Replies

When liberal Jews are among the strongest critics of the State of Israel, it demonstrates that there is a weakness in the argument that being anti-Israel is an anti-Semitic stand.

I believe that anti-Semitism should be assigned only to those who are anti-Jewish in some broader sense than being anti-Israel.

If one takes issue with the foreign policy of Italy or Spain does that make them anti-Christian or anti-Catholic?

Now I don’t need any convincing that radical Democratic politicians are anti-Israel, but to label some of them anti-Semitic is rather meaningless if their political support comes mainly from liberal Jews and their allies.

As to any Muslim politician being anti-Semitic, here again it would take more of a general demonstration of being anti-Jewish. For now I would prefer to fight this fight on the basis of our support for Israel being a good thing, and not unconditionally, those who believe that we must support the Israeli government in every measure are hampering our ability to ask for a rational set of policies. Not every decision ever made by an Israeli government is a good one or worthy of our support. In general, they are our allies and their enemies are our enemies. This does not mean there should be unconditional acceptance of all they say and do.

I have found that in many cases, what people on the right call anti-Semitism on the left is really anti-conservatism, it just happens that Israel has a conservative (Jewish obviously) government. But for liberal Jews there is still lots of good will and affection. It’s probably neither a religious nor a racial question, but a political values question. We would be wise to remember this because it is actually us Christian conservatives that they truly hate, not Jews.

When liberal Jews are among the strongest critics of the State of Israel, it demonstrates that there is a weakness in the argument that being anti-Israel is an anti-Semitic stand.

I believe that anti-Semitism should be assigned only to those who are anti-Jewish in some broader sense than being anti-Israel.

The issue has nothing to do with "liberal" Jews. They are ignorant of the history of their own people (or even masochists) if they advocate policies that will destroy the world's only Jewish state.

Make no mistake about it, advocating policies that will destroy Israel - such as the three new Democrat witches in the House clearly do - make one a hater of the Jewish people, i.e., an anti-Semite.

Anyone advocating a world without Israel is indeed anti-Semitic in view of the role of Israel as a place which Jews around the world have sought out when and if conditions in their Diaspora homelands become unbearable. And if ever the destruction of modern-day Israel came about, Jews around the world would generally be more vulnerable to persecution. So, just as it has been since its founding, a thriving Israel is a strong counterweight to anti-Semitism elsewhere in the world.

I think you argued around the point. What does it mean to be “anti-Israel”? Literally it means you are against Israel; you wish it didn’t exist; you want it dissolved or removed; at the extreme it means you want to see it destroyed through violence. I think if someone is that extreme, it pretty closely conflates with anti-Semitism. Because what is Israel? It is the physical manifestation of Jewish self-determination. Who would want to end Jewish nationalism and Jewish self-determination?

As you said, nobody is “anti-Italy”. So it’s a question of semantics. Reasonable people can disagree on specific policies and actions - heck, Americans disagree all the time it doesn’t make one or the other “anti-American”. So too can Jews - just like everyone else - have differing opinions on Israeli government, policies, actions.

Part of the problem, thus, is the polarity of the conversation. It is framed as either “Pro-Israel” or “Pro-Palestinian”. Why can’t people be both? I am both. I want the Palestinian people to have better lives, economic opportunities. I even support their self-determination. They fact is they are there and identify. I think they make all kinds of blunders that prevent them from their best human potential, and I’d even say Israel shares some of the blame for that but mostly it is the fault of their own fragmentation, lack of political unity, cultural and ethnic and tribal conflicts, and a focus on the wrong things (focusing against Israel instead of in favor of their own future - and there are many reasons for that including Western policies which have done nothing but exacerbate the status quo).

Of course our support for Israel is not unconditional. We did sign a deal, under Carter, to provide aid to Israel and Egypt when the Camp David Peace Accords were signed. Of course we could renegotiate that. Other than that, any support is conditional. Under Bush Sr, we withdrew some additional aid because we objected to Israeli government actions at the time. When Trump declared he would recognize Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel, he also said that he would ask them to pay a very high price for that when it came down to his yet-to-be-revealed “Deal of the Century” for Israeli-Palestinian-Arab peace.

You asked if being anti-Spain equates to being anti-Catholic. This is where I think many people get confused. Because Jews are a Nation in the traditional sense, not the modern sense. They go back 1000’s of years before Christianity. Whether you call them Jews or Hebrews or Israelites it is the same thing, essentially. And like all ancient peoples they have their own culture and traditions, they identify to a geographical area, and they have their own religion. The ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians - even most Native American tribes - all have the same attributes. Most of these other Nations have changed their religions - but the Jews did not. Many Native Americans still practice their traditional religions or customs.

So part of the problem is trying to identify Jews as something too narrow. Jews are a Nation (in the traditional sense not the modern Nation-state sense) with their own religion. It is not just a religion, it is not just a culture.

Down to the question of anti-Semitism in American politics the question of “dual loyalty” has been around a long time. The question came up when Kennedy ran, whether he would be subservient to The Vatican. This kind of stuff would be very hurtful to Catholic Americans and Jewish Americans. There are millions of Jewish Americans who are not Israelis and will never be Israelis. Israel today is made up mostly of exiles from WW2 Europe and the post 1948 exodus from Arab lands, and Soviet Union exiles. But really today most of Israeli people are native born there. They have their own agenda different from ours and it’s really kind of silly to suggest they would sacrifice the country of their birth because some European or American politician hates Jews.

But you raise a good question: If a Muslim American can question Jewish loyalty to America, why can’t other Americans question that Muslim person’s loyalty? These one or two politicians in the news lately have imo gone beyond the line of what is acceptable. They are entitled to their opinions, but they are not exempt from criticism for those opinions. You are correct, the vast majority of support for Israel comes from Christian Conservatives. The Jewish vote breaks about 65% for Democrats so in a way that keeps a 2-party system “balanced” wrt our relations with Israel. But it is also based on perception, on history, on a sense of Justice. Before the 1980’s there was very little “anti-Israelism” because Israel was widely perceived as the victim of terror and aggression, and admired for their achievements. The occupation of the Palestinian people has raised legitimate ethical and moral questions and this is why, in part, there is more criticism of Israel. And inside those critics the Jew haters hide their hatred and disguise it as empathy for Palestinians.