This is a long ass post. Im going to try to address some of it but Ill probably miss big chunks of it, just because I do not have the energy.
That “long ass post” was about 865 words, or about three pages in a book. I think that if someone is trying to help you not be antisemitic, and you genuinely wish to not be, engaging with three pages of material is not too much to ask. Also, sorry, but not sorry, this one is longer.
1. Just because some Jewish people say something is anti-semitic, doesn't mean it actually is antisemitic. Like how just because some white people claim something is anti-white racism, doesn't mean it is. Im comparing them to a majority rn because in Israel, Jewish people are the majority.
Right, and just because some Black people say something is racist, it doesn’t mean that I, as a not-Black-person need to listen to them. If it’s racist when you do it to a POC, then it’s antisemitic when you do it to a Jew. As for your saying that you’re comparing to white people because Jews make up the majority in Israel – first, that’s ignoring how the situations are changed by the long history of Jewish oppression which white people lack, and second, anti-Zionism hurts Jews in the diaspora much more than it hurts Israelis, and Jews in the diaspora are definitely minorities. In addition, it’s not just some random Jew on the internet telling you things are antisemitic – having double standards for Jews and Israel, which is most of what I called you out on, and denying the Jewish people their right to self determination are both examples given in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.
2. Okay they were driven out by conquering peoples. That sucks. Except they are now the conquering peoples driving out people who live there. People that have lived there for generations. So.
Your lack of knowledge of history is glaring. The modern state of Israel was not founded in the way you think. Negotiations were made on an international level for England (who was in charge of the land at the time) to give over a portion of it to the Jews to found a Jewish state. This is something that the Jews agreed to. Additional land was dedicated to the formation of a Palestinian state, which Palestinian leadership did not agree to. When Israel declared independence, the surrounding nations tried to invade the new country to kill, or at least ethnically cleanse, the Jews, some of whom were Holocaust survivors with literally nowhere else to go, and some of whom had been living there for generations. So.
A small percentage of the Palestinians who were living in the area who left were legitimately “driven out” due to the war, but many who left did so because the invading armies promised that they’d get their land back and more once they were done killing the Jews. And many people who lived in the area stayed. They, and their descendants, make up the majority of the 20(ish)% of Israeli citizens (full citizens with full rights and protections under the law) that are Muslim Arabs. Claiming that the Jews drove out the people who lived in Palestine as conquerors is repeating Hamas propaganda. I know that you say that you’re not pro-Hamas, but if you aren’t then why are you repeating their falsehoods?
3. Honestly? If the cherokee say they have a claim to southeastern USA land that people currently live in- yeah, I dont agree with that. Because as unfortunate as it is that your ancestors were kicked out, there are now people who *currently live there* and you do not get to kick people from their homes to claim land you've never even lived on. When you start playing that game- the question becomes, how far back does it go?
4. Should we give native america back to the native Americans? Completely ignore all established power structures and let them rule the government, establish their own laws, no matter the consequences for the actual populace of people living in that land?
Interesting that you’re anti-land back. But, you’re also assuming that giving indigenous people control of their native lands means that they’ll necessarily kick out everyone who isn’t indigenous. As far as I understand, that isn’t the goal of most (any?) land back movements, and it isn’t what Israel did either. You’re arguing against something that didn’t happen.
Also, to turn your logic around – very few of the Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 are still alive, just due to age as they’re all in their late 70s or older. The majority of Palestinians are descended from people who were kicked out, but were not kicked out themselves. If you can say to the Jews in Israel “Because as unfortunate as it is that your ancestors were kicked out, there are now people who currently live there and you do not get to kick people from their homes to claim land you've never even lived on,” can you not say the same thing to the Palestinians who now want to kick out Jewish Israelis? Same thing with “Completely ignore all established power structures and let them rule the government, establish their own laws, no matter the consequences for the actual populace of people living in that land?” That’s what destroying Israel in favor of a Palestinian state would do right now. Why, if you’re not antisemitic, do does this apply to Palestinians, but not Israelis?
