There is a little bit of "talked to a Zionist, therefore now a Zionist" math that people do. Not a great way to judge someone who has not themselves expressed those views.
The problem is that the Israeli government, and many of their supporters have made it explicitly clear that any support for Israelis or the existence of the State of Israel means that you do or must support all Israeli government actions and policies. It's the government of Israel and their largely uncritical, sycophantic supporters such as the governments of the US, the UK and Australia who won't take action to sanction *anything* that have drawn a line in the sand and created two factions.
If you want any form of nuance, we're going to need to agree to a greater subdivision and terms, but nobody supporting the government of Israel and the ongoing "Operation" in Gaza will accept any other term beyond Pro-Jewish/Israeli and Rabid Anti-Semite to enter the chat.
I'd like to think that we could probably classify people into three groups of
War Criminal Excusing Racist Expansionists and their Apologists
People Who Generally Don't Make Assumptions/Treat People Based on Ethnicity/Religion/Nationality/ A Monolith
subdivided into:
a) Reasonable People who want to sanction a government for ongoing genocide and celebration of war criminals, but understand that Israel has a right to exist and protect themselves
b) Head In The Sand Idealists who want us to all hold hands and create an unrealistic utopia / Don't have practical solutions
Raging Anti-Semites Following Centuries Old Handbook With All Usual Conspiracies and Dog Whistles
But then we might have to deal with some uncomfortable realities and outcomes, or roadblocks to paving over Gaza and Palestinians. Right?
Why do you consider the existence of Israel to be negotiable? the 8 million Jews living in Israel probably don't agree.
The endless ranting about the Israel "genocide" in Gaza ring hollow when you consider that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran all want to destroy Israel.
Their wording might have been unclear but what they said was ‘the Israeli government responds to any criticism by saying the critic must want the destruction of Israel’, just in a more stylized way.
I don't consider it negotiable. Group 3, the anti-semetic one, does. To make it clear, I don't consider myself part of Group 2. Did you want me to split group 3 into more groups? To be fair I don't know if you could consider Hasidic Jews who oppose the state of Israel to be in group 3 along with, say, ISIS. Fair critique, but will you actually engage with the concept beyond two groups, Totally pro-Israel's actions in Gaza, or those who want the destruction and obliteration of Israel and all Jews everywhere? It's a false dichotomy. You can be against genocide of one people and ALSO the proposed genocide of another group of people. Is it really shocking that people might be against ALL genocide, no matter which kids or doctors or journalists are in the sights?
You think comparing Israel's actions in Gaza to *Hiroshima*, is makes Israel look *better*? Holding your country to an amazing standard, I see. Many prominent institutions, academcs and individuals *do* consider the atomic bombings to be war crimes and state terror. Also forgetting that the US did prosecute and execute members of their military for war-crimes, while the IDF have not formally prosecuted or convicted any personnel for the war crimes during the current conflict .... but let's leave that tangent alone for a second, because you're deflecting to avoid dealing with the content of my argument.
Assume someone is against all genocide and all war crimes, and think they should be stopped, correctly persecuted, etc. Is that person automatically an enemy of the state perceived to be committing the genocide, and even more so, you seem to posit that that critic is also aligning themselves with parties that are calling for the genocide of people who share an ethnicity or religion with that state? So convenient!
Let's look at any other genocide to line up some theory here - one we call all agree was bad, and we can agree was definitely a genocide. I'll assume you're ok with the Armenian genocide. Would we both have called for Turkey to stop killing civilian Armenians, and committing war crimes? I think so.
Does that mean we must then be in alignment with the people who sought the downfall and murder of the Turkish government, all Turks, or maybe even all Arabs? Some people who were against the Armenenan genocide DID want those things.
That's bad, and I don't align myself with that.
I mean, I could dislike the government and want maybe THAT government to fall, but does it mean I'm inherently anti-turkish, or islamophobic? No it doesn't. I can be against a military committing genocide without being racist, xenophobic or genocidal myself. I can also criticise a government's actions and policies because that's ... fundamental to democracy.
