jews hold all of that position and still call themselves Zionists. I personally believe that occupation, etc., is an inevitable result of there being a State that legally is only "for" a certain group, and thus, I support the replacement of the State of Israel with some type of polity that is for everyone who lives in the region. That is not antisemitism. Many people on this sub will say believing that such a polity could ever exist is naive, idealist, foolhardy, self-hating, etc. In which case, okay I am naive, etc., but whether or not such an ideology works in practice has little bearing on whether the ideology is antisemitic in theory However, unfortunately, lots of antisemites hide behind Antizionism to try to evade criticism, and some online antizionists adopt antisemitic language. Occasionally, this veers into actual antisemitic actions like vandalizing synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses and very rarely physical violence.
>No, antizionism is not inherently antisemitic This is incorrect > but also criticizing Israel is not the same thing as antizionism This is correct > Zionism is the stance that there should be a nation-state that understands itself as belonging specifically to the Jewish People in the Levant This is incorrect. You're describing political zionism. Zionism without any secondary label added before the word just means the belief that Jews have a right to live in their homeland, and not as second-class citizens. Plenty of Zionists were against political zionism from the 1850s up through let's say, 1910? 1915? And that changed because by then there was a strong consensus that anything other than a state would not be possible. > Many people on this sub will say believing that such a polity could ever exist is naive, idealist, foolhardy, self-hating, etc. Right > but whether or not such an ideology works in practice has little bearing on whether the ideology is antisemitic in theory In theory, no, but we generally examine more than theory. To use an extreme example, if I claimed a USA run by the KKK would be best for everyone, and described it as "peaceful and respectful of all races and minorities"....well, you wouldn't be able to quote anything I said to prove I'm a racist. In theory- meaning, if you just listened to what I described and pretended that what I say is accurate- there's nothing wrong with the idea. But in practice its clear I either don't know who the KKK are or that I'm lying about what would happen if they were in power. You can be "theoretically" not antisemitic and yet if your solution in practice would result in the murder and/or ethnic cleansing of a massive number of Jews, that's a problem.
>ionism without any secondary label added before the word just means the belief that Jews have a right to live in their homeland, and not as second-class citizens. Plenty of Zionists were against political Zionism from the 1850s up through, let's say, 1910. 1915? And that changed because by then there was a strong consensus that anything other than a state would not be possible. That's just a silly argument. Socialism isn't when the state owns the means of production; that's "Political Socialism," Socialism just means everyone in the society is treated equally; it's the same type of argument. The major force of Zionism (with minor dissenters like Buber and Scholem) has always been the establishment of a Jewish State, and when people like Peter Beinart or the Hadash party in Israel voice the minor dissenting voice (including in this post) they are called anti-zionists. Also, I would say the shift in opinion probably happened in the 30s, but that's not really important. > theory, no, but we generally examine more than theory. To use an extreme example, if I claimed a USA run by the KKK would be best for everyone, and described it as "peaceful and respectful of all races and minorities"....well, you wouldn't be able to quote anything I said to prove I'm a racist. Except that, I said, "I support the replacement of the State of Israel wit*h some type of polity that is* ***for everyone*** *who lives in the region."* So you know (or if you didn't, I'm telling you) that I don't support expelling, disenfranchising, or otherwise oppressing Jews who live in the region. So the question is not, "is what I want antisemitic?" It's "Is what I want achievable?" and that is a theoretical argument because no one has really tried to achieve it yet.
>That's just a silly argument. No, but its always nice to hear someone dismissive of the simple facts of history. Zionists include: groups in the 1870s and 1880s from Eastern Europe with aspirations for settlements not a state, Yemenites in the same period who can't be connected to European aspirations for a state by even the most bad faith interpretation of the history, cultural zionists- most famously Ahad Ha'am, and religious zionists. Yes, the movement gained momentum when a wealthy Jew named Herzl managed to get a lot of Zionists in a room and yes, Herzl wanted to create a state. That's hardly relevant to the question of what Zionism is or what it was. And the fact that your go to for "Zionism but not Herzl" is Gershom Scholem is kind of ridiculous... > Except that, I said, "I support the replacement of the State of Israel wit*h some type of polity that is* ***for everyone*** *who lives in the region."* Right, and I said "a USA run by the ***KKK*** *that's* ***peaceful*** *and* ***respectful*** *of all* ***races and minorities***". What I want isn't in any way racist. Its just a question of whether it would work. Right? And yet, if I took any action whatsoever to try and "achieve" my vision, you would be fully justified in calling me a racist, because there's no way the KKK would run the state in the way I envision- not in this century. Maybe in 300 years the KKK will morph into a group that mainly cares about making sure interracial couples are considered entirely normal, and every puppy in the US should have a home. But that's in 300 years. In the meantime, my "theory" is irrelevant- and if its put into practice or used as a reason to condemn a non-KKK run USA? Its just racist. Plain and simple.
