Can we rationally discuss being anti-Israel without being called anti-Semitic?

Question

I have been watching closely Q's & A's along this line and I am disappointed with what I've seen. I am not anti-Semitic. I have many fulfilling relationships with Jewish people and even while being atheist, can respect the Jewish religion. However, none of this changes the fact that I believe that the Zionist movement, the establishment of Israel, and Israeli agression since then are the primary causes of most of the world's instablility. In short, I think the 20th Century Israel was just a bad idea from the start. It has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish culture/people/religion.

Can I get some reasonable (i.e. not hateful or defensive) input from Jews and Gentiles alike?

Wow! I guess I was unrealistic in thinking I could ask for no hateful or defensive input. "Rabid animals?" Nice...

Jesi, you make an excellent point. I have stated some generalizations and my language is not as precise as it could have been. But I still don't understand why being opposed to the state of Israel opens me up to being anti-Semitic, generalizations or not?

sorry, zahbudar, I can't accept your logic. It would say that anything with "good" parts assumes a "good" whole. I do believe in democracies, helping others, etc. but just because those things exist in a state doesn't necessitate supporting everthing else that state supports.

turboweegie, point well taken and thank you for an excellent thoughful response.

Boredbookworm, I appreciate your opinion and follow much of your discussion, except for one part: Why does the fact that the Jewish people occupied that land before the Muslim conquest justify the decision to forceibly displace the people who lived there in 1948? There are countless historical examples of indigenous people being displaced by conquest that remain displaced. What is particularly different about the Jewish example?

Sure, SVern, no sidestep...

To classify anyone, no matter how much of an enemy they may be to you, as a "rabid animal" is hateful. And surely, to broad-stoke every Muslim with that definition (as you just did) is indefensible. I can walk up the street when I sit right now and find you 20 Muslims who don't hate, or better yet, even think about, Israel. Are they rabid animals too?

And to clarify, I did not question Israel's right to defend itself. I questioned whether the fact that it exists and the way it behaves has been good for world stability...

epalmer613, I agree. That is a good clarification. I suppose I should be clearer and say that I don't consider any specific Israeli actions I am aware of to be as egregious as those you mention, but I would maintain that Israel's creation and subsequent policies have been more detrimental on a global scale than the others simply because of the chain reaction that has followed.

BMCR, that is a pretty interesting theory. Never thought about it that way. I can't really refute it wholesale, but I do not believe the alternate version you quoted reflects my views. I suppose to distill it down more, my issue with the state of Israel is solely geopolitical. It is about why it is where it is and what it's done since it was established there. That the people/culture/religion that established it is Jewish is coincidental, not material.

LOL, Brad Morris. Actually, you're right, they are. Thanks for noticing. Did you have a point to make?

Answer 1

You can present a logical argument that isn't anti-semetic, but chances are you will be labeled that anyway. Just like anyone who is for border protection is anti-Mexican.

People who throw out the label of racist generally do so because they cannot logically counter your arguement. Plus by doing so they in fact end the discussion on the table, putting you into defense mode about the charges leveled against you. TCentury Israel was just a bad idea from the starthe race card is a tool for the weak but it is an effective way to end a debate.

However, you chose not to present a logical argument an instead threw around a lot of generalizations. There are a lot more problems in the world than the Middle East. The entire continent below them sits on the worlds greatest natural resources but poverty, war and hunger kill thousands every day.

When you make a statement such as "I think the 20th Century Israel was just a bad idea from the start." Without presenting reasons for your opinion opens you up for charges of anti-semitism.

Answer 2

While I have always maintained that is it possible to be critical of Israel and not be anti semetic, it is also possible that critisim of Israel is itself anti semetic, even if no Jews or Judaism is mentioned in such critisim.

One way to tell if the critisim is anti semetic is if it generally parralels or mirrors anti semetic comments made about Jews. So, for example, if you substituted the word Jew or Judaism where one says Zionism or Israel and it comes out as an anti semetic slur, then it is probably anti semitism under another name.
Case in point:
Substitute:
"I believe that Judaism, the establishment of the Jewish religion, and Jewish agression are the primary causes of most of the world's instablility. In short, I think that Judaism was just a bad idea from the start."

See? Doesn't sound so good, does it?

Now, you may think I'm being unfair, and to some extent I mat be since I do not know the full scope of your views on the matter. But at least it'll give you something to think about.

Answer 3

There are Jewish people who disagree with the politics of Israel. They must speak their opinion to only a select few.

If the state of Israel did not exist in the Mid-East, the Arabic semites would still be fighting one another. That has been the culture of the region for as long as anyone has had the ability to write about it. The last sixty years' history is but a blip on the screen of the history of the region.

Answer 4

You could.. but most would rather not listen.
It would be fair to ask that we recognize the difference between the two, and you could be 100% sure that YOU are not anti-semitic while being anti-israel, but others will still consider them one and the same.. even though, as has been mentioned by other users, semitic refers to an ethnic race which includes Arabs and does not refer to a religious group (Jews), but because the word has become synonymously associated with "Jew" (just as the word commrade is associated with communism) the correct meaning of the word is conveniently ignored.. just as the fact that many Jews are against Israel's policies and actions is also conveniently ignored. (imagine the hard time those poor people have trying to be heard)
There are many who are anti-israel but afraid to speak up for fear of being rebuked, singled out and accused of anti-semitism.. it must be some paranoid reflex action on the part of those who throw the accusations so quickly. They must realize that pro-democracy does not equal pro-israel by default, because despite israel being a democracy (and let's not forget how That word has become a joke in the 21st century) it is one of the few nations that has the most brutal foreign policies and highest Geneva convention violations in the world (key words here being: "one of")

Answer 5

I want to thank you for asking this question. It does need serious discussion. But it could do without any charged rhetoric.

