Implying that Jewish people at large need to be told not to murder children because of the actions of Israel is actually anti-Semitic. Citing parts of the Torah to slander Jews when the topic is about Israel is anti-Semitic.
There are Jewish activists who oppose Israel (and Israel abuses them for their activism when they live there, or outright bans them from ever visiting Israel if they live elsewhere). And there are Jewish Palestinians too.
The Australian Jewish Association posting a picture like the one in the post kind of implicates Jews at large if such actions aren’t widely condemned and taken back, even if it seems anti-Semitic to do so.
That said there are many Jews that advocate for peace and to end this violence.
Yep, all cops aren’t bad, just a few… So because there are a handful of Israelis who don’t support murdering women and children, you can’t criticize any Israelis or their leaders or their country. It’s just a massive conspiracy to hide that overwhelming protest against stealing land and killing children.
The Australian Jewish Association posting a picture like the one in the post kind of implicates Jews at large if such actions aren’t widely condemned and taken back…
No it absolutely does not. Pointing at an organization’s statement and placing the responsibility of finding and condemning the message on Jewish people is insane. Do you think Jewish people are a hive mind or something?
The Australian Jewish Association is openly a pro-Israel and right wing organization. They say as much on their website. Why are you comfortable pointing at anything the org says and painting it as widely representative of Jewish views?
Unfortunately it’s overshadowed by a massive suppression campaign all over the world to hide voices of protest and justify the occupation.
A campaign that you’re not helping to oppose by pointing at the AJA and holding Jewish people culpable for its messages, nor by citing the Torah to slander Jewish people as child killers.
You’re correct, but that’s the crux of the problem.
Rank and file members of a religion need to come out against right-wing groups like the AJA that appropriate and hide behind the name of a religion to excuse being awful people. Otherwise they will use passages like the one I highlight to say this is what the religion really is about, which it isn’t.
This is applicable to Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism and other religions just as much as Judaism.
Do you have a problem when the same argument is used against the Palestinians, and Hamas? The narrative there is that Hamas is built on the framework of “death to Israel and the Jews”, and since the Palestinians don’t come out strongly enough against the requested then they are guilty. Other Arab/Muslim majority neighboring nations denying them as refugees because of the levels of radicalization that have occurred, which gives ammunition to the pro-Israel sides declaration that the rank and file Palestinians are hiding behind Islamic Jihad and antisemitism to try and genocide the Jews.
I have the same issue with Hamas vs. Palestinians, yes. There was one Hamas official’s comment of “It’s going to be October 7th again and again until Israel is destroyed.” and likewise there are religious texts of eliminating all people of non-Islam belief to back radical and harmful views just like the Torah example in my top-level comment.
Instead we need to give the voice to both Jewish and Islamic voices that express peace, compassion for one another and an end to violence.
If you have a Jewish state by their own admission and put a lot of meaning into their text. Israel.
That state says something is Anti-Semetic.
Then someone references their own text to show how they believe something to be their religious right and telling someone to stop that is anti-semitic.
I get that this point is satirical to a degree because I’m not sure even using religion many people would say they have a right to kill children. But I think the comment is more about showing how stupid arguments are when they are based on religion rather than saying all Jews are child killers.
It would be like some Catholics killed some gay guys who were kissing and the Catholics said the gay guys where being racist and anti-Catholic.
If someone say well the bible says you should kill gays.
The hidden argument is that basing an argument on a historical text is stupid gives no justification for committing a crime. It doesn’t say all Catholics are gay killers, because rationally no one would believe that person is saying that.
If you have a Jewish state by their own admission and put a lot of meaning into their text. Israel.
That state says something is Anti-Semetic.
Then someone references their own text to show how they believe something to be their religious right and telling someone to stop that is anti-semitic
If I’m reading what you’re saying right, then you think the commenter was trying to mock Israel for their actions in Palestine by joking that Israel holds points about Judaism that justify child murder as sacred (thus telling them to stop would be “anti-Semitic” because their view of Judaism privileges child murdering.)
