| Many are reasonable, but several are not. > Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while not supporting Israel's apartheid-style policies, but this sentence conflates them. > Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. This is pure whataboutism. Israel is actually given incredible leeway by America, and I usually see this trotted out to shut down legitimate criticism. There's a good discussion to be had about why we don't criticize China, or why we ignore atrocities in African countries, but none of that absolves Israel from its misdeeds. > Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Call it "sparkling ethnic cleansing" then. Ironically, actual genocide scholars have pointed out that when the Shoah is your metric, then almost nothing can compare, rendering the word useless. |
> One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while not supporting...policies, but this sentence conflates them.
Uh...exactly? You're criticizing the state. Per the definition you can do that, but you can't generalize to the people. And certainly, calling the state a "racist endeavor" should cross the line?
Basically, all three of your examples boil down to the same thing: you want to accuse a nation of something bad, and think it’s somehow unfair that, under this definition, you can’t then accuse a people of the act. That isn’t ambiguous. If you did the same thing for, say, Chinese people and the CCP, you’d be equally wrong. Jewish people are not of one mind about current events, and that seems like a fairly obvious point.
As far as the third item, specifically, any comparison to the Nazi party is so hyperbolic as to be in obvious bad faith.