- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- politics@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- politics@lemmy.ml
“The resolution suggests that all anti-Zionism—it states—is antisemitism. That’s either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong,” said New York Representative Jerry Nadler, who voted present. “The authors if they were at all familiar with Jewish history & culture should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was and is expressly not antisemitic. This resolution ignores the fact that even today, certain Orthodox Hasidic Jewish communities … have held views that are at odds with the modern Zionist conception.”
I’m not sure why the distinction is that important. If you’re anti-zionist in 2023, you’re calling for the destruction or deportation of 40% of the jews on this planet. It’s not quite the same as calling for the destruction or deportation of 100% of the jews, that’s for sure, but it’s not great either.
If freedom of speech is paramount, then speaking these things should be legal, like it should then be legal to call for the destruction of any other group of humans, animals, plants or whatevers. As it should be legal to publically denounce such speech, or get repercussions from saying such things.
Failure to support one ethnic cleansing does not mean that you support another. It is possible to support no ethnic cleansing.
I’m sure that’s possible, but it seems like no demonstrations are asking for that.
Being against the government of another country is in no way the same as wishing destruction or deportation on its people.
See: “fuck the CCP”
It’s kind of a major self-report when people are straight up incapable of imagining the possibility of a secular democratic state with more than one ethnicity/religion. Like it never even occurred to you as an option or possibility.
I’m sure people like that exist somewhere, but what does that have to do with the discussion or Israel?
Use some context clues, I think you can figure it out. I believe in you!