If I’m reading you right, then
that reading is incredibly generous to the point of inaccuracy. Because the context for this is the commenter looking at a post by the AJA, finding a piece of the Torah that reads like it supports child murder, then concludin that because this is part of Sacred Jewish Texts that it is anti-Semitic to tell “them” to stop killing children. This isn’t helped by the commenter repeatedly asserting that it is somehow encumbant on all Jews to unilaterally denounce any pro-Israel messaging by any organization with “Jewish” in its name. (I can only guess they think Jews have a radar in their heads that goes “blip” whenever a post like this is made. Otherwise, I don’t know how that could possibly be a reasonable expectation.)
this assumption relies on a reading of Israel as a representative of Judaism, or that either Judaism or Jewish people are accountable to Israel or it’s appropriation of religion. I’m not sure whether this assumption walks the line of or directly crosses into dual loyalty territory, but it certainly sees that line.
It would be like some Catholics killed some gay guys who were kissing and the Catholics said the gay guys where being racist and anti-Catholic.
What’s interesting about your analogy is that there is a state that proports to represent Catholicism (Vatican City) that you could have used here, but didn’t do so by using “some Catholics” instead. After all, it would be crazy to hold all Catholics responsible and hold them to account to rebut the Vaticans claims for these hypothetical killings if “soldiers from Vatican City” did the killings, no matter what rationale the Vatican would have hypothetically given for them.
I wonder if there is a state and group of people that this analysis should also apply to.
You understand jokes and satire right? Well obviously not. It hasn’t got to be bang on accurate to what is UN decreed official language.
The premise of the joke is this:
1 Someone makes a comment about how Israel shoukd stop committing crimes against humanity.
2 It gets called anti Semetic
3 Someone satrically defends Israel/that person also defending Israel.
The joke is about how stupid the second point is by futher adding to the stupidity for comedic effect in 3.
How you read that as to be anti semetic to the whole of Jews honestly is starting to read like you are futher adding to the joke by expanding on the stupid anti semetic comment in point 2.
I’m not sure Israel and the Vatican are analogous examples which is why I didnt use it. But sure change it to saying not allowing the Pope or cardinals to fuck kids is anti-Catholic for all I care. I was trying to help explain the joke but now I’m thinking are you trolling.
Implying that Jewish people at large need to be told not to murder children because of the actions of Israel is actually anti-Semitic. Citing parts of the Torah to slander Jews when the topic is about Israel is anti-Semitic.
There are Jewish activists who oppose Israel (and Israel abuses them for their activism when they live there, or outright bans them from ever visiting Israel if they live elsewhere). And there are Jewish Palestinians too.
The Australian Jewish Association posting a picture like the one in the post kind of implicates Jews at large if such actions aren’t widely condemned and taken back, even if it seems anti-Semitic to do so.
That said there are many Jews that advocate for peace and to end this violence.
Just one example of many: https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/
Unfortunately it’s overshadowed by a massive suppression campaign all over the world to hide voices of protest and justify the occupation.
Yep, all cops aren’t bad, just a few… So because there are a handful of Israelis who don’t support murdering women and children, you can’t criticize any Israelis or their leaders or their country. It’s just a massive conspiracy to hide that overwhelming protest against stealing land and killing children.
No it absolutely does not. Pointing at an organization’s statement and placing the responsibility of finding and condemning the message on Jewish people is insane. Do you think Jewish people are a hive mind or something?
The Australian Jewish Association is openly a pro-Israel and right wing organization. They say as much on their website. Why are you comfortable pointing at anything the org says and painting it as widely representative of Jewish views?
A campaign that you’re not helping to oppose by pointing at the AJA and holding Jewish people culpable for its messages, nor by citing the Torah to slander Jewish people as child killers.
You’re correct, but that’s the crux of the problem.
Rank and file members of a religion need to come out against right-wing groups like the AJA that appropriate and hide behind the name of a religion to excuse being awful people. Otherwise they will use passages like the one I highlight to say this is what the religion really is about, which it isn’t.
This is applicable to Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism and other religions just as much as Judaism.
