>Just "because Hamas committed an act of terror against Israel, Israel does not have to kill millions of innocent people".
I've always been inclined to grant people their "antizionism is not antisemitism", but you know, when someone begins inflating death tolls by a factor of 100x...
„Would not a more optimistic image of the future be one where we would simply be a little less emotionally invested in the other?“
No.
Just imagine: With less „emotional investment in the other“ (btw: isn't that a female quality?) we couldn't simply headline others as „scumbags“ or self hating antisemites. I ask myself which media plattform would sooner go bust without that kind of emotional investment: Broder's (who in my opinion is one – if not THE – founding father of post 9/11- „Cancel Culture“ in Germany*) or Greenwald's?
*Herr, die Not ist groß! Die ich rief, die Geister, werd' ich nun nicht los.“
As a mathematician (bad conversation starter, I know) I am often annoyed by the postmodern leftist use of language. In mathematics, when two concepts intersect, we usually invent words both for their union and for their intersection, and study the properties of both. And we have a clear idea about what a complement is.
Nothing like this works for that jargon. "Anti" is not synonymous with "not". If you are not antiracist, you are racist. If you are not racist, you are racist. If you are racist, of course you are racist. Only if you are antiracist, you are not racist. It might well be that anti-Zionism is just another word for antisemitism, for all practical purposes, but neither is Zionist the same as semite, nor non-Zionist the same as non-semite. The confusion is intentional, and just a means of wielding power.
>Just "because Hamas committed an act of terror against Israel, Israel does not have to kill millions of innocent people".
I've always been inclined to grant people their "antizionism is not antisemitism", but you know, when someone begins inflating death tolls by a factor of 100x...
„Would not a more optimistic image of the future be one where we would simply be a little less emotionally invested in the other?“
No.
Just imagine: With less „emotional investment in the other“ (btw: isn't that a female quality?) we couldn't simply headline others as „scumbags“ or self hating antisemites. I ask myself which media plattform would sooner go bust without that kind of emotional investment: Broder's (who in my opinion is one – if not THE – founding father of post 9/11- „Cancel Culture“ in Germany*) or Greenwald's?
*Herr, die Not ist groß! Die ich rief, die Geister, werd' ich nun nicht los.“
As a mathematician (bad conversation starter, I know) I am often annoyed by the postmodern leftist use of language. In mathematics, when two concepts intersect, we usually invent words both for their union and for their intersection, and study the properties of both. And we have a clear idea about what a complement is.
Nothing like this works for that jargon. "Anti" is not synonymous with "not". If you are not antiracist, you are racist. If you are not racist, you are racist. If you are racist, of course you are racist. Only if you are antiracist, you are not racist. It might well be that anti-Zionism is just another word for antisemitism, for all practical purposes, but neither is Zionist the same as semite, nor non-Zionist the same as non-semite. The confusion is intentional, and just a means of wielding power.
"all antisemites are staunch critics of Israel"
Seriously? What about Fidesz in Hungary, NF in France, AfD in Germany, Tommy Robinson in England, Robert F Kennedy Jr in the US - to name a few?