First, I find your statement about Israeli aggression to be a bit biased and not necessarily supported by the facts. Second, your blaming of most of the world's problems on Israel is simply not true, and again is a highly charged irrational statement. If you want a rational discussion, you have to refrain from introducing such highly charged biased remarks into said discussion.

So I will try to overlook those excesses on your part.

As for the Zionist movement and the establishment of Israel, yes, there were many things that were done wrong, and which were a wrong against the rest of the peoples of Palestine. Yes, we understand that there were a few Zionist terrorists in the decades preceeding the establishment of Israel. But there were those in opposition to the Zionists who were no angels either. A rational discussion would consider the bad actions of both sides.

Once Israel was established, what happened? The Arab armies attacked, and some 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab nations, losing their homes, their businesses, their possessions, their fortunes. Whether rightly or wrongly established, at that point, Israel had every right to fight for its existance. Which it has done successfully.

And since it has been established and has had to fight to remain in existance, Israel is evidently here to stay. It being 60 years since it was established, can not reasonable and rational people conclude that regardless of what harm might have been done then, it is now time for people to move on, to lay down their hatred and work on building a future for their children?

Israel is here to stay. People need to get over it.

Answer 6

Well, first of all, you begin your rather lengthy question with an incorrect attitude and hypothesis. Israel is a democratic country in the mioddle east which desires to be left alone in peace and harmony with its neighbors.
If you are pro democracies you are therefore pro Israel.
If you believe people have a right to defend themselves against agressors, then you are pro Isreal. If you believe that people should work hard (be industrious) to improve their lot, then you are pro israel. If you believe that people should help others less fortunate than themselves, then you are pro Israel. If you don't choose to worship your supreme being or maker the way they do in Israel, the Israelis couldn't care less.

So, an international group of representatives created the territory now called Israel, and what, you want to back peddle all the way back to that time and argue that it shouldn't have been done? Get real. Or, go pound some sand.

Answer 7

As a former Jew, now an atheist, I feel like I can field this. I do think we can rationally discuss being against the State of Israel as it was given to the Jewish people. I think all religiously led governments are wrong. When it crosses the line to anti-semitism, and this is my opinion, is when you discuss the Jewish people's right to a safe and free existence. I don't think you or all people who are anti-Israel feel this way, but those that are can be called anti-semtitic.

On my own diatribe, I also do not think that disbelief in the Holocaust means you are an anti-semite either. It means you are an idiot, but not anti-semitic.

Answer 8

The Jews have been in that part of the world (middle east) for as long as the Arabs have, but were persecuted and dispersed. They didn't just "show up" in 1948. They need a homeland. Look at what happened to them in Germany \ Europe during WW II and the Soviet Union.
Many anti-israelis deny that the Jews have any historical connection to the area, which is not true. Isreal has a positive economic influence in the area and is the only Democratic nation in the area. Maybe that is part of the reason the Arabs hate them.
The Isrealis have been attacked many times and have always tried to come to terms with her neighbors. Defending yourself is not aggression in my opinion.

Answer 9

I would not consider you at all anti-Semitic for your viewpoint, just uninformed about history and international law, as well as maybe being deficient in pragmatic knowledge. Jewish people lived in that part of the world for many, many centuries before Islam was started. (Even Mecca had a large Jewish population until Mohammad's followers drove them out or forced their conversion at threat of death.) Even if you ignore that basic historical fact, the Muslim claims to the land are based on conquest, which would be the same basis "Zionists" would depend upon if that Jewish population had not existed.

As for Israeli "aggression", you apparently do not know the meaning of the word or are ignorant of the facts. Israel has not engaged in wars of aggression. (The 1967 war, in which Israel fired the first shots, was predicated by a naval blockade, which the UN Charter and other instruments of international law clearly define as acts of war; therefore, their conduct was legally self-defense.) Nations have a right to defend themselves against attackers, and that has been the history of Israel's military activity right up to the present day.

See? I don't think you're anti-Semitic, just ignorant -- which can be fixed if you'll bother to do some actual research instead of just accepting the nonsense you have apparently been told. (In any case, Arabs, too are considered Semitic peoples, so a real anti-Semite would be against both Jews and Arabs.)

Answer 10

Certainly you can be anti-Israel without being an anti-Semite. But your language and criticisms should be limited in scope to policy issues.

Personally, I think Israel is not the problem, and has become a scape-goat for totalitarian, autocratic, and fascist apologists on both the right and the left.

Israel is the shinning city on the hill in the Middle East. I am a big supporter of Israel, but I can see how one can be opposed to Israel and not be a racist. I know Jews opposed to the existence of the nation state of Israel even existing. They view the reestablishment of Israel at the hands of man and not by God to be an abomination. I disagree with them, of course, but still can see their point.