The anti Israel = anti semitism agenda

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back on topic, has anyone seen any recent polls re: US views of Israel/Palestine. This one was taken back in March obvs pre- this recent escalation:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/340331/americans-favor-israel-warming-palestinians.aspx

Gallup's annual update of Americans' views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict shows Israel remains well-liked in the U.S. At the same time, Americans' favorable views of the Palestinian Authority are at a new high of 30%, as is the percentage sympathizing more with the Palestinians than the Israelis (25%).

Similarly, Americans continue to be more inclined to want the U.S. to pressure the Palestinians than the Israelis to resolve the Mideast conflict. But support for emphasizing pressure on Israel is also at a new high of 34%, with a majority of Democrats taking this position for the first time.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to see what the shift is (if any) after the various celebs sharing the BLM style short explainers/infographics etc. on Instagram and the tweets of support on Twitter, in protests etc..
 
dowie said:
That wasn't the point, the point was re: the last part - you're "saying that as well" in response to apparent spurious accusations of antisemitism but you make those same sorts of spurious accusations yourself re: claimed racism towards other groups or transphobia etc.. often based on some mind reading on your part, ergo it's a bit ironic to see you making an objection here!
Click to expand...

And people are free to call my accusations spurious when I call them out, that’s fine?

What I don’t do is blanket all criticism of anything unrelated to the topic as phobic towards something if there is legitimate discussion to be had. Whereas some people claim that any and all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

is criticising BLM in and of itself racist? No
is criticising trans people like Jessica Yaniv transphobic? No

etc etc
 
dowie said:
Back on topic, has anyone seen any recent polls re: US views of Israel/Palestine. This one was taken back in March obvs pre- this recent escalation:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/340331/americans-favor-israel-warming-palestinians.aspx



I'd be curious to see what the shift is (if any) after the various celebs sharing the BLM style short explainers/infographics etc. on Instagram and the tweets of support on Twitter, in protests etc..
Click to expand...

I think there will have been a significant change, main stream media are now openly hosting people who criticise Israel, all be it, sometimes reluctantly. Jon Oliver has laid scathing criticism on HBO.

It was less than 10 years ago that the BBC radio would bleep out the phrase “free Palestine” as being too controversial.
 
I think some of it is short term reaction - stuff has been simmering fairly low key for awhile and a lot of people aren't seeing enough justification for Israel's actions this time around so they have less support. I doubt it would take much for it to flip back again.
 
Nitefly said:
I have always found the US to be unduly ‘pro’ Israel in this conflict, where to my mind there are two ‘culprits’ subject to fair criticism.

Hamas; relatively ‘unsophisticated’ and clearly involved with terrorism.

The Israeli State; sophisticatedly and indiscriminately treating swathes of people like they are all Hamas.

Fundamental wrongs on both sides of ‘the fence’ and basically impossible to ‘support’ either.... the only people you can champion are those on either side who want a peaceful resolution.
Click to expand...

All of bidens 3 daughters are married into Judaism and kamala Harris's husband is also Jewish.

If they were all married to Muslims or Palestinians do you think they should share the sake or a different viewpoint they have today?
 
dowie said:
That wasn't the point, the point was re: the last part - you're "saying that as well" in response to apparent spurious accusations of antisemitism but you make those same sorts of spurious accusations yourself re: claimed racism towards other groups or transphobia etc.. often based on some mind reading on your part, ergo it's a bit ironic to see you making an objection here!



Keep in mind your recall isn't particularly good, you thought I was an elderly disabled bloke the other day!
Click to expand...

What's especially ironic is that, unlike when they make random spurious claims against all and sundry, in this case the objection was to the internationally agreed, accepted by our and multiple other governments and bodies, definition of antisemitism.

So they were literally suggesting that breaching the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism is not antisemitism.

Now, I know you've expressed concerns yourself, but I didn't use the definition to call our random criticism of Israel, but two specific examples, one where the posted claimed that Israel was an illegitimate state, and one directly comparing Jewish civilians to Nazis.

It is perfectly possible to criticise the actions of Israel, their continued push to settle the west Bank and Gaza with their own people, for example, is absolutely unacceptable (as is, for example, Russia doing the same in the Ukraine), but that's not what I called out.
 
The ironic thing about mmj's faux outrage was he was perfectly happy to promulgate antisemitic based propaganda when it was in support of the orange buffoon.
 
Dolph said:
What's especially ironic is that, unlike when they make random spurious claims against all and sundry, in this case the objection was to the internationally agreed, accepted by our and multiple other governments and bodies, definition of antisemitism.