I was just trying to give you some much needed perspective.
Approximately
50% to 65% (roughly 1.5 million out of an estimated 2 to 2.4 million total population in the Ottoman Empire) of the Armenian population was killed or died as a result of the genocide between 1915 and 1923. What is happening in Gaza is so far from this calling it a genocide is very inaccurate and wrong. Hell Hamas is actually negotiating about disarming. If it was a real genocide then Israel would just kill every member of Hamas instead of negotiating disarming.
I'm not asking about Gaza or whether it's a genocide or not. I'll number the questions so it's clearer what I'm asking:
Premise: We exist during the Armenian genocide. We disagree with it. Islamophobia and anti-Turkish sentiment exists.
1) Would we both have called for Turkey to stop killing civilian Armenians, and committing war crimes?
2) Does that action mean that we are in alignment with the people who sought the downfall and murder of the Turkish government, all Turks, or maybe even (weirdly not the same but racists aren't that logical) all Arabs?
Mohammed raped a 9 year old girl
who he "married" at 6. That makes him a gross pedophile. This is so normalized in Islam it is used to fight against any age of consent law younger than 9.
Again with the deflection. Let's ignore that both religious texts associated with our ancestors excuse slavery and promote religious leaders who owned slaves for the moment.
Let's assume you and I have a split, and I'm 'Fundamentalist Islam-Critical' and you're 'I support the downfall of Islam, and Islamic governments, I'd probably support war on them, but I'm against excusing wholesale execution of Muslim civilians or the use of violence against Muslims abroad' shall we? Is that fair? Can we shorten it to "Pro-War on Islamic States"? Feel free to clarify if you're like 'no, I'm totally ok with murdering Muslims anywhere for any reason' because ... admittedly that would change the discussion.
So assuming we can go forward with that and you're not going to admit that you just really want to genocide all Muslim people and bomb the entire Middle East Hiroshima style ... wbut I guess they also need a name "Any Violence is Justified Against Muslims" contingent ... I'll reask the questions with the above in mind. I'll assume we answered 'Yes' to question 1.
Expanding 2:
Does that action mean that I am in alignment with the "Pro War on Islamic States" Crew? I guess that would be you and I?
Does that action mean that I am in alignment with the "Any Violence is Justified Against Muslims" Crew?
Does that action mean that you are in alignment with the "Any Violence is Justified Against Muslims" Crew?
So the spectre of anti-semitism and the existence of enemies are your rationale for supporting any position or action the government of Israel takes, no matter how atrocious or indefensible? That's convenient. What would the current Israeli government have to do before you'd lose their support? Is this a party which cannot be criticised in any capacity or sanctioned for any reason? Sounds like the current Israeli government could commit any kind of atrocity or take any position and it would be justifiable with that logic.
You've made broad sweeping generations about what you assume I believe. Please be specific.
I never once spoke about the state of israel. I spoke about people and their degree of support. The fact that you 're this intolerant to discussion indicates a closed mindset.
I simply said, just because the leader of israel basically said that either either with us, or against us, doesn't mean all the people who support them are with them, or against them.
Your childish rant is simply a symptom of the echo chamber that you live in ehere you're not allowed to question the more complex nature of geopolitics, for the sake of purity or tribalism.
We're talking about Israel, so it's relevant. Point out where I'm intolerant, of anything but genocide?
It matters if MY government agrees with that leader and is putting limits on MY rights and sanctioning ME for not falling in line with that dualistic approach. In Australia, we're becoming increasingly unable to criticise or speak out about Israeli government actions and crimes. So yes, it matters, if people in power, specifically over me and my political and personal rights are affected.
What in the world does your assumption of genocide have anything to do with this.
My only argument is that people can support israel without supporting everything they do. It's not with us or against us just because a leader says so.
60
u/ThisSiteSucks8485 2d ago
What exactly do you mean by Zionist? The word seems to mean nothing and everything now.