Is being critical of Israel anti-Semitism?

A dude named mark lemont hill was fired by CNN for criticism of Israel and support of free Palestine at the UN. You know cause it is "anti Semitic".
  • Yes
    Vote A
  • No
    Vote B
  • Other
    Vote C
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
311

Most Helpful Girl

  • No, it is not anti-semitic. It is criticism of a country and its regime, not its people or religion. Huge differences.

    0|2
    0|0

Most Helpful Guys

  • No. To suggest so is crazy talk. We criticize all kinds of countries... Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, North Korea... why should Israel get a free pass?
    When Israel is being criticized, it is usually the Israeli government that is being criticized, not the normal people. In other words: the criticism is purely political. It is not motivated by any religious or ethnic prejudices.

    Unfortunately, it is a fact that the Israeli government with Netanyahu as its Prime Minister is a complete disaster - not just for Palestinians but for Israelis themselves too. On the EIU's annual Democracy Index, Israel is ranked 31st and rated as a "flawed democracy". Netanyahu and his cronies are far-right nationalists and lunatics. Meanwhile, the occupation of Palestinian lands is a clear violation of international law. The Israeli government treats Palestinians in the settlements regions as second-class citizens.
    None of these statements have anything to do with antisemitism. They would also be true if Israel was a christian or a muslim or a buddhist country.

    0|1
    0|1
    • “From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is a known Hamas saying calling for the genocide or expulsion of the Jewish people.

    • @ladsin
      Fair point. I do not agree with this "proposition".

    • Yeah, and that’s the phrase that the CNN commentator made which drummed up all this controversy and eventually lead to his firing. CNN hosts pretty anti-Israel commentators all the time (I don’t know enough about the conflict to have any real opinion) but this was seen as crossing the line.

  • Bloody hell. How can one interpretate what he said so incorrectly?

    The guy, Mark Lamont Hill, specifically said "free Palestine from the river to the sea".

    From the river to the sea implies from the Jordan River, to the Mediterranean. Exactly the area where Israel is.

    Coincidentally, 'from the river to the sea' is also the lingo that Palestinians use when they aim for their desire for Israel to be wiped from the map and replaced by a Palestinian state.

    A Palestinian from the river to the sea essentially means the destruction from Israel. And why? He says it's 'justice'.

    Anti-zionism IS anti-Semitism. It's being against the very right of Jews to have some self-determination.

    So yes, if you're being for the destruction and replacement of Israel by a Palestinian state, then I wager you can be called anti-Semitic.

    That's no normal criticism. Arguing it's mere criticism is a vile distortion of reality.

    0|4
    0|0
    • Why are there so many Jews against Zionism then if its so antisemitic?

    • Show All
    • @esotericstoey

      Alright. So you're essentially saying that Israel putting their own interests over Palestinian interests is extreme far-right.

      Is not signing the Marrakech agreement due to the unwillingness to want immigrants here extreme far-right? Is wanting to not go along with EU demands in Brexit negotiations extreme far-right?

      Putting national interests over interests of another group is a really common thing. You might recognize it from the simple principle of national sovereignty, control over immigration, being for national security and more and more.

    • @tartaarsaus Well the further left we pull the more that things like national sovereignty will seem like extreme right wing. Only few European populist parties like AfD in Germany and Lega Nord in Italy have actual political power and they are regarded as the NSDAP 2.0 in many news outlets.

Recommended Questions

Loading...

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 2

  • Nothing should be above criticism

    0|1
    0|0
  • No its being logical.

    0|1
    0|0

What Guys Said 9

  • Being disagree with Israel isn't anti-antisemitism and being disagree with Palestinians isn't anti-Islamic. Although many Israelite are Jews and Palestinians are Muslims don't mean everyone belongs to these religions. Some believes in other religions and others are none religious.

    The Israel and Palestine conflict isn't as religious as people likes to believe. Although religion and the bible/holy book thing plays a little role don't mean the conflict is all about it. It's about power, economical benefits and which group of people should be allowed to live in the country. Not everyone believes in multiculturalism. Some people are strictly against others sharing the same country as them if they don't have the same first language, culture etc. They wants a strong national feeling.

    Palestinians usually speaks Arabic and Israelite Hebrew. In addition to the different religions they also have different traditions and expectations on how to behave. Despite the differences, Palestinians and Israelite have more in common with each others than Norwegians and Swedes have with the Sami people. So if the settlers could stop treating Sami badly and create peace, then the Israelite and Palestinians could do the same.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Some of the criticizer criticize the countries, their regimes and the politicians, not religion or commoners. Some pro-Israelite and pro-Palestinian aren't religious at all.

  • Depends on why.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Meh, the guy said 'a free Palestine from the river to the sea' which in general Palestinian lingo equates to the destruction of Israel.

    • @tartaarsaus oh it popped up on my main feed so I didn’t read the body text. Yes, the CNN guy deserved to be fired. He made a call to either the extinction, or expulsion, of the Jewish people from Israel. If he wants to argue for a free Palestine then I think that’s perfectly acceptable, but he used a known Hamas saying and the intent is incredibly clear. Whether he was just supremely idiotic (not thinking about what the words clearly mean) or he was making a call to genocidal violence/ expulsion. Either one should be a fireable offense

  • I think anti-semetism is a very subjective term. Jews are highly sensitive to critique. Its not uncommon for Jews to equate critique to it potentially leading to another Shoah. What I am saying right here could probably be interpreted by some Jews as anti-semitic.

    0|1
    0|1
  • READ THE CULTURE OF CRITIQUE

    By Kevin Macdonald.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Well, I don't think what he said was anti-Semitic. But CNN has the right to fire him. He expressed views that were not popular with the news network.

    And if he didn't mean from river to the sea, he could have used different words;

    "My reference to 'river to the sea' was not a call to destroy anything or anyone," Hill said on Twitter. "It was a call for justice, both in Israel and in the West Bank/Gaza. The speech very clearly and specifically said those things."

    "I support Palestinian freedom. I support Palestinian self-determination," Hill tweeted, adding, "I do not support anti-Semitism, killing Jewish people, or any of the other things attributed to my speech. I have spent my life fighting these things.

    0|1
    1|0
  • Actual Nazi-style anti-semitism is disgusting. That being said, this case does not fall into that category whatsoever

    0|1
    0|0
    • “From the river to the sea Palestine shall be free” is a known Hamas saying calling for the genocide or expulsion of the Jewish people.

    • Show All
    • Where in there does it say genocide or expulsion? You're creating context that doesn't seem to be there. And yes I'm quite aware of the existing conflict.

    • Between points A and B is a contested area. One group controls half and another group the other. One group of people (Palestinians) are arguing and fighting for control of the entire area from point A to B. This requires either the expulsion of the people currently there, or the death of the Jews. One can certainly argue for Palestine becoming a sovereign state (although I wouldn’t) but the phrase’s intent is pretty self evident. Which is again why it’s in the Hamas charter http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

  • Depends

    0|1
    0|0
  • It depends on what you say about it.

    0|1
    0|0
  • No matter how benign, jews will cry anti-Semitism any criticism directed towards Israel.

    0|1
    0|1

Recommended myTakes

Loading...