Those days people that hate Jews claiming they're "only anti-Zionists" are being white washed while synagogues are shot at and people displaying anything Jewish are attacked on the streets in western countries.
Antisemitism is at all times high. And not the "critical of Israel" type of antisemitism. The "jews control the weather", "space lasers from mars" and "let's kill all of them" type of antisemitism is rampant.
Comments like yours are the racist ones. Maybe you don't understand that but that's a whole problem on its own. People are completely uneducated on what antisemitism is, the traditional blood libels against the Jewish people, the history of the Jewish people, and how all that relates to what's going on today.
Yes and why do you think that is. Constant crying wolf means moderate persons are slowly feeling the word antisemite lose all meaning and therefore the real antisemites are gaining room to legitimise themselves.
I don't think we're crying wolf.
Part of the game played here by the people that hate Jews is to attack the meaning of this word and they are being successful at it. Distortion of words and language is part of the tool set used by the anti-Israel camp here. The anti-Israel camp, which is also (broadly) antisemitic, is intentionally fueling antisemitism while pushing the argument that it's not antisemitism because it's really anti-Zionism or anti-Israel.
For countries like Iran and Qatar Israel should not exist because it's Jewish and Jews should not live in the Middle East because it's Muslim land. In their eyes there is no confusion that these are all the same thing. Only in those eyes of said "moderate" people.
No that's complete nonsense. In today's era actual antisemites won't need guesswork to locate, they'd openly vomit out a salad of zog, greedy bastards, traitors, that 109 country bs, holocaust denialism, etc etc. AIPAC for example has made the calculation that accusing moderate non-racists of antisemitism is much more effective than doing anything about actual hardcore antisemites whom they ignore. Actions like this are the reason words like ZOG are slowly becoming used in the mainstream. The accusation of antisemitism is losing all meaning.
Arabic countries didn't have much trouble coexisting with native jews. You might be overlooking the minor point of shipping Europeans en-masse into a place and displacing people who lived there before natively.
Arabic countries barely tolerated Jews as second class citizens under Islamic rule. That is the truth. What you're regurgitating here is the nonsense. If life was so great for the Jews under Arabic rulers where are the communities of Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq? How many Jews are left in those places? Zero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world barely touches this topic.
Jews living in present day Israel were subject to pogroms, murder, and ethnic cleansing well before modern Zionism. One random example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed
So the fairy tale put forward by today's antisemites that you are echoing is historically false and nonsense. That's not to say there were some better periods for some Jews in some areas but as a rule they were still discriminated against, persecuted, and obviously never have the ability to determine their own future or to restore their historical homeland.
I'm not aware of any particular AIPAC policy on this topic so I only have to guess this is some other antisemitic fable. When we see holocaust denial happening right in front of our eyes by maybe people you call "moderate non-racists" then we are going to call that out. Holocaust denial is a strategy of the Palestinians because they believe that the world supports Israel's right to exist as a result of the bad things that happened to Jews by the hands of the German(tm). So their approach to that is to diminish the holocaust and compare it to their own "suffering" (which is another form of diminishing). Some Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas are outright holocaust deniers and their "opinions" are popular amongst their people: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/07/palestinian-pr...
"shipping Europeans en-masse into a place and displacing people who lived there before natively." -> never happened. Jewish people that migrated to present day Israel did not displace anyone. The displacement that happened in 1948 happened as a result of the war that was started against Israel. "Europeans" meaning Jewish people who also lived there natively, just farther back in history.
See if you talk like this about e.g. Chinese immigration to Vancouver, Canada, and you say they came and displaced the white people who lived there (or the first nations or whatnot). Then you are immediately labelled, correctly, a racist. But it's ok to talk like that about Jewish refugees with nowhere to go, persecuted in Europe, who immigrated to a place they have immense historical connection to, did so legally, wanted to coexist peacefully with in a free and democratic society with everyone in the region, and then when brutally attacked by people who would not accept their right to be there defended themselves.
The accusation of antisemitism isn't really losing its meaning. It still means exactly what it meant. Those people who are being accused are actually antisemites. They are not "moderate non-racists". They are totally racist.