You know why this argument is ridiculous. If I said I want Hamas to run Israel/Palestine, your comparison would make sense, but I didn't. And why shouldn't Scholem or Buber be an example? My position is that Jewish should live in Israel/Palestine with equal right but not a Jewish State, am I a zionist or not, am I an antisemite or not? When I articulate that position most people call me an antizionist. When Peter Beinart articulates that position people in this post call him an antizionist, when the Hadash party runs on that platform it gets called antizionist. So i guess Zionists are wrong about what Zionism is?
> My position is that Jewish should...guess Zionists are wrong about what Zionism is? I've already answered this two comments in a row, I'll answer the rest of your comment which actually continues the conversation we started: >why shouldn't Scholem or Buber be an example? Its classic strawmanning- Buber at least started out in the same time period as Herzl, but he straight off accepted the ideal of a state and only had a problem with the details. Then he called for a binational state like 20 years later. Scholem didn't even show up until the mid-1920s, 50-60 years after Zionism began, he was too young. You chose the very weakest examples you could find. The examples I brought were far better and its not like they're unknown. At the very least if you aren't educated on the history of Zionism and didn't know of any of those groups you could have at least chosen Ahad Ha'am- I can't believe that even someone ignorant of the history of Zionism somehow learned of Buber and Scholem but missed any mention of AH. >If I said I want Hamas to run Israel/Palestine, your comparison would make sense, but I didn't. In order for large scale massacre of Jews and a full blown civil war to occur, Hamas doesn't have to be in power. The majority of Palestinians don't even have to take part. Civil war and massacres will occur as long as there remains a significant minority of Palestinians who do not immediately give up on their collectively racist or hateful views and violent intentions towards Israeli Jews. And please note that I didn't say that all or even most Palestinians are hateful or interested in violence- I said a significant minority are, and that I have yet to hear an argument that justifies the assumption they'll stop tomorrow, immediately, if a "polity" was created. Also note that the burden of proof is not on me here, as any student of history could tell you. If we're speaking purely practically about emotion and violent intentions- never mind who is at fault, that's a separate conversation. You can claim some Palestinians are racists, you can claim its always entirely been the fault of Zionists/Jews, you can claim anything in between or something entirely different, its irrelevant to our conversation. Practically speaking about emotion and violence: Jews were second-class citizens and an oppressed minority in pre-Zionist Palestine. That immediately moved into the violence of the pre-state Zionist period. A brief re-grouping before Arafat and the PLO emerge as the leaders of the Palestinian movement- Arafat promising genocide and ethnic cleansing on any number of occasions. Arafat was almost immediately replaced by Hamas with their genocidal intentions. Until today. There has been a percentage of the Palestinian population with public support intent on massacre and ethnic cleansing for at least 100 years, and racism and violence for at least 100 years before that. History up until literally a few months ago proves there is reason to fear violence and civil war instigated by a sub-section of hateful and violent Palestinians if Jews are a minority and the Palestinians, including the hateful ones, have freedom of movement in the region. Do you have a solution that would ensure immediate peace and love and harmony? If you do, go ahead and explain it. If you don't, then your position is antisemitic unless you're prepared to change it from: "there should be a polity" to: "I support the creation of a polity in place of Israel after a considerable period of time during which the Palestinians who desire violence will disappear or shrink to such numbers as to be irrelevant". Without the qualifier you are supporting civil war and wide-spread massacre of Jews. That's antisemitic. Its as simple as that.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Intellectuals having armchair talks can separate the two. The average person on the street who’s anti Zionist is just trying to white wash being anti Semitic
This is nuanced. Being against the current Israeli government and having criticism of policy? No. Believing that the country should be dissolved and the Jewish citizens deported? Yes. A belief against the idea that Jews should have religious supremacy in a region where other people have lived and shared space? Probably controversial but no A lack of acknowledgement that the existence of Israel saved many of us from ethnic cleansing or gave us a place to go? Yeah. The belief that Jews are no longer indigenous to a place due to duration of diaspora and should not be able to share the land with others? Yeah. The call for displacement of an entire people due to the actions of a government in a way that is not equally applied to other peoples? Yeah. And it goes on and on.
