Typically I don't like to engage in political discussion about the middle east because most people have no clue about the history of the region and interpret what's going on over there through some lens with a very shallow depth of field. That tends to apply to Israelis as well. That said I think antisemitism is still a concern that we have to speak out about and definitely some modern incarnations of antisemitism are directed towards Israel. That doesn't mean that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic but it's just something that makes things more complicated.
Just quickly, I am thinking that the fact there are Palestinians alive today who have been displaced renders the question much more urgent and potent than the problematic elimination of Native Americans >100 years ago, for example.
I must've misunderstood it then. Well, isn't it obvious? If you don't deny other ethnicities their nationhood and state, but somehow think that jews don't deserve the same treatment, how can it be not anti-semitic?
Otherwise, you need to argue that there is a higher moral value to giving the horribly oppressed Jewish people a state than the immorality of taking away the land of indigenous peoples. But that is a matter of judgement (esp. given anti-Semitism in the UK/US, esp. the UK, at the time leading to us not accepting them all as political refugees), not bigotry.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/08/immigration.immig...
You can't comment like this here, regardless of how strongly you feel about a subject. We've warned you about this repeatedly before. Please don't do it again.
You actually did not address how being against Israel's right to exist is equivalent to anti-Semitism, which was the intent of my question.
> Which is an ugly half-truth. To put things in this way would require either ignorance of the region's history or some ugly dose of bias.
Or simply disagreement. 'Bias' implies that your perspective is not itself similarly influenced by bias.