EDIT: So I don't know anything about you. Where you're from. Where you've absorbed your "knowledge" about the middle east and the Jewish people from. But you are repeating some story or narrative you've heard somewhere and that narrative is totally racist. Maybe you're not aware of it but it still is. This is exactly what racism and antisemitism looks like not like what you describe.
I just fed your reply into an LLM as a sanity check and asked whether that reply is antisemitic or racist and got this evaluation: "The statement you’ve shared is a complex mix of political critique and rhetoric that, in several places, moves beyond standard political debate and into the territory of established antisemitic tropes."
It goes on to say: ""The Accusation is Losing All Meaning" This is a common rhetorical tactic. While one can certainly debate whether specific organizations overreach in their definitions of antisemitism, using that debate to excuse or explain away the rise of terms like "ZOG" shifts the blame for bigotry onto the victims of that bigotry."
"European "Mass Shipping"
Referring to the Jewish population in Israel solely as "Europeans" ignores the fact that:
Llms are llms they will reflect status quo thinking in politics, a status quo that is shifting now.
Why the fuck would I have a problem with Chinese immigration to Canada and how the fuck would it be remotely equivalent to European jews forcibly being put on a land at the behest of a colonial power initially then their own terrorism to pressure the brits later? Immigrants to modern Canada have come with legal permission and are peacefully coexisting with the locals as equals. They didn't annex or displace anyone.
>Jews are indigenous to the Levant
The people already living there were much more indigenous than someone who married europeans for hundreds of generations.
This of course brings us to a funny point. Why do you feel a need to defend israelis on the basis of genetics? Its just a country, anyone ofany race should be able to immigrate right? If not then what do you want to say, that it is an ethnostate? If it's an ethnostate what is your opinion on forming an Aryan ethnostate? Do you have a problem with that?
And regarding genetic roots there. If I have 99% Nigerian and 1% French what would you say if I tried to tell you I am French, France is my ancestral land and I need to displace the fake people living in France currently?
I didn't say anything about local jews and arab jews. I am talking about slavic and german etc jews. They don't even look like anyone local. If you showed a photo without any religious garb people would say this person is white.
Again why this both waysing of Israel as simultaneously both a ethnic state for jews and as a liberal secular state? Pick a lane.
I don't give a shit about race, nationalism, religion anyone should be able to move anywhere as long as they aren't harming others. Israels origin and continued present action fails the latter test.
> Antisemitism is at all times high.
It's always high, or did you mean at an all time high? How does antisemitism in America today compare to Russia in the 1800s?
Well it's hard to say. But I meant more or less since WW-II or modern times.
>Those days people that hate Jews claiming they're "only anti-Zionists"
That's mainly what the more racist zionists claim.
Most genuine anti semites are up front about their distaste for Jews and they tend to be on the far, far right.
There's a simple test to distinguish the genuine anti racists and the disguised racists, too:
* I condemn the holocaust unreservedly. It was commited by a regime of absolute evil against innocent people.
* I condemn the Gazan genocide unreservedly. It was commited by a regime of absolute evil against innocent people.
If you're completely happy repeating both of these sentences like I am then you're not one of them.
If you engage in deflection or denial of one of these two UN recognized genocides, well, you're either an anti semite or it's equal and opposite.
>Comments like yours are the racist ones
Im gonna go ahead and assume you will either ignore me or fail the antiracist test.
Here I'm not ignoring you though I probably should.
The problem is you're providing cover for the antisemites even if you're not one yourself (which isn't clear at this point). They will fly under your cover pretending that they actually care about the same thing. We see this "mix" in the conversation (e.g. painting the Jews in the US as not being loyal or serving foreign interests).
