I also reject the framing of “Israel makes Jews unsafe/increases antisemitism” because: (1) we’re the oppressors in the context of Israel, not the victims; (2) this framing abdicates Jewish responsibility because ‘Israel’ is not an amorphous self-animating thing that merely hovers over us, it is a colony that we as Jews actively build and sustain daily through concerted generational effort; (3) that’s not “antisemitism” it’s a reaction to Jewish-led genocide which all our institutions support; (4) you’re conceding to the propaganda that there is a “rise in antisemitism” when Jews currently do not face systemic oppression for being Jewish and the “antisemitic incidents” data is tracked such that every anti-zionist protest sign is clocked as a separate “antisemitic incident” by the ADL so; (5) enough with the Jewish victimhood, “Jewish safety” and “antisemitism” talk, it’s just a distraction from Jewish-perpetrated genocide of Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.
Look, at minimum she clearly says all Jews are morally culpable Zionists. Do you think she’s considering herself a culpable Zionist?
The word “all” is often used in ways that don’t mean literally every single one. If I say “all Americans are fat and lazy,” or “none of the users on lemmy.ml understand how language works,” do I mean that there are literally zero exceptions to that? Of course not.
She is saying that the vast majority of Jewish people, even those who disavow the actions of the state of Israel, are still just as morally culpable as the staunchest Zionist and should be treated the same. And she makes it pretty clear how she values the life of the staunchest Zionist.
So did you read it or not?
I did. I’m confused by your question.
Is it because I said “at minimum”? Because that’s simply implying that there is a potentially more charitable read of what she said, which I then outlined.
You should re-read the other responses you got outlining why you were wrong in your first comment and what the author meant. Or, if you didn’t even finish reading the article to begin with and don’t plan to, you can always just ignore us to save face and move on. People already countered what you said pretty well and explained before, if you refuse to engage with that then you come across like a troll.
Removed by mod
That’s where you’re wrong. You’re still ignoring that one group of people is indigenous and has endured almost a century of genocide and the other group is settlers. The answer isn’t a two state solution, it’s a single state that is secular and doesn’t enshrine Jewish supremacy. Jews can still be welcome and be regular citizens, as long as they give back the stolen houses and ideally pay reparations.
I’m not ignoring it. I don’t believe that the entire US should be dismantled and returned to the Native Americans, despite them being indigenous and suffering centuries of genocide either. History is messy and not every vase can be repaired.
A secular single state could be an ideal I could get behind certainly. I’m fine with that as an outcome. But to be clear, that’s not what either side wants or is fighting for.
But to clarify, you’re fine with the state of Israel continuing to exist and even fully annexing the West Bank and Gaza, so long as they secularize their government, stop the genocide, and allow equal representation to Palestinians? Perhaps some reparations thrown in for good measure? If so, I think we just completely agree.
They already functionally have annexed West Bank and Gaza; people just don’t call it that because then they’d have to admit that Isreal is an apartheid state. A two state solution would require forcedly relocating 10% of the Israeli population who are squatting in West Bank, which Isreal would never allow.
Removed by mod
It’s because you don’t seem to have actually read the article