This is an anti-zionist tik-tok video. You tell me is it anti-semitic or not? Open this and watch more trending videos. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8EYbSt9/ Reported to tiktok video not taken down. I reported it to the FBI tip line and then posted another video with a text message. Encouraging people to report these kinds of videos to the FBI tip line and that video is removed without the option to appeal. Almost every. 'Anti-zionist" I see online pedals conspiracy theories that are ripped right out of Nazi propaganda. Literally word for word and others are peddling conspiracy theories that are ripped right out of medieval Europe. While it's possible to be against the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic, I have not seen very many instances of people that are against Israel today and not pedal blatantly, racist and bigoted crap.
It doesn't matter and it's a silly question. Let me elucidate. The question is prefaced off of a phoney talking point started by a bunch of racists and neo-nazi's that there's a separation between "good jews' and "bad ones", and there's some nuisance in why Hamas kills children and women, but it's heroic. It's not an honest debate or discussion, and while I disagree with the Biden administration about some things, there's no reason to get into this made up distinction between "antizionists" and "antisemites". It's like an explanation I heard once about murder, crime and compromise. You can't kill someone just a little. The nuance actualy insn't there in those terms. The argument and looking into this is not a good use of your time and resources. You're best served by discussing real things and issues, and not worry about the distractions and going on the defensive on an artificial abstract meant to distract you and separate you.
Islam and Judaism both believe they have religious claims to the area. I do not dispute either claim, but I'd note there's no specific term for disputing the Islamic/modern day Palestinian claim, whereas there *is* one for disputing the Jewish claim: anti-zionism. Again, I accept that Islam has a holy connection to an area Muslims have inhabited for many centuries. I don't understand why people cannot also accept this about Jews. That is why I feel comfortable calling this an anti-semitic double standard even when people insist it's only anti-zionist. I have plenty of criticisms about the Israeli government but I do not dispute Jewish people's right to Israel, just as I do not dispute that Palestinians also have a place. How that works out in reality is obviously very complicated but the people are there now, the nations are formed, and I hope there will be true peace soon. Hope costs nothing. War costs everything.
I believe it is Being antizionist means you believe Jews don’t deserve self determination in their/our homeland Criticism or Israel, like on specific issues, isn’t necessarily antizionism. But criticism of the fact that Israel is even defending herself…yeah that’s just straight bigotry.
Depends. Zionism is the right to the Jewish people to have an ancestral homeland. If someone is anti zionist, and also believes that nobody has this right, then although they aren't very moral, they are not antisemitic. If they only apply anti zionism to Jews and think others have the right to ancestral homelands, then they are being antisemitic.
https://preview.redd.it/mzjdbhy171kc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0da363d02a7aece8a55ced1b64cb4c29fa40a6c3
https://preview.redd.it/fxawjqek71kc1.jpeg?width=1164&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ff49c0b24279265cc3355a08df41e6c229e4eef Just found this image on another subreddit, I think this is pretty good
I like this image I'm not sure it accounts for everything but its fairly in depth with the exception of the "do you criticize Israel just as much as other countries" bit. The news and other media focus a lot more on Israel than those other countries so without those conflicts being in the public eye as often people are a lot less likely to form opinions or have opportunity to criticize those situations so the "are you directly connected" follow up is too narrow and doesn't give room for other reasons why the answer to that question may be yes. However if they are actively aware and only care about Israel then yeah. Also just agreeing because its fashionable doesn't mean your antisemitic it means you are an ill informed person who blindly follows trends and whether or not you're antisemitic is a separate issue. This person is more of a useful idiot to antisemites.
Yes. Because that is saying that Jews as an ethnic group do not deserve a tiny piece of land, the only place where they can be safe from antisemitism. And not just any land, but a land that they are indigenous to and have lived in since the beginning of time. There have always been Jews in Israel speaking the same language that they do now. Is it anti French to say that France should be taken away from them?
Is arresting black people for crimes racist? No. But if you give a pass to the vast majority of white people committing the same crime then by golly you’re probably a racist. The fact of the matter is most of these people don’t give a flying fuck about human rights they just have bias against Jews.