The choice of the word "genocide" for the civilians killed in the war in Gaza is antisemitism. You might not think so but it objectively is. That word started getting used around 5 minutes into this war on Oct 8th or so. The Israeli "regime" (aka democratically elected government) is not absolute evil and it is fighting a war against a mix of innocent people and evil people which is true for most wars. While elements of this government may hold opinions that are let's say "extreme" that is different than evil. Evil is what Hamas' attack on Oct 7th looked like. Anyways, evil is meant to manipulate emotions as is genocide. Those are tools of propaganda and their usage indicates a certain mindset. The word genocide is not appropriate because it refers to the aim of destroying a national or ethnic group and Gaza is neither. Even if Israel wanted to kill, and killed, all Gazans that does not fit the commonly accepted definition of this word prior to the war in Gaza. Those that wield the word rely on some legalities that differ from the common usage and that is intentional. According to certain legal scholars even the killing of a single person can be considered a genocide but that's obviously not what the intent is/was. So the usage of this word is a "tell" in a bad way and the singling out of Israel is another "tell". There are ways of expressing your condemnation that would probably avoid the issue and the choices made do matter. The problem is then you'd actually have to say what you really think and that might not stand a test to the factual reality. You might have to also suggest what Israel could have done that would be acceptable to your morals and is something that stands other tests of reason.
The equating/comparison of the war in Gaza to the Holocaust is antisemitism.
The war in Gaza is not a "UN recognized genocide" and that title is meaningless anyways. We don't need to UN to tell us what's right and what's wrong.
There are many examples current and historical where more civilians were harmed, with more intent, and less or no reasons, that haven't drawn the kind of hate and condemnation that is aimed at Israel (or as you say the "regime" whatever that's supposed to mean). That "bias" is what racism and antisemitism is partly about.
So you are clearly possessed of this bias. I claim I have no bias. If you s/Palestinians/Swedes/ and s/Israel/Dutch/ my take on the Gaza war would be exactly the same. I do not view it through a lens of race. I view it purely through the facts of the matter. Any similar example in the world, any other war or conflict, with civilian casualties, I would view through the very same lens. No racism. Maybe you don't know that in every war ever innocent people die. Maybe you don't understand the realities and facts of this specific war. Maybe you don't understand the propaganda war going on. I really don't know. What I do know is that there is a correlation between physical attacks on Jews all over the world and this intentionally distorted view of the conflict so even if you claim that you support one and oppose the other that's clearly not how many people perceive the same propaganda.
> The word genocide is not appropriate because it refers to the aim of destroying a national or ethnic group and Gaza is neither. Even if Israel wanted to kill, and killed, all Gazans that does not fit the commonly accepted definition of this word prior to the war in Gaza.
Your definition of genocide is so narrow that it also excludes the Armenian genocide, are you okay with that? Some groups like those in Constantinople were spared, so a denier might claim that only rural Armenians were targeted, not the whole ethnic group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide_denial#Rheto...).
>Here I'm not ignoring you though I probably should.
Yes it is not wise to out oneself as a genocide denialist - whether it's the holocaust or (in your case) gaza.
>The choice of the word "genocide" for the civilians killed in the war in Gaza is antisemitism.
There was an enormous war crime committed and plenty of evidence, just like there was with the holocaust.
Commitment to genocide denial demonstrates an equal level of racism as a holocaust denier. They are, as I'm sure you'll agree, anti semites whether they admit it or not.
>I view it purely through the facts of the matter. We don't need to UN to tell us what's right and what's wrong.
The UN is there to tell us what happened as a neutral party. THEY view it through the facts of the matter, which is why they confirmed that it is a genocide - over two years after it started and the evidence had mounted up.
It is seems likely that you view this conflict exclusively through a racial prism. That is very sad.
> We see this "mix" in the conversation (e.g. painting the Jews in the US as not being loyal or serving foreign interests).
Nothing special about jews, dual citizens by definition have mixed loyalties, whether they be a dual citizen to Israel, Russia, Egypt, Netherlands, anywhere else.
This is another example where a perfectly general and non-jewish aspect is taken and construed to be "antisemitism".
Genes are also a nice argument. Jews have all kinds of genetic origins from Russians, Poles to Middle Eastern. Would you be saying the same thing if it was jews instead of Palestinians?
Physical attacks on jews are happening precisely because Israel is deliberately confusing real antisemitism and perfectly normal non-racist views. This gives cover to the actual antisemites. People are growing sick of giving disclaimers they condemn the holocaust, they have nothing against jews as a people, etc etc and at that point what do you think someone with less energy and willpower will do once they see an attack: bah whatever.