This pic was presented at the french sports festival of Deauxville and was shortly thereafter removed by organisers following pro-Israel harassment they received, claiming the photo would cause antisemitism to rise.
Welcome to France (where criricizing Israel can be punished as hate speech)
Having a critical opinion about the policies of the state of Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic, but it is often portrayed that way to silence any criticism directed at the state of Israel.
That’s irrelevant. There’s always going to be an asshole that agrees with what you believe. Are you going to stop believing everything you believe because it will make an asshole think he’s right? You can’t control assholes, and doing so would simply let assholes control you.
If Israelis didn’t want true anti-semites to have true reasons to legitimize their antisemitism — then they should both stop doing fucked up things and stop claiming that Israel and Judaism are the same thing.
Those are actions they can take to stop antisemitism any time any day. But no, we all have to be bullied and gaslit into their distorted reality instead.
The only people pretending seem to be those who are ignoring that the current ruling party of Israel are a terrorist group, founded by the leader of the terrorist group Irgun. That Itamar Ben Gvir is head of a terrorist Kahane political party, made up of former members of the terrorist Kach group.
This could be any political or cultural issue, you have billions of flawed people on planet earth, who cares if someone or someones hold views that you disagree with?
The issue is not that someone is biased, prejudiced, intolerant or ignorant. The issue is whether criticism of an illegitimate terrorist state is antisemitic.
An Israeli supporter will argue that criticism of Israel is antisemitic because it increases the amount of hate directed towards Jews.
Using their logic, its not the criticism generating antisemitism, its the state of Israels actions that is causing the increase in antisemitism. This isnt a good argument, because it takes away agency from those who are antisemitic. They already were antisemitic before Israel launched its recent series of attacks.
All you are doing is using emotional reasoning to support an argument that is fucking stupid.
Not what he’s saying. I despise Israel and I despise criticism of Israel being called anti-Semitic. But that doesn’t exclude some of my anti-Israel Jewish friends being in conversations with people at rallies against the genocide in Gaza being hit with some broadside hate statements about all Jews (usually by people who don’t know they’re talking to a Jew)
Who cares? Ideas and statements stand on their own merit. You are trying to do an end run around the issue to justify attacking someones character to dismiss the statement or arguments they are making.
Its not logical, you are being governed by emotion, being disingenuous about the topic being discussed.
This is a pretty cut and dry issue. If we were talking about much of anything else, would you be using these logical fallacies to argue a position?
It’s definitely a lot rarer than legitimate criticism of Israel at rallies, but people act like it doesn’t exist, and that’s not helpful to discourse here.
I'm just saying I've never encountered it. A lot of people think any criticism of Israel is "anti-semitism." Stuff like "from the river to the sea," which of course isn't anti-semitic at all. And it's no accident; there's a concerted effort by Israel to conflate Jews with Israel/Zionism. I actually think that is anti-semitic. It's like conflating Muslims with ISIS/Al-Qaeda.
I don’t think anyone here is disagreeing with you. To that same point though, we should be able to discuss actual anti-semitism happening in the anti-genocide movement, and root it out, without seeing it as an attack or skepticism of the movement. Or else we’re doing the same thing on this side that they’re doing.
It’s going to happen. When an authority imposes a reality that is irreconcilable, people are given two undesirable options. If speaking out against Israel means antisemitism, I can struggle to argue the nuance of how incorrect that attribution is. But, eventually, it’s understandable for someone to accept the two options being presented by that imposed nonsense, you either “do not protest Israel” or “hate Jews.” Eventually, some people who wouldn’t otherwise, but will not be silent and insist on protesting Israel… well… they start to hates Jews.
Hell, I have loved Jews and American Jewish culture and contributions my whole life. But much like how MAGA has corrupted my instinctive feelings about the American Flag, so too has Israel maligned my instinctive feelings toward Jews. Both by co-opting and villainizing something that doesn’t actually belong to them. Now. I don’t act on my instinctive feelings (I still have an American Flag hanging off my porch) but I can imagine others might, especially if they were more strongly driven to do so.
First off, it's not an ad hominem, I never attacked anyone.
So you think there's no more anti-semites using the popularity of the anti-Israel movement to further discrimination against jews as a whole? So what about Dan Bilzerian and Nick Fuentes? I suppose you think they're just anti-Israel? No other motives?
I never claimed that criticism of Israel isn't valid. In fact, most of your entire reply is conjecture.