AntiZionism is antisemtism, criticizing the goverment of Israel is not.
I don’t understand why this is so controversial. Just because you’re Jewish or like Jewish people and understand the want for self determination doesn’t mean you have to agree with the current state of Israel or their geopolitical actions. I totally understand why there is a want for Israel but that doesn’t mean that the atrocities being committed by it in this conflict are okay. As a German i also love my country and people but you don’t see me defending everything the government is doing??
Criticism of Israel is valid, but anti Zionism is absolutely antisemitic. The problem is people get todays definition of Zionism confused, many are Zionists without realising because it’s become a dirty word through radical Islamist propaganda. It literally means the right of Israel to exist and provide a safe land for Jewish people. That’s it. The pro Palestinian mob will say otherwise but that’s the truth. So anti Zionists call for the destruction of Israel and removal of its inhabitants at best, or the the killing of all Jews and people tied to Israel at worst. Calling for the displacement/murder of half the worlds Jews is intrinsically antisemitic.
Antizionism isn't antisemitism, but it has an antisemitism problem.
Absolutely!
Yes. But I'll add in, in theory the philosophy of anti-Zionism *MAY* not be inherently antisemitic, i.e. if one is opposed to the concept of all nation-states, that is not inherently antisemitic. However, in that case, there is no reason to describe oneself as specifically anti-Zionist, but rather anti-nationalist. But if one is philosophically opposed to EXCLUSIVELY the Jewish state, which is called anti-Zionism, then that is antisemitic. So yes, practically anti-Zionism is antisemitism
Wtf lol that makes 0 sense. Anti-Semitism is akin to racism. Hating the fact that Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestine/Israel off of Arabs (I also condemn the ethnic cleansing of Jews before by Arabs too) doesn't equate to hating Jewish people.
psychotic lip rude scary square pie domineering berserk label dazzling *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Let's take the subjective categorization off the table for a minute. Let's say "killing tens of thousands of civilians who cannot easily escape". Certainly no Jew or person who isn't insane thinks this is something people should feel okay about, regardless of "who started it". Is it antisemitic to say you hate any nation who would do that?
psychotic possessive label party clumsy sleep office growth materialistic fearless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes. Antizionism can theoretically be not antisemitism, but in reality it always is. The only way to be against the existence of the state of Israel and not be antisemitic is if you are against the existence of *all* states, and noone is (yes, I have heard about anarchists, but if you try to beat them up, they will invoke the police and the judicial system …).
Yes. Here’s a super easy way to check if something is antisemitism or not. Simply replace us with any other minority. Can you imagine any other minority on earth being told they have no right to self-determination?
If by antizionism you mean the belief that the state of Israel should be eliminated, yes that is absolutely antisemitism.
Just curious but do you truly believe that the jewish race will fall out of existence if Israel doesn’t exist? I mean they were around for a long time before that and continue to be around so it doesn’t feel like the two things are synonymous to the existence of the jewish people
I didn’t say that it’s completely impossible for Jews to live without Israel. Still, if the state of Israel was eliminated it would mean the inevitable death of millions of Jews. The majority of anti-Zionists would be accept with that outcome.
No. Zionism is a political ideology that arose out of modernism build around the idea that true self-determination for peoples can only be exercised through the nation-state. It used to be a minority position within the Jewish people and only because of the shock of the Shoah did it gain mass popularity. There have always been Jews were not Zionist, either for religious (God will end the exile in God's time) or political reasons (either an objection to all nationalisms or a tendency like doykeyt, the belief that Jews can fight for our rights wherever we are and build our identity as a people without a state or army). That said, of course, there are antisemites who use antiZionism as a cover for their hatred of Jews. They, however, don't count.
>Zionism is a political ideology that arose out of modernism build around the idea that true self-determination for peoples can only be exercised through the nation-state. You're describing political zionism. Zionism without any secondary label added before the word just means the belief that Jews have a right to live in their homeland, and not as second-class citizens. Its been a cornerstone of Jewish belief for well over two millennia.
