How to criticize Israel - Looking for dunks AND resources to counter this

Those things that undermine every premise of our racist settler-colonial project... you can't say them... because... you just can't, okay? Instead you have to confine yourself to a form of protest that accepts every single one of my premises.

These people are not serious and should simply be ignored. I just want to zero in on one thing:

It is anti-Semitic to say that Jews are the only people in the world without the right to a homeland

What the actual fuck, no, ethnostates are universally bad actually.

There have always been Jews in Israel

The ones who remained are now referred to as Palestinians, after converting to Christianity by the 4th century and largely converting to Islam over the past millennia.

The idea that Palestinians are not indigenous to Palestine, calling them “Arab Palestinians”, is not correct.

Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine and framing their oppression as anti-colonialism is an extremely perverse myth.

writer literally has a post titled ANTI-ZIONISM IS THE NEW ANTI-SEMITISM, these people are not serious

There are many others, such as Maghrebi Jews and Ethiopian Jews.

Yeah the Israeli treatment of Ethiopian Jews doesn’t exactly counter the white settler colonial narrative.

Only 30% of Israelis are Ashkenazi (European) Jews. Almost 45% are indigenous Mizrahi Jews. There are many others

Oh? And how does Israeli society treat the non-Ashkenazi Jews? How do they treat the Beta Israel?

Not well. There is a clear hierarchy in Israeli society and the Ashkenazi Jews are at the top.

Portraying Jews as “white” is done to make them fit more easily fit into the narrative that Zionism is a “white colonialist” project. There are Jews of every skin color. Only 30% of Israelis are Ashkenazi (European) Jews. Almost 45% are indigenous Mizrahi Jews. There are many others, such as Maghrebi Jews and Ethiopian Jews. Almost half of Israeli Jews are ethnically mixed. Jews outside of Israel are diverse, too.

Lmao. Doesn’t matter if they were 100% black Jews. Zionism would still be a white European colonial project.

Everything else will be ignored and laughed at.

Actually, before I do that

Do not lie about Jews’ connection to Israel: This is a delegitimization tactic. Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. There have always been Jews in Israel, although they have rarely had sovereignty or been the majority. While some of Israel’s enemies accuse it of being colonialist, many Jews view Israel’s creation as decolonization (it was Jewish insurgents who drove the colonialist British out of Palestine). This historicity of Jews being from Israel does give them a claim to the land, but it does not mean Palestinians have no claim.

The first Zionists explicitly called their projects colonial, planned on selecting a bunch of different countries and states as being the “homeland”, and called themselves outsiders compared to the native Palestinians. This was during a period where colonialism was something to be proud about and openly discussed

Seems like you're trying to let the genociders tone police your criticism of their genocide.

Calling Palestinians "rabid" kind of gives away the game there, buckaroo.

Portraying Jews as “white” is done to make them fit more easily fit into the narrative that Zionism is a “white colonialist” project.

Tell Israel to stop hiring eastern Europeans to portray their IDF thirst traps, then

In a nutshell, criticise the specifics of the settler colonial project but don't question the illegal occupying entity.

This begs the question, how many Palestinians have to starve before we can acknowledge the zionist entity is acting exactly as any other fascist state? How draconian must its class laws become until it can be called apartheid? How many murdered children do they need for the families and neighbours of those victims have the right to question the legitimacy of the zionist entity?

Its people are simply Israelis, much as people in Australia are simply Australians.

Yeah, about that

Portraying Jews as “white” is done to make them fit more easily fit into the narrative that Zionism is a “white colonialist” project.

So I don't know the name of logical fallacies but I think this would be considered a strawman? He's slightly twisting criticism of Israel to make it easier to attack. First of all, let's say for the sake of argument Jews are not white - the key word in "white colonialist" is not "white" but "colonialist." It's still a colonial project. And secondly, it might be more accurately said to be a "European colonialist" project or a "settler colony" which is what I usually hear from people. He's trying to get you bogged down in some argument about whether or not Jews are white which is not really the issue here. With regards to claims about colonialism, he doesn't even address them.

These terms have become pejorative and are too broad to be useful. A Zionist is one who believes Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel.