Do you have a problem when the same argument is used against the Palestinians, and Hamas? The narrative there is that Hamas is built on the framework of “death to Israel and the Jews”, and since the Palestinians don’t come out strongly enough against the requested then they are guilty. Other Arab/Muslim majority neighboring nations denying them as refugees because of the levels of radicalization that have occurred, which gives ammunition to the pro-Israel sides declaration that the rank and file Palestinians are hiding behind Islamic Jihad and antisemitism to try and genocide the Jews.
I have the same issue with Hamas vs. Palestinians, yes. There was one Hamas official’s comment of “It’s going to be October 7th again and again until Israel is destroyed.” and likewise there are religious texts of eliminating all people of non-Islam belief to back radical and harmful views just like the Torah example in my top-level comment.
Instead we need to give the voice to both Jewish and Islamic voices that express peace, compassion for one another and an end to violence.
I see what your saying but I’m not sure I agree.
If you have a Jewish state by their own admission and put a lot of meaning into their text. Israel.
That state says something is Anti-Semetic.
Then someone references their own text to show how they believe something to be their religious right and telling someone to stop that is anti-semitic.
I get that this point is satirical to a degree because I’m not sure even using religion many people would say they have a right to kill children. But I think the comment is more about showing how stupid arguments are when they are based on religion rather than saying all Jews are child killers.
It would be like some Catholics killed some gay guys who were kissing and the Catholics said the gay guys where being racist and anti-Catholic.
If someone say well the bible says you should kill gays.
The hidden argument is that basing an argument on a historical text is stupid gives no justification for committing a crime. It doesn’t say all Catholics are gay killers, because rationally no one would believe that person is saying that.
If I’m reading what you’re saying right, then you think the commenter was trying to mock Israel for their actions in Palestine by joking that Israel holds points about Judaism that justify child murder as sacred (thus telling them to stop would be “anti-Semitic” because their view of Judaism privileges child murdering.)
If I’m reading you right, then
that reading is incredibly generous to the point of inaccuracy. Because the context for this is the commenter looking at a post by the AJA, finding a piece of the Torah that reads like it supports child murder, then concludin that because this is part of Sacred Jewish Texts that it is anti-Semitic to tell “them” to stop killing children. This isn’t helped by the commenter repeatedly asserting that it is somehow encumbant on all Jews to unilaterally denounce any pro-Israel messaging by any organization with “Jewish” in its name. (I can only guess they think Jews have a radar in their heads that goes “blip” whenever a post like this is made. Otherwise, I don’t know how that could possibly be a reasonable expectation.)
this assumption relies on a reading of Israel as a representative of Judaism, or that either Judaism or Jewish people are accountable to Israel or it’s appropriation of religion. I’m not sure whether this assumption walks the line of or directly crosses into dual loyalty territory, but it certainly sees that line.
What’s interesting about your analogy is that there is a state that proports to represent Catholicism (Vatican City) that you could have used here, but didn’t do so by using “some Catholics” instead. After all, it would be crazy to hold all Catholics responsible and hold them to account to rebut the Vaticans claims for these hypothetical killings if “soldiers from Vatican City” did the killings, no matter what rationale the Vatican would have hypothetically given for them.
I wonder if there is a state and group of people that this analysis should also apply to.
Omfg you understand this is a shitpost right?
You understand jokes and satire right? Well obviously not. It hasn’t got to be bang on accurate to what is UN decreed official language.
The premise of the joke is this:
1 Someone makes a comment about how Israel shoukd stop committing crimes against humanity.
2 It gets called anti Semetic
3 Someone satrically defends Israel/that person also defending Israel.
The joke is about how stupid the second point is by futher adding to the stupidity for comedic effect in 3.
How you read that as to be anti semetic to the whole of Jews honestly is starting to read like you are futher adding to the joke by expanding on the stupid anti semetic comment in point 2.
I’m not sure Israel and the Vatican are analogous examples which is why I didnt use it. But sure change it to saying not allowing the Pope or cardinals to fuck kids is anti-Catholic for all I care. I was trying to help explain the joke but now I’m thinking are you trolling.