[fusiongyro]

Reddit's users have always struck me as fantastically antisemitic. I think a lot of them do it for shock laughs, but the genuine article is present as well.

Saying Israel shouldn't have been born in that location isn't the same thing as saying Israel shouldn't exist, but Israel is the only country whose mere existence seems to require justification. Framing Israel's political problems as if they can be easily solved by not having an Israel certainly looks analogous to solving a Jewish problem by not having Jews. I'm absolutely not saying this is what you're saying, but this is how conversations about what should have happened instead are perceived by us Jews.

[mistercow]

>Israel is the only country whose mere existence seems to require justification

Well, that's because most other countries weren't plopped down in the middle of an inhabited region, resulting in decades of violence and oppression that, and this part is critical, continue to this day. The US also shouldn't have been plopped down on the land inhabited by American Indians, but since the dust from that has mostly settled, it serves as a less poignant example of the dangers of nation-building. The lessons from history here should be obvious, but for reasons of nationalism and religion (by which I am referring to American Christians), those lessons are being obscured.

>Framing Israel's political problems as if they can be easily solved by not having an Israel certainly looks analogous to solving a Jewish problem by not having Jews.

I guess they look analogous? If you squint? I mean, for one thing, saying that establishing Israel was a mistake is not the same as saying that Israel should be dissolved.

For another thing, what "Jewish problem"? From context, I guess you're talking about the Nazis, but that "problem" was Hitler's accusation that the Jews were responsible for WWII. But unlike "Israel's political problems" (as you so delicately put it), that problem was a fiction.

Finally, while it clearly would not work to dissolve Israel at this stage, the problems with that plan do not significantly intersect with the problems of genocide.

I mean, I'm trying to be charitable to your analogy here, but it sounds to me like you're saying that people find "Israel shouldn't have been established there" offensive because it calls to mind an utterly false analogy.

[fusiongyro]

It's counterproductive to bathe ourselves in outrage over mistakes that cannot be rectified when there are problems today that could be solved, or at least improved on, by calm diplomatic negotiation, if either side could distance themselves from their hurt feelings long enough to cool off a little and be realistic. Getting everyone riled up over the injustice of it all pushes this process into the future and benefits no one.

> I guess they look analogous? If you squint?

Feelings have a way of being irrational, but ignoring them exacerbates problems rather than solving them.

> I mean, for one thing, saying that establishing Israel was a mistake is not the same as saying that Israel should be dissolved.

No, but it doesn't bring anything to the table either, other than to make things emotionally charged and raise the stakes.

> Finally, while it clearly would not work to dissolve Israel at this stage

The idea that dissolving Israel was ever on the table is absurd. You can't just march into someone's country and dissolve it because you don't like how it was founded.

> the problems with that plan do not significantly intersect with the problems of genocide.

I'd like to know how that could possibly be true. It's quite a stretch for me to imagine that when the leadership of Israel's enemies call for "the Zionist entity" to be pushed into the sea they have something else in mind.

[mistercow]

>It's counterproductive to bathe ourselves in outrage over mistakes that cannot be rectified when there are problems today that could be solved, or at least improved on, by calm diplomatic negotiation, if either side could distance themselves from their hurt feelings long enough to cool off a little and be realistic. Getting everyone riled up over the injustice of it all pushes this process into the future and benefits no one.

If you want to have diplomacy in the middle east, it is absolutely crucial that we first acknowledge that creating Israel there was a mistake. Not doing so is just continuing to say "fuck you" to Palestinians. We need to say "look, putting Israel here was a mistake, but it's here now and we have to deal with this."

>Feelings have a way of being irrational, but ignoring them exacerbates problems rather than solving them.

If, whenever someone disagrees with you, you feel like you're talking to Hitler, you're going to find that your feelings get ignored a lot. There is simply no way to have a productive conversation without ignoring feelings like that.

>The idea that dissolving Israel was ever on the table is absurd.

Are you taking offense to my mention of dissolving Israel after you brought it up?

>I'd like to know how that could possibly be true. It's quite a stretch for me to imagine that when the leadership of Israel's enemies call for "the Zionist entity" to be pushed into the sea they have something else in mind.

Ugh. So now what you're saying is that when someone mentions that putting Israel there was a mistake, you immediately attribute to them the positions of Islamist extremists. How do you ever expect to have a rational discussion when you can't stop thinking in kneejerk feelings?

[fusiongyro]

This conversation is futile so long as you're inflating, misunderstanding and overreacting to what I'm saying.

[mistercow]

I'm not the one who conflated "putting Israel there was a mistake" with "Israel should be pushed into the sea".

[fusiongyro]

Those were unconnected threads. Did you forget that you said this?

> the problems with [dissolving Israel] do not significantly intersect with the problems of genocide.

I asked you several responses ago to explain how that could be. You dodged that question by being combative and insulting. I'm not willing to lose more of my calm debating a troll such as yourself. Discussion over.

[AkThhhpppt]

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.

[fusiongyro]

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.

[AkThhhpppt]

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

[philwelch]

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.

[AkThhhpppt]

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...

[philwelch]

> 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?

[AkThhhpppt]

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.)

[taligent]

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.

[philwelch]

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.

[scott_s]

but this is how conversations about what should have happened instead are perceived by us Jews.

Not all of them.

[fusiongyro]

I feel like that fine print was implied, but yes.