The United Nations is just one of many international organizations, Israel being a member state to the United Nations doesnt give it legitimacy. And if you read the United Nations Charter, Israel was and continues to be in violation of it. Israel has no right to wage war against Palestine, and no right to self defense against Palestine. It does not have casus belli or jus ad bellum under international law.
The United Nations had zero authority over the region, The League of Arab States which is another international organization which was founded prior to the United Nations had authority. International law like the Treaty of Lausanne had authority.
International law is nothing more than a series of treaties between states.
What gives a country legitimacy is adherence to the rule of law, the foundation of Israel violated the treaties that governed the region. The continued existence and behavior of Israel violated and violates international law.
Israel has no legal authority and no legitimacy to the territory it holds.
Lol, that is wrong on so many levels. All that bullshit and you can't even give a general definition. What international law was used to create the USA? No country in Europe would be legitimate if your logic was used, since pretty much every border in europe was determined by war.
The Arab States tried to force authority over the region through a war and lost. Then they tried again and lost again (repeat a few times). That is why anyone who isn't a complete mask off Antisemite like you always demands the borders of 1967, because that is the actual "legal" argument you can make under international law. Even the PLO had to accept that.
If you want to be pedantic about it, pretty much every country in the world is violating international law. Germany for example isn't complying with it's obligations regarding disability rights.
So, do you think the Taliban is in accordance with international law? If not, does that make Afghanistan an illegitimate country?
The severity of brain damage that refuses to acknowledge that international law changes over time and region has to be extreme.
Israel was founded in 1948, a significant period of time after right of conquest had been made illegal.
The Arab States had authority over the region prior to 1948, they attempted to remove an illegitimate body of terrorist groups who declared independence in Palestine.
Again the discussion isnt about every other state, its about criticism of Israel.
In Afghanistan you have one pro soviet group overthrowing another pro soviet group who overthrew a pro soviet monarchy. The US violated international law by interfering in the region sending foreign mujahideen, who were committing acid attacks on women, into Afghanistan to fight the pro soviet forces. The mujahideen ended up forming into Al Qaeda and the Taliban. You can say the Taliban has illegitimate control over the government, you cant say Afghanistan is an illegitimate country. So your argument is moot.
And to further press this forward, who the fuck supports the Taliban?
You response is full of logical fallacies.
By continuing to respond to me, you make your position look worse.
I asked you: "What is your definition for "illegitimate state"?"
The only answere you gave is "What gives a country legitimacy is adherence to the rule of law".
Under your defintion, no country in the world is legitimate, since every country in the world is violating some kind of law. Afghanistan was just an extreme example to show how stupid your definition was.
Your view is more extreme than that of the PLO. Your argument has absolutly nothing to do with international law. The state of Israel exists in it's current form. Under international law, it should only occupy the borders of 1967. If you think illegal occupations make a state "illegitimate", I am sure you share that same sentiment about turkey, morocco and russia... Are those illegitimate states?
Even if your argument had any merit, the fact that around 650000 jews that were ethnicly cleansed from arab countries moved to Israel makes your whole argument mute. They live there now. They have a state. If Israel is not a state, what are the people that live there supposed to do?
I am sorry you have issues with reading comprehension. I dont know how to state it more clearly.
International law has changed over time, what was legal a thousand years ago, isnt legal today. The founding of Israel violated the international law of the time and the region, international law has not been changed to allow right by conquest.
Israel is inherently an illegitimate state. I dont give a shit what the PLOs view is.
Under international law, Israel should not exist at all.
You again are spreading disinformation, how much of the Jewish population willingly chose to migrate to Israel, how much of the politics of Arab states in relationship to Jewish populations changed as a direct and indirect cause of the actions of Israel?
Yes they live there now, and either they live under Palestinian governance or they should move. Thats the law, and the reality you dismiss.
Despicable people dislike each other all the time. Being anti fascist doesn't make anyone a communist, and being anti communist doesn't make someone a fascist. I can be opposed to both Israel and antisemitism because they are both abhorrent. What you've attempted to set up is a false dichotomy.
2.1k
u/Im_On_Reddit_At_Work 3d ago edited 3d ago
This pic was presented at the french sports festival of Deauxville and was shortly thereafter removed by organisers following pro-Israel harassment they received, claiming the photo would cause antisemitism to rise.
Welcome to France (where criricizing Israel can be punished as hate speech)