5. Great, they claim to be non-discriminatory. What is your response to Palestinians being evicted from their homes?
My response to Palestinians being evicted from their homes is that it’s terrible, and that my more specific response depends on what exactly you’re talking about. Are you talking about the Nakba? Because a lot of my response is above – most of them chose to leave, and that still sucks, but it’s a choice they made. Are you talking about the settlements in the West Bank? Because then my response is that every country has its far right assholes that do shitty things. The US also claims to be non-discriminatory, and has far right assholes that do shitty things to minorities, but you’re not advocating against its existence. In fact, in #3 and #4, you seem to be explicitly arguing for it’s continued existence and that disrupting it would be harmful. There’s that double standards antisemitism again.
6. No, its not an antisemitic double standard just because you say it is. Ukraine is being attacked by Russia because they claim its full of nazis (really, they just want to conquer them and take the land). Wow, would you look at that! Everybody peacefully decided Israel gets that land!... what's that? Not everybody decided that? England, with its great reputation as totally not a conqueror, on the land it totally didn't conquer, decided that? Crazy. And the people who actually lived in the area didn't like it? Wow, crazy.
You’re ignoring the fact that the UN (which has representation from every country) voted and the majority decided that Jews should be allowed to establish a state in their indigenous homeland. It wasn’t just England being arbitrary with it’s own land – the world voted and the majority agreed. But, if we have to go through who owned the land and why - England was in control of the British Mandate for Palestine after conquering it from the Ottoman Empire in WWI. The Ottomans conquered it from the Crusaders, who conquered it from the Islamic Caliphates, who conquered it from Rome, who conquered it from the Jews (and who are the ones who changed the name of the area from Judea to Syria-Palestinia to erase Jewish connection to the land.) Prior to Rome conquering the area, it went back and forth between the Jews, the Greeks, the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Persians. The earliest information we’ve got on the area is that it was inhabited by Canaanites, of which Jews were one tribe, and the only tribe in existence today. Jews are direct descendants of the original inhabitants of the area, and you cannot conquer your own home – only throw out invaders (fun linguistic fact – “Palestine” is derived from “Philisitne” which is derived from the Hebrew “polshim” which means “invaders”).
As for the people who lived there not liking it – yeah, because Jews had been treated as second class citizens (at best), and they objected to having to treat them as equals and let them have a say in the government. You’re not going to look at a reconstruction era white southerner who objects to a newly freed black man having rights and say, “yeah, we should listen to this guy about the future of black people,” and yet that’s the exact sentiment you’re implying when you say that Arab objections to Jews having rights should be considered.
6. I dont actually object to a country being an ethnostate where the majority of people just happen to be an ethnicity. I do object to it when they become an ethnostate by evicting people from their homes.
Ok, but you do realize that every enthostate gets that way by evicting people from their homes, it’s just that for the other countries I listed it happened a long time ago, right? Like there were a ton of different tribes in what we now call Germany, and the Germanic tribe conquered the other ones. Same thing with Japan – go Google the Ainu. Or China – do you really think that everyone in that whole area was originally Han Chinese, or do you think that maybe something happened to the other ethnicities that used to be there?
I also want to point out that if Israel ceases to be (and because Zionism is the stance that Isreal should exist, anti-Zionism is pretty definitionally the stance that it shouldn’t) then the Palestinian ethnostate will become an ethnostate by evicting 7 million Jews from their homes. Again, why is it not ok that Israel did it in the past, but something that anti-Zionists aspire for Palestinians to do in the future?
Also you skipped this, but I'm still interested in your answer so I'll ask again - given that we've now established that self-determination is a human right (at least as far as the UN is concerned), and that Zionism is the name for wanting Jewish self-determination, are you still feeling good about thinking that Jews shouldn't/don't have that right?