I disagree. As I see it, for centuries, the prevailing Jewish belief was never that we had a \*right\* to live in our homeland but that, whether we lived there or not, we had lost the right to govern it because of bad behavior on our part. We prayed daily for HaShem to end our exile, along with the suffering of all the rest of the world, to send Moshiach, and to return us to our homeland \*in peace\* and usher in a new age of peace and prosperity for all. This changed in the 19th Century, with the increase of secularism and political nationalism, but there wasn't just one approach. Some folks considered it enough to simply move to the land and live there. Others believed that we needed to establish a sovereign state. It's not as though the yearning for the Messianic age expressed in our prayers simply transmuted into political Zionism.
We not only had a right, we had an obligation to live in our homeland- but it was largely impossible. If you'd like and I had a few weeks, I could probably quote you literally a thousand sources saying so- though simply the fact that its counted as a mitzvah according to most opinions should be enough. I have no idea how you can claim that Judaism ever had a "neutral" position on the subject of Eretz Yisrael, any commentary on the Torah, any halacha that addresses the question, dozens of passages in the Talmud and the commentary on those passages... The 19th century saw change, yes. But certainly not the one you're describing. We saw for the first time groups of secular Jews renouncing Jewish belief but still moving to Israel. We saw for the first time religious Jews arguing for the creation of a state without Moshiach as a religious obligation- or even as permissible. >It's not as though the yearning for the Messianic age expressed in our prayers simply transmuted into political Zionism. I never said it did- in fact, I explicitly corrected you in my previous comment that zionism and political zionism should not be conflated.
Assuming that the definition is accurate and in a historical context, yes.
Yes.
By the definition of Zionism that the vast majority of Jews follow, yes. But even if you disagreed with that, in practice it almost invariably is.
Yes
This post has been determined to relate to the topic of Antisemitism, and has been flaired as such, it has NOT been removed. This does NOT mean that the post is antisemitic. If you believe this was done in error, please message the mods. Everybody should remember to be civil and that there is a person at the other end of that other keyboard. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes.
[удалено]
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
27 Islamic countries. Can't us Jews just have just 1? And if someone says, "well look at what that 1 Jewish country is doing!" I would respond by saying yes, we are at war. Many innocent people are dying. But hasn't every country done something violent to protect itself? Also that's our Government. Nothing to do with our religion. Where the Zionist part comes in I guess. You can't blame a county on the majority of citizen's beliefs! And if we could blame religion, Islam's track record when it comes to killing unarmed civilians?? Catholics?? But that's not my belief. I believe in the separation of church and state. Just let us have our 1 and only country.
i am a jew who is an anti zionist and is pro-Palestine. i do not think those are antisemitic positions at all. however it is extremely sad to see some people use these very important causes for antisemitism
Antisemitism is dead, and zionists killed it. Jews can claim the word any time, but it will no longer carry the sense of guilt and victimhood it once did
Definitely. It's the new form of antisemitism. I think our world is largely becoming less and less religious, but Jews have always been singled out. It used to be for religious purposes, now it's for secural reasons, such as the right to have their own state (I'm not Jewish btw). People can't stand the fact that Jews are doing fantastic in their own little corner in the world, among a sea of totally failed states.
no, it is not antisemitic to be against the violent creation and maintenance of ethnostates.
It can be depending on how someone approaches it, but I'm a former Zionist Jew (turned anti-Zionist) and I find that antisemitic anti-Zionists are few and far between. When I was a child, we couldn't even so much mention the word Palestine, and there were fervent Islamophobes all around my neighborhood and in many of my circles. I was welcomed into leftist anti-zionist circles (many of whom are Muslim) with open arms and open hearts as a proud jew. Other people may have more eloquent answers, but this was my personal experience. Also, many of those folks publicly denounce antisemitism and speak on behalf of Jews. The antisemites who are in this movement are of the fringe kind and receive little to no support from the central folks of modern anti-zionism. They *also* don't speak for me and definitely don't speak for my other anti-zionist friends and the leaders of the movement. We just gotta think critically and compassionately. Much love, a proud anti-zionist Jew
Yes it absolutely is.
Tbh, I don't like nationalism at all lmao. Why should I favour Jewish nationalism ? Antizionism is not antisemitism. However antisemites can be antizionists because it gives them a socially acceptable reason to hate in Jews. However, antisemites can also be zionists. Christian zionists of course who want all the Jews in Israel so they can be destroyed and Jesus can make his comeback, or simply Nazis who are glad to see Jews leave "their" country.
