Jewish Settler Attacks = Terrorism

yosi

You are defining the terms so that they allow you to reach the goal you want to get to. The settlements are not at all integral to Zionism. You simply assert as much because it suits you to believe that. And again, my claims in this thread have never been that criticism of Israel as such is antisemitic. I'm not at all haphazard with these terms, much as you'd like to believe that I am. When I say that some of your comments are antisemitic it has nothing to do with the fact that you criticize Israel. It is simply because I believe it to be true, not based off of my dislike of your politics, but because you say things that fit the definition of the term.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

The settlements are not at all integral to Zionism.

Yes they are. Conquest of all the land between the Jordan River and the sea is essential to Zionism. Why are you pretending otherwise?

yosi said:

When I say that some of your comments are antisemitic it has nothing to do with the fact that you criticize Israel. It is simply because I believe it to be true

Thanks again for proving my point that your claims are absurd:

yosi said:

...this only makes sense if you accept that antisemitism is whatever any Jew says it is, which is an absurd position.

yosi said:

you say things that fit the definition of the term.

Such as?

yosi

Look back at the E.U. definition. All the bolded stuff has appeared in your comments over the years.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

It is simply because I believe it to be true

yosi said:

...this only makes sense if you accept that antisemitism is whatever any Jew says it is, which is an absurd position.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

Look back at the E.U. definition. All the bolded stuff has appeared in your comments over the years.

Provide me one example. Just one.

yosi

Well, for one, the definition says, and I quote, "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
Did you not say that?

yosi

Or there's, and I quote again from the EU definition, "Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group."

Which you do all the time. That's certainly what that MN quote you've posted over and over again does.

yosi

"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." Yeah, you seem to do a lot of that too.

yosi

Or there's "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
You definitely do that a lot.

yosi

"Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis."
We both know that you've done this before.

yosi

"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."
This one too.

yosi

"Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions."
Definitely do some of this on a regular basis.

yosi

"Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)."
I seem to remember you defending "scholarship" into the factual accuracy of the Holocaust around when Iran hosted their Holocaust denial conference. So there's that too.

yosi

Really the question is which one of the examples of antisemitism that the EU gives have you not dipped a toe in?

Byrnzie

yosi said:

Well, for one, the definition says, and I quote, "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor."
Did you not say that?

No, I didn't. I said that a state run by, and for Jews - a Jewish state - is a racist endeavour.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

Or there's, and I quote again from the EU definition, "Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group."

Which you do all the time. That's certainly what that MN quote you've posted over and over again does.

Do the majority of Jews support Israel? Yes. Do the majority of Jews support Israel even when it commits barbarous crimes against the Palestinians? Yes.

That's not anti-Semitic. That's just a fact.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

"Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." Yeah, you seem to do a lot of that too.

'...Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or–as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you–for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here.

Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.'

Nothing racist about that at all. And just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

Or there's "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
You definitely do that a lot.

A lot of Jewish policy can be compared to that of the Nazis, and for good reason: Because a lot of the policies have been borrowed directly from the Nazis.

And it's not anti-Semitic to point that out because it's a fact.

Then again, the term anti-Semitism as you, and other Israel apologists, apply it, has become almost completely meaningless, and so can be applied to practically anything, or anyone, including those who tell the truth.

Byrnzie

yosi said:

"Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis."
We both know that you've done this before.

Again, bullshit. I've done nothing of the sort. But feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Byrnzie

This is just further proof of your desperate attempts to deflect from the much more serious issue of Israel's crimes.

And even if anything that I've posted can be made to fall under any of the so-called 'examples' you've listed, so what? The term, as you choose to apply it, has been made completely redundant.