This one is weird. He says zionism is too broad then goes on to pretty much accurately define zionism and name a bunch of zionist entities. People have referred to the U.S. government, maybe not as "zionism," but at least as "supporting zionism" - which is like the same thing. I've usually seen zionist or "supporting zionism" used for zionist entities or those entities supportive of the Israeli state. I don't really understand his criticism here. He himself shows that zionism is not too broad and in fact has a specific definition, and people/organizations are being criticized for supporting zionism as defined by him.

Do not lie about Jews’ connection to Israel: This is a delegitimization tactic. Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. There have always been Jews in Israel, although they have rarely had sovereignty or been the majority. While some of Israel’s enemies accuse it of being colonialist, many Jews view Israel’s creation as decolonization (it was Jewish insurgents who drove the colonialist British out of Palestine). This historicity of Jews being from Israel does give them a claim to the land, but it does not mean Palestinians have no claim.

This one is one I hate. What is implicit here is that Palestinians are not indigenous - it's the Jews that are indigenous. Firstly, that's nonsense - the Palestinians are descendants of people who have always lived in the area. Their ancestors were likely Jews, way back before both Islam and Christianity.

But secondly, this is like changing the subject. He's trying to get you bogged down in an argument over whether or not the Jews are indigenous or not. Stick to the real problem at hand - the treatment of Palestinians by Israel.

So, a certain zionist argument often goes like this: Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel, they got kicked out at some point (? or something, somehow they left), the Palestinians moved in (untrue, see above, they were always there), Israel is just the Jews taking back their rightful homeland, shouldn't they have a right to a homeland? And so then you come in and say well Israel shouldn't exist - because their argument for the state of Israel is founded upon this idea of a Jewish homeland, they start arguing with you about "well the Jewish people were there first" and suddenly you are having an argument about the indigeneity of Jewish people and who has more of a claim to the land. But your criticism of Israel is not starting from "Jewish people aren't indigenous" or "Jews don't have a right to a homeland" or whatever words zionists are trying to put in your mouth - your criticism of Israel begins from Israel as a European settler colony and Israel's treatment of Palestinians as constituting genocide. This guy's argument about Jewish indigeneity is just skirting the issue - he's just trying to get you to argue on his terms.

Claiming to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish is like saying you are not anti-Japanese, but just want to destroy Japan

It's not, but this person has no understanding of zionism. Except this person is starting from the belief that Israel is not a settler colony so his logic does make sense. But your logic is different since it's beginning from the idea of Israel as a settler colony.

A Zionist is one who believes Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel

There I fixed it.

The central thesis of those that make these arguments is: Palestinians are not people and that Israel is only a utopia away when Palestine and Palestinians are erased from history and memory as the indigenous peoples of North America were. They object to criticisms because it impedes Zionism's progress in manifesting this grim vision, but adherents of this ideology can tolerate the liberal critique be more discreet about it. i.e: If you criticize us, criticize that we should be erasing and eradicating Palestine in slow motion.

If you must engage with these genocidaires, on the off chance they are speaking from ignorance rather than malicious approval, then you should focus on the apartheid nature of Israel ruling over 5m people in Gaza and the West Bank without any voting rights, legal rights, and civil rights. They can not file grievances against the state in courts, they can't travel freely. They can't press charges against individual abusers. e.g: Tiktoker IDFers posting their crimes live for the world to see w/o repercussion.

Then escalate to Palestinian current status as stateless and occupied people who are displaced and dispossessed of their homes, property, and freedom. Historically and in the very present. Then Proceed with "administrative detention", explaining that this is imprisonment without trial.

If they use Judaism and being Jewish as an aegis against criticism, remind them that the Torah, the central religious text of Judaism, forbids the oppression of one's neighbor. Forbids murder, theft, and cruelty.

Inform them Jewish people have a right to exist everywhere and anywhere, but a theocratic ethnostate that commits apartheid and genocide does not have a right to exist as it is. Flawed as it is, a secular liberal democracy with a presumption of assumed equality and liberty for all its citizens w/o privilege to ethnic and religious groups is better than a theocratic ethnostate with incentive to pursue genocide and apartheid, and an ideology to indoctrinate current and future generations into perpetuating this barbarism.

Calling for serious solutions is welcome.