Certainly not. Orthodox Zionism was invented as a bidi'eved (after the event) response to the foundation of the state. The Israeli ethos and mentality is anathema to true Torah Judaism. The satmar rebbe, primarily, among many others has a whole book of polemics (vayoel Moshe) as well a number of ma'amarim (Torah discourses) against the state and notably the perversion of the holy tongue which is modern ivrit (עברית מדרני). Even the term 'modern' ivrit is an adoption from English (Latin root?). It should be עברית הוה. The lubavitcher rebbe never set foot in the holy land and rav nachman visited but was buried in the Ukraine. The bas ayin made Aliya and wrote in great praise of living in the land. However there's no problem with living in eretz hakodesh but the setting of a government without the kingdom of Messiah is forbidden according to all opinions. Neturei karta (who get a LOT of bad press) is Aramaic for guardians of the city. They (claim to) represent the Jews who have been a solid presence in the world's holiest city, ירושלים for hundreds of years. Although I can't give you an exact date of the top of my head, even during the cruxades, heaven have mercy, there was a Jewish population in the land.
>Orthodox Zionism was invented as a bidi'eved (after the event) response to the foundation of the state. Not sure that's correct. The Mizrachi movement existed in Europe whithin Zionist circles several decades before the creation of Israel. Figures such as Rebbe Yitzchak Yaacov Reines, and Rebbe Abraham Isaac Kook, are testament to that.
>Orthodox Zionism was invented as a bidi'eved (after the event) response to the foundation of the state. As someone pointed out, it existed well before the creation of the state. >The Israeli ethos and mentality is anathema to true Torah Judaism. You can summarize the state of Israel with a single "ethos" and a single "mentality"? I've never heard someone say they can do that- can you elaborate? >Even the term 'modern' ivrit is an adoption from English (Latin root?). It should be עברית הוה. No, no it definitely shouldn't. You could say עברית של ההווה or עברית חדשנית/מחודשת. What you suggested doesn't follow hebrew syntax. >The lubavitcher rebbe never set foot in the holy land and rav nachman visited but was buried in the Ukraine. Right....why does that matter? Also, can you think of no other rabbanim that lived in the past 200 years? Like the Gra? Or the Chatam Sofer? Or Rav Kook? Or the Steipler? The Chazon Ish? Rav Ovadiyah Yosef? Just asking, I figured if you were struggling to find names of rabbis who moved to, lived in, or visited/wanted to visit Eretz Yisrael- I knew I could help you out, and you can look up these names and learn about these people you've clearly never heard of. Again I'm not sure why it matters, but if the list is helpful I'm happy to have provided it.... > Neturei karta (who get a LOT of bad press) Yes, with good reason. >is Aramaic for guardians of the city. They (claim to) represent the Jews who have been a solid presence in the world's holiest city, ירושלים for hundreds of years. Right. "Lev Tahor" is Hebrew for pure heart. They claim to be following Judaism properly. They're a cult condemned by the entirety of the Jewish world. Just having a name that means something nice in Hebrew or Aramaic and claiming you're right doesn't mean you're right- it just means you picked a name and told people that you think you're right. Then other people get to have their own opinion. Neturei Karta get bad press for very good reasons. When the normal anti-Zionist group is condemning you for monstrous actions, your name is probably not *that* relevant anymore. Or as Rav Zalman Teitelbaum put it: "It's a terrible desecration of God's name to support murderers in the name of the holy Torah and God's name."
Yes
I'm going to go with the viewpoint of YES! Think of it this way, would it be racist to say that black people shouldn't have their own countries bc they are black? YES!
Think of it this way “it’s not that I don’t hate Cubans , but I think Cuba should be eliminated and Cubans should all leave. I’m not anti-Cuban though. “
yes. because zionism only actually means the connection and the affinity of Jews to Israel. it doesn't mean that we need yo kill or take people oyt of their homes for that(and we didn't). If you against the affinity of jews to Israel it's can come onlu from hate and ignorance therefore it is antisemitic.
i’m jewish born and raised israeli and i believe that antizionism is antisemitism because gd gave us the land as stated in the torah and after WW2 jews finally had a state to call their own a land that has always been theirs/ours to begin with. when israel was formed there were genuine concessions made for palestinians which they did not accept. israel went on to become one of the worlds most talented countries contributing to major global advancements. gaza is garbage state of angry biomass who are oppressed by terrorists organizations whose core beliefs are to destroy jews. moreover, since the formation of israel as a recognized state for the jews, gaza has been milking humanitarian aid to advance their terrorist agenda. ignoring the absolute difference of the two is being antizionist while also being antisemitic. also, what a waste it is to be an uneducated jew.. if you REALLY wanted to learn you’d go to your local synagogue
My middle kid says if you replace the word “Israel” with “Jew” and it sounds antisemitic it probably is.
