Hacker News Reader

Comment by AkThhhpppt | Hacker News Reader

It's in the interests of Zionists to conflate "Jewish" and "Israeli" with "Zionist," then react to anti-Zionist sentiment as if it was anti-semitism.

View on HN

Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. I don't think we benefit much from reductive analyses on this issue. Israelis are certainly not politically homogenous. Some people call themselves Zionist meaning they support the settlers; others support Israel but want all of the settlers pulled out, etc. You can be Zionist and not be for any particular decision of the current Israeli government, and you can be fervently religious and not a Zionist. But let's not be dense; some anti-Zionism is exactly an expression of antisemitism. It's such a polarizing issue that both sides of the debate are inclined to overreact and overreach and wind up riding roughshod over each other's perspectives, which generates more bad feelings and makes everybody more extreme.

You want pithiness AND accuracy? What next, blood? :-) But yes, you're entirely correct.

Zionism--i.e. the settlement and defense of Israel itself--is the Jews' best hope to protect themselves from extermination. You're damn right it's suspicious to criticize that concept.

It's the expansionism, and the dispossession of Palestinians that requires, that gets all activists of my acquaintance _really_ het up. Why exactly all the settlements in the West Bank, outside the Wall? Are they "correct" according to Zionism?

Because if yes, Zionism is an ideology in favour of ethnic cleansing, which is an uncomfortable spot to sit...

> Why exactly all the settlements in the West Bank

I think it's reasonable to oppose those. Though I'm skeptical the settlements make any real difference in the situation. Removing them from the Gaza Strip didn't seem to make any difference, why would removing them from the West Bank help?

Well, it would signal seriousness about a two-state solution (how is this http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/westbank.... ever supposed to be a country? It's been almost completely Balkanized) and stop the theft of Palestinian land (it's very hard to feel ...less than ambivalent about a neighbouring country who allows its citizens steal your livelihood).

Basically, to stop this kind of conflict takes dialogue. Lots and lots of dialogue, with people who are serious about it. And not stopping the expansion of the West Bank settlements as per the Oslo Accords signaled that the Israeli government was not serious about its commitments.

(Hi, I'm Irish, I have a small idea whereof I speak, though not much.)

And you wonder why almost the entire world bar US politicians hates Israel. Not Jews. Israel.

Illegally putting "facts on the ground" through settlements is a big deal to the Palestinians and it's a big deal to everyone else. It needs to stop.

I never justified the settlements, I just think anti-Israeli sentiment wouldn't be improved any by removing the settlements. It almost doesn't matter if Israel does everything right or wrong anyway, because that's not the reason the world hates them.

Why do you think the world hates them, then?

(aside: There's a long distance between "please stop allowing or encouraging your government to treat other human beings in this terrible, terrible manner. Please think about the crimes done to them by your parents and grandparents - and by you. Please consider how you can encourage peace," and "we hate you." Or there should be, anyway; there are some very invested people.)

The bulk of the reason is antisemitism, with a good dose of groupthink on the side. In other words, it's become fashionable to hate Israel regardless of their actions.

When they make settlements it disturbs the peace process; when they unilaterally remove settlements, it also undermines the peace process. When they bomb or occupy a neighboring country it's an overreaction, but when that neighboring country is firing rockets into Israeli neighborhoods it isn't their responsibility. When a terrorist hate group takes control of Gaza and breaks away from the Palestinian Authority, they aren't disturbing the peace process, but when Israel and Egypt jointly declare a blockade on Gaza and Israel captures a "flotilla" trying to run the blockade, Israel are the oppressors--even though the supplies carried on the flotilla were merely inspected and passed through to Gaza anyway.

It's generous, and likely accurate, to say that those who hate Israel aren't thinking critically. Most people who take up intellectual fashions aren't thinking critically--that's why they take up intellectual fashions in the first place. But the more passionate ones are likely antisemitic. There are fair criticisms to be made, but there are also plenty of double standards at play as well.

When a terrorist hate group is the elected government of the Palestinian Authority, we expect you to deal with them as the elected government. Not to like it, but to do it. Martin McGuinness, former member of the IRA army council, is Deputy Minister of Northern Ireland - a country he ran bombing campaigns to destroy (I'm not exaggerating: the explicit aim of the 30-year PIRA campaign was a reunited Ireland). Nelson Mandela is a convicted terrorist. We expect so much from you, yes. No-one expects this much from people they hate.

That tar-brush you're waving around is very, very wide.

How do you propose Israel deal with a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel?

Perhaps McGuinness is reformed (you did say former member of the IRA army council). Does he continue to call for the destruction of Great Britain? If not, you can negotiate with that. Israel has long negotiated with Palestinian factions that endorse a two-state solution, such as Fatah. Mandela accomplished the destruction of apartheid, and it was only by De Klerk's agreement to the end of apartheid that he and Mandela could deal with each other. With Hamas, only the destruction of Israel will suffice. What exactly is there to deal with?

I said he was one of the commanders of a guerilla army committed to the destruction of a country he now is Deputy Prime Minister of. If he is no longer a member of the Army Council (he denies ever being so, with as much believability as Clinton's denial that he did not inhale pot) it is because the political role he was playing became more important, and military activity was jeopardizing that work. Sinn Fein still seek a united Ireland, but are trying to accomplish it through political means.

This is the power of dialogue. You talk, you talk, you keep talking. You deal with the less extreme popular factions (analogy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDLP), but the key word in that sentence is popular: an agreement with an organization with no backing in the community is an agreement with no-one. You do NOT commit to something and then completely disregard it, because then your word becomes worthless, and no-one believes anything you say ever again.

I do not know the solution. No-one does. But attempting to push the Palestinians into the sea is not it.

He wanted to "destroy" Northern Ireland by unifying the counties inside of it with the Republic of Ireland, instead of keeping them unified with Great Britain. This is not even an unreasonable stance for a North Irish elected official, is it? It takes a lot of equivocation to equate that with what Hamas wants to do.

We can agree that Israel has made a lot of mistakes. That doesn't legitimate groups like Hamas and that doesn't provide any basis for dialogue with Hamas, either. Meanwhile, the anger and hatred towards Israel would be there with or without the mistakes. It was there before the mistakes and it will be there long afterwards.

Note: I am NOT claiming this is easy. It's incredibly hard. But nothing else works.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com