Criticizing the actions of any government is what it is, but many critics of Israel go so far as to say there should be no Jewish state, which in effect means the Jews should be a people without a homeland, forever vulnerable to extermination by the Gentiles they are forced to live amongst as an eternal minority. That alone is suspicious as it carries the shadow of antisemitism, but once you throw in explicit support for groups like Hamas, the picture becomes clearer.
Except for a brief moment of shame after World War II, the general attitude of the West has always been antisemitic. Those seeking to criticize the actions of the Israeli government should have to work harder to distinguish themselves from the antisemites who merely disguise their attitudes as criticism of Israel.
> Those seeking to criticize the actions of the Israeli government should have to work harder to distinguish themselves from the antisemites who merely disguise their attitudes as criticism of Israel.
This is the opposite of "no true Scotsman" - "always true antisemite"?
Not at all. It's a recognition that if racists run around using code words to thinly veil their hatred, it behooves the rest of us to make sure we don't get confused with the racists.
I disagree, the Israeli government should be working harder to distinguish itself as a well-governed state, especially when looked at from the U.S. as there is a large sum of foreign aid and military aid going from our tax dollars to the state.
Criticizing the entire idea of a theocracy, and that a religion should (of course) have a homeland to dominate, does not make you an antisemite, nor covered with antisemitism "shadow." More an antisemitism smear.
Now, I am suspicious of the people who are irate about Israel as a Jewish state, but are all about the Dalai Lama. I don't see how that makes sense unless you have something against Jewish people.
The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line. So Israel is not a homeland for a religion, it is a homeland for a nationality.
Sure, a convert to Judaism is also a Jew. But Judaism is explicitly not a religion for everyone, it is only a religion for the Jews. So if you believe in Judaism but have no desire to be a Jew yourself, you can just follow the Noahide laws. Actually becoming a Jew entails an extra step beyond that, namely the intention to join the Jewish nation. So not even in the case of conversion can the Jewish nation be equivalent to Judaism.
In practice, Israel is also just as secular as any Western country. No theocracy to be found there. This is more than you can say for, say, England, which has a state-established church with the monarch at its head.
>The child of a Jewish mother is Jewish regardless of their religion, and this applies recursively, so you can have generation after generation of secular Jews as long as there's an unbroken matrilineal line.
So it's just racist? I prefer to think of it as a theocracy that preserves a culture that has been historically very endangered. That, I don't feel as bad about.
>it is a homeland for a nationality.
If you, by law, make being a member of a religion a sufficient qualification for citizenship in a nation, this is self-fulfilling.
A theocracy is a government that governs based upon the dictates of religious doctrine. The Israeli government does not do this in any way, shape, or form. It is as secular as most Western countries.
Most nationalities are passed down by descent. If this constitutes racism, then so does the citizenship law of every nation that grants the right of citizenship to the children of a citizen. Nearly every country does this, so there is no reason to single out Israel unless you are trying to enforce a double standard.
Some nationalities allow outside individuals to join, and the Jewish nation is one of these. Like any nation, the Jewish nation has steep requirements of cultural belief and assimilation in order to join, namely conversion to the Jewish religion. But this is not merely a matter of belief. A Gentile who merely believes in Judaism is still not a Jew until they formally convert (i.e. joins the nation), just as an otherwise qualified foreigner who can pass the US citizenship exam is still not an American until they take the test and swear the oath to become a naturalized citizen.
There are many nationalities and ethnic groups that no longer have their own sovereign nation. Are they all "vulnerable to extermination by the Gentiles"?
That depends. Do we have a long history of trying to exterminate those other nations? We have a very long history of trying to exterminate the Jews, or oppressing them regardless.
The Romani have been historically oppressed, and were the victims of genocide along with Jews in the Holocaust. Where should their sovereign state be located?
I hope I'm not being a jerk, but there were lots of Jews in the first half of the 20th century that were opposed to Zionism. I assume you wouldn't accuse them all of being antisemitic.
Obviously not. But it's not up to Gentiles to decide the best strategy for the Jews to defend themselves from us, either. Likewise, what the Romani do to protect their nation is up to them.
Except for a brief moment of shame after World War II, the general attitude of the West has always been antisemitic. Those seeking to criticize the actions of the Israeli government should have to work harder to distinguish themselves from the antisemites who merely disguise their attitudes as criticism of Israel.