Saying Israel doesn’t have a right to exist isn’t the same as saying all Jews should be forced to leave.
But it is virtually indistinguishable of what someone would say if they wished for ethnic cleansing. At the very least it sounds like a dog whistle. You could instead say Zionism or apartheid or fascist Israel has no right to exist.
And yeah, my original comment is also virtually indistinguishable from a mealymouthed moderate liberal lol.
But it is virtually indistinguishable of what someone would say if they wished for ethnic cleansing. At the very least it sounds like a dog whistle.
I have no patience for equating anti-zionism with antisemitism like this. This tactic is frequently used in bad faith by zionists to dismiss all criticism of Israel and to paint people as bigots for acknowledging that Palestinians have rights. For example, the US State Department explicitly lists criticism of the state of Israel as a form of “antisemitism,” “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,” and, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” are both listed as example of it. Israel is an enthostate and it’s engaged in genocide and Lebensraum, and you have to be willing to brush off such spurious accusations of antisemitism to be reasonable.
No one said anything about Israelis or Jews or ethnic cleansing. What we’ve said is that Israel - the geopolitical entity - does not have a right to exist. It doesn’t. We could use a different term for Israel but we are in no way obligated to and shouldn’t be expected to. What we say is what we mean. If you read in some hidden meaning that we don’t say then you could do the same for just about anything anybody says.
I’m also disgusted by the rhetoric and new fascist antisemitism “definition”. I’m not uninformed or pro-Israel at all.
But I definitely consider “Palestine has no right to exist” as hate speech and would demand censoring / banning that. Because there is a clear implication. We can not afford to allow tolerance towards intolerance.
The only thing I would say in favor of OP is that because Palestine is currently weaker and the oppressed victim, and rightfully outraged, it’s not fair to demand higher standards from them and is therefor hypocritical.
The trick here is that “Palestine” does not refer to any state*; as such someone saying “Palestine has no right to exist” can be only talking about the population, and promoting ethnic cleansing. That’s why it’s hate speech.
On the other hand “Israel” can refer to both “the Israeli population” and “the state of Israel”. So, every bloody time you attack the later, you get people misrepresenting your attack as if it was against the population. And Zionists have been exploiting this for ages, to silence anyone who speaks against it.
*Palestine does a state (or something close to one), but people typically call it “Hamas” instead of “Palestine”.
During WWII I don’t think it would be unreasonable to say, “Germany doesn’t have a right to exist,” but if you said “Poland doesn’t have a right to exist,” that would be pretty different. The latter is justifying subjugation of the country but the former is objecting to the state doing the subjugating.
But it is virtually indistinguishable of what someone would say if they wished for ethnic cleansing. At the very least it sounds like a dog whistle. You could instead say Zionism or apartheid or fascist Israel has no right to exist.
And yeah, my original comment is also virtually indistinguishable from a mealymouthed moderate liberal lol.
I have no patience for equating anti-zionism with antisemitism like this. This tactic is frequently used in bad faith by zionists to dismiss all criticism of Israel and to paint people as bigots for acknowledging that Palestinians have rights. For example, the US State Department explicitly lists criticism of the state of Israel as a form of “antisemitism,” “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,” and, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” are both listed as example of it. Israel is an enthostate and it’s engaged in genocide and Lebensraum, and you have to be willing to brush off such spurious accusations of antisemitism to be reasonable.
No one said anything about Israelis or Jews or ethnic cleansing. What we’ve said is that Israel - the geopolitical entity - does not have a right to exist. It doesn’t. We could use a different term for Israel but we are in no way obligated to and shouldn’t be expected to. What we say is what we mean. If you read in some hidden meaning that we don’t say then you could do the same for just about anything anybody says.
I’m also disgusted by the rhetoric and new fascist antisemitism “definition”. I’m not uninformed or pro-Israel at all.
But I definitely consider “Palestine has no right to exist” as hate speech and would demand censoring / banning that. Because there is a clear implication. We can not afford to allow tolerance towards intolerance.
The only thing I would say in favor of OP is that because Palestine is currently weaker and the oppressed victim, and rightfully outraged, it’s not fair to demand higher standards from them and is therefor hypocritical.
The trick here is that “Palestine” does not refer to any state*; as such someone saying “Palestine has no right to exist” can be only talking about the population, and promoting ethnic cleansing. That’s why it’s hate speech.
On the other hand “Israel” can refer to both “the Israeli population” and “the state of Israel”. So, every bloody time you attack the later, you get people misrepresenting your attack as if it was against the population. And Zionists have been exploiting this for ages, to silence anyone who speaks against it.
*Palestine does a state (or something close to one), but people typically call it “Hamas” instead of “Palestine”.
During WWII I don’t think it would be unreasonable to say, “Germany doesn’t have a right to exist,” but if you said “Poland doesn’t have a right to exist,” that would be pretty different. The latter is justifying subjugation of the country but the former is objecting to the state doing the subjugating.