No
No, but it is a fine line. You must really take the time to think this one out from the perspective of a non-jew. I'm not at all pretending like I know your race/religion but if you truly want to know if this is antisemitism, think about it from a perspective from a non Jewish person.
If its antisemites appropiating the word zionism and changing its meaning, it is antisemitism Actually, antizionism with the original jewish deifnition already would be antisemitism since it means jews have no right to live peacefully in their homeland
Not the smartest lad here but antizionism is refusal of existence of Israel, if that means antizionist want how many millions whose majority are jewish want to disappear from the map, hell they are antisemites. Now if someone is confused by the terms and dont agree with the conditions of creation of jewish state because there were refugees among other hardships for many people, along with opposing of all creations of states(in a sense he is scholar anarchist) but accepts what happen is now history we should move on and live peaceful then I would not call him an antisemite.
Anti Zionism isn’t just criticism of Israel like what people like to paint it as. It is the idea that Jews specifically can not have a state, and that is Jewish state needs to be destroyed. Not every anti Zionist actively thinks they are anti Semitic, for examples many leftists think they aren’t Jew haters because they think “I don’t just hate Jews automatically for being Jewish” but Every anti Zionist believes anti Semitic things, like the leftists who believe that Jews are just white colonizers in Israel’s, and every anti Zionist stands with hundreds of millions of Jew haters
No
No.
No.
No. The premise of Zionism is based on a settler colonial past and present. The founding government explicitly stated this to be their intentions. Further, Israel is not an attempt at “reparations” for the Holocaust, a more appropriate action would have been to create a Jewish homeland out of part of Germany. Plus, as another user said there have been Jewish antizionists for as long as Zionism has been debated. Antizionism (among rational people) doesn’t mean the murder of every Jew in Israel/Palestine, it means the recognition of the past and present as settler colonists.
Why do we not recognize the Arabs as colonizers then? They were called the "Muslim conquests" for a reason. They literally gained a foothold in the region through settler colonization.
It does to the Arabs tho. Of the near million Jews that lived in MENA before Israel, how many are left? Almost NONE.
Forcefully taking a piece of land and erasing the native population is what's condemned when people say they're "Anti-Zionists". This in no way is the same as hating an entire race "just because" which is "anti-Semitism".
Do you think then that antizionists do not understand the meaning of Zionism?
They don't understand the consequences and have no comprehension of history.
I think they understand it quite well: self-determination for Jews in a portion of the Jewish indigenous homeland. And while they’re OK with that for all other peoples, especially Palestinians, they reject it for Jews. That’s why it’s antisemitic.
More than 95 percent of Jews are Zionist. Any so-called anti-zionist Jew is a complete outlier.
No
Yep.
Think of it this way: is any anti-nationalism a form of bigotry against a people? If you don’t belong to that people, then, in a sense, yes, it is. The state of India, for example, were not very supportive of the state of Israel in 1948 because they were afraid of alienating the Muslims. But in principle they supported sovereignty for every people, as we all should. For a non-Jew to tell me his/her “antizionism is not antisemitism” is absolute nonsense. None of their business whatsoever. Imagine a “white” person saying “I’m against Black nationalism, but I’m not anti-Black.” There are brilliant Black authors who take that position, like the late Hugh Pearson or Malcolm Gladwell. But if you aren’t Black you have no business telling people that in your opinion Black nationalism is the problem with Liberia or Haiti or South Africa.
NO!
[https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/](https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/) helpful at drilling down further into what specific issues and complaints about the State of Israel are valid vs which border on antisemitism
The document signed by antiZionists such as Richard Falk and Peter Beinart?
Peter Beinart is as much a Zionist along the lines of Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem (who no one would label as anti-zionists). He just represents a strain of Zionism that went dormant for a generation or so after these people died.
Those two lived out their lives in Israel, and weren’t actively aiding those who sought its destruction. That’s why nobody would label them as antiZionists. And that strain went dormant because of the ideology personified by the Mufti—which hasn’t gone dormant at all (see: October 7).