[edanm]

It's terrible that anyone supports any terrorist like Goldstein. It's even more terrible that Ben Gvir was elected, given his views.

Though just for context, there is a huge political fight within Israel, partially because of people like Ben Gvir. It's not the whole country supporting this nonsense.

And while 10% of Israelis saying he's a hero is 10% too many, I imagine it's comparable to similar numbers in other countries for similar-ish situations. Still terrible, but not exactly proof that the country is especially racist.

(Though to be fair, it's not like there's zero racism in Israel, though I think it's less about race and more about the national situation/issues around the Palestinians. I don't think it makes sense to think about the Israeli situation in the same way one would think about the racism in the States, for example.)

[pydry]

>And while 10% of Israelis saying he's a hero is 10% too many

10% is definitely enough to presume that anybody who throws out an accusation of anti-semitism in defense of Israel is racist by default.

10% is enough to presume that the illegalization of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions in America is an explicitly pro-racist law.

It is possible to make an accusation of anti-semitism that isn't motivated by racism. It's just much rarer than it should be.

[edanm]

> 10% is definitely enough to presume that anybody who throws out an accusation of anti-semitism in defense of Israel is racist by default.

I'm really trying to parse your logic, and failing.

If I understand it, your chain of reasoning is:

1. Someone "defends Israel".

2. The way they do it in this specific case is by saying the other person is anti-semitic.

3. Because some people in Israel think fairly attrocious things and are racist, this implies that any defense of Israel is implicitly a defense of racism, therefore making the defender racist.

Is that the chain here? Basically, you can't defend a country in which 10% of people are racist, without yourself being racist?

If so, that chain of reasoning is pretty ridiculous. That's like someone saying they like the US, and you deciding they are racist, because in a 2013 poll, 17% of Americans were against interracial marriage. It's a huge and nonsensical logical leap to go from "some action that country X has done is OK" to "I therefore support what any subset, even as small as 10% of the country, thinks".