State Dept on what is considered Antisemitism: https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/
These definitions are intentionally broad and designed to censor criticism of Israel. You have more freedom to criticize the US Government than to criticize a foreign country.
> Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
There are plenty of dual citizens that would proudly admit that their first loyalty is to Israel.
Other examples from the document use the term "Jews as a people", whereas this example seems to apply to accusing any individual.
Although perhaps a generous interpretation of the example, is that it excludes Israeli dual citizens, because Israel would be one of "their own nations"
They accuse others of being nazis so that they themselves can be nazis.
Some interesting maps thankyou.
But obviously this is not an excuse for Israel government supporting religious orthodox extremists and their settlements and aggression against Muslims in the area near Jordan. If you just take the situation there then it is basically a war zone.
If West Bank was considered part of Israel then I can see elements of apartheid but people who say it's apartheid also say West Bank is a separate country. You can't have apartheid in another country. Call it invasion/occupation or apartheid, but pick one? (Also yes this is whataboutism but what Russia is doing is orders of magnitude worse if invasions are considered.)
Trump and his friends are fascists (corporatism, corruption, strongman rule, us vs them with human rights abuses vs the "them", etc).
It sort of made sense if I thought just of West Bank. One reason, freedom of movement. I did not see from the inside but from what I read it is semi closed like a warzone with checkpoints and all. What's worse is that it is supposed to be closed for everybody but allegedly it is not equal and Israel military tolerates Jews but can be way overly strict to Muslims. Some people mad at Netanyahu for it.
But it's a weird limbo, people say it's apartheid and then the same people also say it's occupied and not really part of Israel. (Except for people who also say Israel shouldn't exist but I wouldn't listen to them, because then why a shitton of militant Muslim countries are allowed to exist right there but Israel isn't considering it is much more democratic and Jews were there as early if not earlier than Muslims)
It really isn't. Where did you get that information?
And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends.
The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.
And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.
I think your description far more accurately describes the Democrats than the Republicans.
They probably shouldn't do that and should just say fascist.
The fallacy here is thinking Judaism and Zionism are related. They're not at all. I would wager most Jews worldwide are not Zionists. What Zionism is is the belief that Jews are entitled to a Jewish Ethnostate and they may create that state through violence and colonialism.
I'm not going to fact check that because it's probably wrong, but regardless, it doesn't matter.
Trump literally appointed a billionaire to be a minister of his, after said billionaire spent hundreds of millions on his campaign. Same billionaire also has government contracts, was in charge of "optimising" government spending. Oh and he runs a social media with blatant censorship. Trump had a coronation event where billionaires had to donate big sums of money to be able to attend. He launched shitcoins and collectibles and a fucking mobile phone.
Nothing any recent politician in any western country has done comes even close to this level of brazen corruption. Hell, well known corrupt autocrats like Putin are more delicate in public about their corruption.
> And the corruption within USAID was off the charts..billions of dollars shovelled out the door to Democrat friends
Like preventing HIV from being transmitted to babies in Africa? Darn Democratic HIV infected babies!
"more nonsense"
Great rebuttal.
I don’t think I’m particularly pro-Israel, but since HN seems fixated with this particular conflict over others I certainly post in those submissions - just like everyone can see you do. This unnecessary personal attack is completely off topic (you’re responding to a post about me realising I believed in a myth about Israel) and easily proven false by looking at my post history - and also yours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate
Worth noting: Senator Ted Cruz's father is a pastor and follows this ideology. There's a pretty good article on the topic:
https://www.christiancentury.org/article/features/quiet-rise...
And the Dominionists require Israel to be strong because Jews rebuilding the temple is part of their apocalyptic beliefs.
https://sojo.net/articles/evangelical-support-israel-fueled-...
Please share evidence. Links to X of people simply stating the same thing does not count as evidence.
> The bypassing of the first amendment by pressuring social media companies to self-censor.
The platforms never claimed to be coerced, the platforms themselves said in court filings they were not coerced, SCOTUS determined they were not coerced.
The actual way this played out was that random crybabies on the Internet were sad their posts were moderated, so they complained to the courts that the government pressured the platforms. The platforms responded "no, we did that because you broke our ToS."
Here's Twitter's own lawyer in their legal filing on the matter:
> Such requests to do more to stop the spread of false or misleading COVID-19 information, untethered to any specific threat or requirement to take any specific action against plaintiffs is permissible persuasion, and not state action... as [SCOTUS] previously held, government actors are free to urge private parties to take certain actions or criticize others without giving rise to state action. The evidence provided does not support a plausible inference of state action because they suggest neither the degree of deep public, private entwinement necessary for joint action, nor the kind of threatened sanction necessary for coercion.
And here are Zuckerberg's own words:
> Ultimately it was our decision whether or not to take content down and we own our decisions.
Both platforms receive millions of government requests per year, the vast majority of which (from the US government) they are free to decline and frequently do decline.
> And the weaponisation of the legal system to take out a political opponent.
The entire purpose of a legal system is to "take out" criminals. Do you think running for office somehow gives someone criminal immunity? That has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life, and I've heard some astoundingly stupid ones!
It's a delicate balance and I'm glad you can strike it so consistently.
I think your main issue seems to be that I don’t agree with you on Middle Eastern history, science, law and social matters.