So they were literally suggesting that breaching the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism is not antisemitism.

Now, I know you've expressed concerns yourself, but I didn't use the definition to call our random criticism of Israel, but two specific examples, one where the posted claimed that Israel was an illegitimate state, and one directly comparing Jewish civilians to Nazis.

It is perfectly possible to criticise the actions of Israel, their continued push to settle the west Bank and Gaza with their own people, for example, is absolutely unacceptable (as is, for example, Russia doing the same in the Ukraine), but that's not what I called out.
Click to expand...

It is not the accepted definition by the UK government. Your initial post bringing up the topic was wrong, comparing the government of Israel to anything is not antisemitic under UK definition.

Defining Anti-Semitism 4. We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic. ‘Additional Caveats’ (point 3) We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements: It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
platinum87 said:
It is not the accepted definition by the UK government. Your initial post bringing up the topic was wrong, comparing the government of Israel to anything is not antisemitic under UK definition.
Click to expand...

The UK government rejected that attempt to amend the definition or examples when they accepted it in 2016.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-governments-adoption-of-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/

Did the UK Government also adopt the IHRA’s 11 examples of anti-Semitism?
Yes. Although the UK Government’s original statement announcing the adoption of the IHRA definition did not mention its 11 “contemporary examples”, it is clear they form part of Government policy.

First, the Government rejected calls from the Home Affairs Committee to insert two “clarifications” to the IHRA definition and examples:

It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
It is not anti-Semitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.
The UK Government said it believed that an existing caveat, that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic”, was “sufficient to ensure freedom of speech”.
Click to expand...
 
Thekwango said:
what idiot posted that??
Click to expand...

B&W, in a line discussing why they considered it perfectly acceptable to lob rockets at civilians. They are the same person that also said it was a shame only 2 Israeli civilians had been killed, it should be 200,000.

They then tried to hide behind the claim they were talking about the government, despite the discussion at the time being explicitly about targeting civilians.

It was a classic example of the reason why the definition and examples are written the way they are, to prevent such antisemitism being hidden in claims of 'just criticising the Israeli state'
 
Dolph said:
B&W, in a line discussing why they considered it perfectly acceptable to lob rockets at civilians. They are the same person that also said it was a shame only 2 Israeli civilians had been killed, it should be 200,000.
Click to expand...
the level of idiocy in some people is often bewildering. it's also pretty disgusting wishing for the deaths of 200,000 people irrespective of what ones opinion may be in any conflict.
Dolph said:
to prevent such antisemitism being hidden in claims of 'just criticising the Israeli state'
Click to expand...
but criticising the Israeli state, if genuine, should never be classed as antisimitc.
 
Thekwango said:
the level of idiocy in some people is often bewildering. it's also pretty disgusting wishing for the deaths of 200,000 people irrespective of what ones opinion may be in any conflict.

but criticising the Israeli state, if genuine, should never be classed as antisimitc.
Click to expand...
It takes a bit of inference to read what B&W said as classing actual civilians as nazis, so don't rely solely on Dolph's take there. But B&W was certainly a bit too keen on hamas rockets I do agree.
 
Thekwango said:
the level of idiocy in some people is often bewildering. it's also pretty disgusting wishing for the deaths of 200,000 people irrespective of what ones opinion may be in any conflict.

but criticising the Israeli state, if genuine, should never be classed as antisimitc.
Click to expand...

As long as it's consistently applied, I agree, and so does the ihra definition.

Singling out Israel for specific criticism that you don't apply to other countries for similar actions, on the other hand, is different. (See the tendancy on parts of the left to attack Israel for the west Bank while either excusing, minimising, 'both siding' etc the actions of Russia in the Ukraine, or criticising Israel for civil liberties violations while supporting Venezuela et al).

The nazi comparison issue is specific, but it's easily avoidable, so I don't see it as a free speech issue any more than not using racial slurs is a free speech issue.
 
dl8860 said:
It takes a bit of inference to read what B&W said as classing actual civilians as nazis, so don't rely solely on Dolph's take there. But B&W was certainly a bit too keen on hamas rockets I do agree.
Click to expand...

It's about the wider context of the line of discussion at the time in the thread, rather than just the individual post.

It's a common tactic of racists of all types to make their statements constructively vague so they can claim they have been misrepresented when called on it. The wider context of that individuals posts are crystal clear, and they fooled a lot of people into defending their racism.
 
LOL I just flicked over to the live streaming from the Israeli artillery position as one of the crew decided to take a walk away from the rest, towards the camera, to relieve himself and flopped it out in front of the camera - they shut down the stream a bit too late.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom