Will antisemitism ever be looked at and dealt with in the same way as Islamophobia is?

[LucyWestenra]

AIBU for thinking it won’t? Because it doesn’t seem to be the case in this country or my home country (Germany).

(I just googled because it didn’t seem right to have antisemitism in lower capitals, but apparently that is correct, as I thought)

Much love to the Jewish community, wherever they are.

❤️

Fucking hell, that's a disgusting thing to say on so many levels.

Because Jews are a race. Adherants to Islam are not a race. Just like Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, etc are not a race.

But we also have laws on discriminating against people because of their race.

I think America supports them because they need a strong ally in the region and also because the Jewish lobby in America is very powerful. I very much support Israel's right to exist, but I do think this is a factor.

This might change though, as demographics in America changes. That's something that Israel needs to be mindful of.

Yes, that's why we don't need laws against Islamophobia. If a Muslim of South Asian heritage was being harassed or discriminated against, that would fall under laws against racism.

We don’t have any and have no plans to introduce them do we?

or are you talking about the working group to define anti Muslim hatred? We had a similar thing in 2016 for antisemitism when it was defined by the IHRA.

Well, that's not quite true and a very simplistic way to look at a complex situation (why were Palestinians in Lebanon attacking Israel and why was that ok?). But even if it were correct, israel left every last inch of Lebanon 26 years ago yet they continued attacking Israel. Why? The Lebanese certainly don't want them fighting Iran's wars on their soil. And when you look at how many Palestinians Hezbollah murdered in Syria let's not pretend they actually care about Palestinians.

What do you think this teaches israelis about what happens when they withdraw from territory?

You may think the creation of Israel was colonialism but youre totally misinformed although it's a common misperception.

FYI, the British who had a mandate in Palestine (yes, that was somewhat colonial but it was a mandate, not a british colony) gave up trying to find a solution. They handed it to the un which formed a commission, including many different nations and intentionally not the UK, that proposed a partition plan in 1947 as the fairest way to solve the problem. The UN voted on this proposal and it passed with a majority. The Palestinian Zionsits accepted, Arabs rejected (no counter proposal, total rejection of any Jewish state). Civil war ensued. Brits unilaterally declare they will leave on 14 May 1948 and they do. Palestinian zionists declared the state of israel on the afternoon on 14 May, Palestinian Arabs don't.

Please do enlighten me what was colonial about this? And who were the colonial others involved?

First off, what is "retarded" about Israel? Second of all, did you know most of the Levant isn't actually desert?
So clearly your ignorance is showing.
I mean, its easy enough to research why the USA provides military support to israel. BTW, its nearly all military through US military equipment.
The support started during the cold war as the Arab states sided with the USSR which militarily supported them. After that, with the rise of Islamic extremism, israel has provided the US with an anchor in the middle east and strong military, intelligence and counter terrorism cooperation (because apparently Israeli intelligence isn't as retarded as you think it is).
You can research more yourself and you really should

A country can indeed cease to exist if its citizens wish it so.
Israel does not stop any neighboring counties from existing nor does it wish to do so.
Millions are not being slaughtered because israel exists. However, much of tbe conflict is because others in the region refuse to accept this reality and wish to destroy israel. If they'd have accepted the 1947 partition or the various peace deals offered, things would look very different today. Fact is that the countries which (reluctantly) accepted reality like Egypt and Jordan aren't fighting Israel.

They're not a resistance group, they're a proscribed terrorist group and supporting them is illegal.

As devils advocate, why should they have accepted the 1947 partition? From the perspective of the people already living there, accepting the plan meant giving up land, political control and self-determination to a newly created state they hadn’t chosen.

The Palestinian Arabs weren't the only people living there, hence partition. This is what the UN thought would be the fairest solution. The Palestinians could have had then their own state too.

But its also not as if they came up with a counter proposal that they thought would be better, it was a total rejection of any Jewish statehood,.no matter how small. Even a city state of Tel Aviv would have been unacceptable.

They thought they'd win and get it all. They didnt.

And if Palestinian statehood had been the goal (it wasnt), why didnt the Palestinian Arabs declare a state of Palestine on 14 May 1948? What do you think would have happened had they won the 1948 war of independence?

But that frames it as if partition was obviously fair and they just irrationally rejected it. From their perspective, it wasn’t. The UN partition plan gave a large share of the land to a population that was still a minority overall, including areas with significant Arab populations.

Saying ‘they could have had their own state’ completely ignores that it would have meant accepting borders & land distribution they saw as unjust. Most populations wouldn’t agree to that sort of arbitrary decision from an external body.

And it’s not just that they ‘thought they’d win’, accepting the plan would have meant recognising a state they fundamentally opposed on principle. Clearly it was a mistake in hindsight but it wasn’t irrational to them at the time.

Obviously not irrational from their side, no one said it was, but entirely intransigent and absolutist - and clearly mistaken as they thought they'd win since they were much stronger (on paper) and then no need to share. Remember, it was a total refusal to even consider any jewish statehood, no matter what size.

Just to be clear though, there was no Palestinian state at that point and there never had been, it was a mandate. If Palestinian statehood was the aim, why was one mot declared on May 14 1948?

It was also not irrational for the Palestinian Zionsits to want a state. They also weren't delighted with the partition but accepted it. And since statehood had been the aim for a while, they actually declared the state of israel as soon as the brits left, the Arabs were equally able to declare a state but didnt

Rejecting the UN partition plan wasn’t the same as “irrational absolutism.” From the Arab perspective the plan allocated a large share of land to a Jewish state even though Jews were a minority of the population and owned a relatively small proportion of the land at the time. The rejection was based on the idea that the proposal itself was fundamentally unfair, not just a refusal to accept any Jewish state “no matter what”

The idea that they could “just declare a state on May 14, 1948” ignores the fact that things had already escalated into civil war at that point. The institutions, leadership & territorial control needed to declare & sustain a state weren’t there. Whereas the Jewish leadership had spent decades building military forces, political bodies & economic systems. So when the British left they were in a position to act immediately and declare a state.

i’m not sure how accurate to say “they thought they’d win because they were stronger.” On paper, neighbouring Arab states had larger armies but they weren’t well organised & weren’t necessarily acting in the interests of Palestinian self determination.

Whether or not there’d previosuly been a Palestinian state isn’t really relevant. The issue was rival claims to self determination in the same territory, not whether one side had previously had a state.

You just described absolutism and intransigence. There was no counter proposal, no compromise whatsoever. Because they thought they would win. That was the end game. No Jewish statehood.

Yes, the Palestinian Jews were much better organised. The civil war affectsd them, as a minority, more than the Arabs at that point so that's no excuse. Why didnt the Palestinian Arabs focus on getting a state like the Palestinian Jews did? They could have organised themselves. This is actually a common theme since then - more focus on destroying a Jewish state than actually building the needed institutions for a Palestinian state.

And its hugely important to be historically accurate as to what happened and why since the reasons why there was no Palestinian state declared in 1948 are similar to those prior to 1967 and those that led to failed peace processes in years that followed.

And you’ve just repeated the same argument I already responded to, so we’re probably not going to agree.

Even if they thought they would win - so what? That’s pretty standard in conflicts. Groups don’t usually compromise if they believe the terms being offered are unfair and they think they can get a better outcome.

The Jewish leadership accepted the UN plan because it gave them international legitimacy and a viable state, even if it wasn’t everything they wanted. But from the Arab side, the same plan meant giving up a large amount of land they saw as rightfully theirs, so of course they rejected it.

That’s not uniquely “intransigent”. It’s exactly how most national movements would
behave when they think the deal on the table is fundamentally against their interests.

Right. They refused to compromise and thought they could throw the Jews out and there would be no jewish state. Obviously they were wrong and the Jews fought hard as they had no choice. They lost.

Its also why they couldn't accept the reality of Israel after 1948 and were convinced tbey could destroy it. Hence the 1967 war. Guess what? They lost.

And then the famous three nos of Khartoum.

Then the refusal to sign the peace deals of Barak and Olmert.

At some point you have to come to terms with reality and realise that this refusal has really done you no good at all

Of course, i don't put all the blame on the Arabs/palestinians. Israelis have a lot of fault too. This is why its a complex issue to resolve. However when the Palestinians are portrayed as some innocent and hapless victims with no agency (or even worse romanticised as some honorable resistance) and Israel as some evil entity tehn that denies historical reality and prevents a solution being found.

So were the ANC
Who is or isn’t a terrorist or what is or isn’t a terrorist act is a political and legal decision, not an incontrovertible fact.
Guided drones blowing up apartment blocks, schools and hospitals is also a terrorist act in some people’s opinion.
I hasten to add - not that it should be necessary but on these kinds of threads it always is!- that I in no way support any form of terrorism or terrorist group. Just making the point that things are more complicated than goodies and baddies

This ignores completely the issue of Muslim antisemitism, which from my experience in secondary schools (being neither Muslim nor Jewish, just hearing comments from pupils) is far more widespread than among non Muslim pupils.

In fact until Oct 2023, I was under the happy illusion that antisemitism was a non issue among western Europeans (not so sure about Eastern Europe) and that any remaining instances would probably die out if/when our governments got control over Islamist terror groups.

The reaction to Oct 7th (“Jews are making too much of a fuss about this, sure didn’t the IRA do the same”) was a real wake-up call to me that the opposite is happening: antisemitism is becoming normalised, albeit - so far - under fig leaves such as “it’s inevitable why some people blame Jews in Manchester too”.

As someone (I forget who) wrote recently: it’s the ultimate irony for all those nations who expelled or incited the Jews to leave their lands and go to Israel, to now say they don’t hate Jews, only the Jews in Israel.

I think if you’ve heard people saying Jews are making too much fuss about October 7th, they’re not representative of how most people
feel at all, even if they’re louder than others.

From experience, people who aren’t closely tied to either side, seem to view October 7th with great sadness and sympathy and also understand that those in Gaza are suffering and have great sadness and sympathy for them too. For those people feeling sympathy for one side doesn’t negate the sympathy for the other.

And your point about how you viewed antisemitism before Oct 7th backs up what @timeserved was saying. it may well have got much worse for Jewish people in Western Europe since then, which is terrible because I imagine most Jewish people here don’t want to see civilians murdered in Gaza as a response & it certainly shouldn’t be assumed they do because of their race - but that Islamophobia has been rife and open for years and so neither side has an easy time of it 😔

Ask the Palestinians in Yarmouk refugee camp exactly what Hezbollah is.

I certainly have, though usually not in those exact words. “They overreacted to Oct 7th” and similar is common enough for example. In fact I would say that your point that “most Jewish people here don’t want to see civilians murdered in Gaza as a response” is another version of that, because nobody “wants” to see civilians murdered, just as nobody wanted to see German civilians murdered by Allied bombings. But unless you can tell us what exactly would have been a more proportionate but effective alternative, you’re effectively saying that the Israelis should just have put up with Oct 7th and the future similar attacks that Hamas promised to carry out.

IOW what alternative do you suggest would have worked better?