Israel is starving two million people to death in the name of the Jewish people, with plans to expel them into the Sinai as measure to spare their lives. The only other thing more anti-Semitic than that is European history.

These "solutions" aren't welcome either. Israel rejected the two state solution. A compromise I believe the PLO was once willing to accept.

Whatever pretense of other parallel sub-ideologies of Zionism (Labor/Liberal Zionism, etc) has given way to Kahane's Kach ideological successors. And they aren't interested in "serious solutions" They are interested in dominance and destruction of Palestine. This status quo is the current state of Israel's vision in fruition.

Bit of a rant here. It was always possible, after the establishment of the Israel, to have established a single unitary state and immediately granting Palestinians citizenship and a right of return in Israel too, solving the situation of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide but Israel would then lose its demographic majority and cease to be an ethnostate. A unitary Palestinian state could have been a refugee state for Jewish people facing systemic oppression and discrimination, as well as offering a path to immigration and citizenship in the same manner other countries have.

And what did Israel do to the Ethiopian Jews?

There are Jews of every skin color. Only 30% of Israelis are Ashkenazi (European) Jews. Almost 45% are indigenous Mizrahi Jews. There are many others, such as Maghrebi Jews and Ethiopian Jews.

Wow! Should I look into Israel’s treatment of Ethiopian Jews? Oh. Well surely other non-European Jews are fine. Oh.

Avoid using the terms Zionist or Zionism to describe the Israeli Government or Jews: These terms have become pejorative and are too broad to be useful.

Such unserious nonsense when Israel itself uses the term to describe its government so frequently even today. Don’t they know they’re insulting themselves by using “pejoratives”?

Do not lie about Jews’ connection to Israel: This is a delegitimization tactic. Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. There have always been Jews in Israel, although they have rarely had sovereignty or been the majority. While some of Israel’s enemies accuse it of being colonialist, many Jews view Israel’s creation as decolonization

This is so funny to me because throughout the history of Zionism, it was openly called colonialism by its leaders, where Palestinians were called the “natives”/”indigenous” who needed to be dispossessed. Just blatant rewriting of history to weasel into an imaginary “middle ground.”

No, it doesn’t count that Herzl (of Mt. Herzl) wrote to the prominent colonist Cecil Rhodes comparing Zionism to Western colonialism and calling it “something colonial.” No, it doesn’t matter that the Zionist projects were named such things as the “Palestine Jewish Colonization Association” and the “Jewish Agency Colonization Department.” No, it isn’t relevant that the Zionist project was demonstrably one for the cause of European Jewish opportunism and colonialism supported by the imperial powers (namely Britain), of which Palestine was selected merely because of the common myth of indigeneity which roused mass support (see The Class Origins of Zionist Ideology by Halbrook). In fact, by bringing this up you’re performing a “delegitimization tactic” and lying!

Isn’t a simple conversion to the religion of Judaism sufficient to be granted a birthright trip? Why aren’t genetic tests showing an ancestral connection to the land accepted as a valid cause for the law of return, but only the proof of Jewish family members? Because then Israel would be forced to allow displaced Palestinians to return to their land. Why are genetic tests forbidden without a court order? The whole “indigeneity” argument is something the Israeli state itself won’t take seriously.

Do not call for Israel’s destruction: Racists have weaponized the Palestinian independence struggle, making anti-Zionism the new anti-Semitism. Claiming to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish is like saying you are not anti-Japanese, but just want to destroy Japan. It is anti-Semitic to say that Jews are the only people in the world without the right to a homeland.

Everyone has likely heard the last part of this repeated verbatim, but, of course, what this ignores is that this “homeland” was built on the displacement and massacre of Palestinians and sits atop the land of Palestinians, requiring brutal repression. Do all other people have a right to occupy other’s lands, uphold an apartheid regime, and commit obscene atrocities, such as the restriction of travel around Gaza and the mowing down of people, including children and healthcare workers, who refuse this? The call for the destruction of Israel is one for the liberation of Palestinians, the end to settler-colonial violence and to the regressionist apartheid theocracy that is Israel, and so too a call for the progress of the Jewish people.

A Zionist is one who believes Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel.

I'm pretty sure I knew that, hence why "most zionists are not Jewish".

The only response: tell them kys