A new low...even for liberal anti-war protesters

I didn't? What did you think I was doing when I said: No, don't be absurd. But since Israel is the only Jewish state, it is an easy conclusion to reach"?

OK, wait.

First, according to Tico, those who want Israel to give up the occupied territories are "anti-Jewish". That was Tico's initial assertion, after all.

The problem here, obviously, is that a sizable chunk of Israeli Jews themselves want Israel to do so. Are those Israeli Jews anti-Jewish, then? The Meretz party, former government coalition member, an anti-Jewish party?

But now the discussion has moved on to another level: at least, those who are anti-Zionist - who are opposed to the foundation of the state of Israel itself - are anti-Jewish.

Well, they're not really, Tico admits that it's not quite the same thing - but he feels like they are.

Again, there's a significant tradition in Jewish history opposed to Zionism to discount here in order to feel that way. But I'd like rather to take a step back first. To Tico's initial assertion.

There's no point really in arguing with him about whether those who oppose Zionism are necessarily anti-Semite if he believes even those who merely want Israel to return the occupied territories are anti-Jewish. All those Israelis who think so too included, I suppose.

That's the truly bizarre statement we're letting him get away with here.

Ticomaya wrote:

I didn't? What did you think I was doing when I said: No, don't be absurd. But since Israel is the only Jewish state, it is an easy conclusion to reach"?

I thought you were agreeing with me. You weren't?

I think those that do so not out of concern for the Jews, but just because they feel Israel's occupation causes terrorism, are anti-Jew. I put Momma Sheehan in that camp.

Ticomaya wrote:

I think those that do so not out of concern for the Jews, but just because they feel Israel's occupation causes terrorism, are anti-Jew. I put Momma Sheehan in that camp.

Couldn't it be both? Especially considering that terrorism disproportionately affects Jews?

So, one is anti-Jewish if they believe Israel's actions have lead to greater terrorism?

So, one is anti-Jewish if they believe Israel's actions have lead to greater terrorism?

Cycloptichorn

It's what you imply.

nimh wrote:

OK, wait.

First, according to Tico, those who want Israel to give up the occupied territories are "anti-Jewish". That was Tico's initial assertion, after all.

My initial assertion was that those who want Israel to get out of "the land of Palestine" are anti-Israel. The rest flowed from that.

How many Israeli jews think Israel should give back all the land it acquired in the Six Days War to the Palestinians? I'm not quite sure what Ms. Sheehan meant when she's said Irael should get out of "the land of Palestine," but I doubt she meant a unilateral pullback out of Gaza only

It's not implied, and it's certainly not stated.

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:

OK, wait.

First, according to Tico, those who want Israel to give up the occupied territories are "anti-Jewish". That was Tico's initial assertion, after all.

My initial assertion was that those who want Israel to get out of "the land of Palestine" are anti-Israel. The rest flowed from that.

Your initial assertion was that a), those who are anti-Israel are anti-Jew ("her anti-Israel statements can't be denied. She is, therefore, anti-Jew in my estimation") - and that b), Sheehan was anti-Israel on the virtue of how "she doesn't just oppose the policies of the current administration of Israel. She insists Israel should withdraw from 'the land of Palestine.'"

Wanting Israel to withdraw from Palestine = anti-Jew.

That's where the surrealness came in. Lots of Jews, Israelis even, want Israel to withdraw from Palestine, of course. Want it to withdraw from the occupied territories and exist side-by-side with a Palestine state on the West Bank and Gaza.

Now you could have clarified your point and taken the relatively more feasible tack that this in itself, of course, is not anti-Jew, but that Sheehan is, because she doesnt just want Israel to withdraw to its pre-67 borders - but for it to never have been founded in the first place.

To qualify, basically, that if what is meant with "withdrawing from Palestine" is the non-existence of Israel altogether, then its anti-Jewish.

That added distinction would have gotten you straight into the antizionism antisemitism discussion you're having now with FreeDuck and Set. But at least it would have gotten you out of the ludicrous implication that those who want Israel to revert to its pre-Six Days War borders must be anti-Jew, never mind that many Israeli Jews believe so too.

But instead, you did the opposite. When Blatham pointed out the obvious ("There is a huge anti-occupation movement within Israel itself"), you at first incongruously countered that "Israel is not proposing to withdraw from 'the land of Palestine.' Pulling back the occupation of the Gaza strip hardly constitutes this". Blatham of course wasn't talking about the Israeli government or just Gaza, so he explained again, which had you all incredulous:

Quote:

How many Israeli jews think Israel should give back all the land it acquired in the Six Days War to the Palestinians? I'm not quite sure what Ms. Sheehan meant when she's said Irael should get out of "the land of Palestine," but I doubt she meant a unilateral pullback out of Gaza only

Now this is just weird. There's lots of Israeli Jews, of course, who want more than the pullback from Gaza only. Who do think Israel should give back all the land it acquired in the Six Days War and withdraw from the Palestinian territories altogether. Thats what Blatham was talking about. Your apparent incredulity merely suggests ignorance. It can hardly be anti-Jew to agree with them.

She has as much right to speak out as any grieving parent - I don't think the snipers would be complaining if she were extolling the nobility of the cause in which the poor damn young fella died.

nope, they don't, do they ?

That being said, I think MM something of an exception among most of those who eagerly promote and defend the war here in that he is happy to risk himself in the thing.

true dat. he walks the talk. that's why i don't rag on him about the war stuff.

it's the armchair generals that get me cheesed off.

Ticomaya wrote:

Is there a reasonable conclusion to reach when one is anti-Israel other than they are anti-Jew?

Whoa Nelly! Tico, this surprises me coming from you. Let's see, would being against Sudan mean that you were a racist? Anti-Saudi Arabia = anti-semitic? (Semites include more than just Jews) Anti-Mexico = racist against hispanics?

So to your original question, the answer is yes. One can be against the actions of Israel, even against its very existence, and still not be anti-Jew. There are a lot of problems with the way things have been handled in that part of the world that should directly conflict with the American sense of justice. One can see that without being "anti-Jew".