67 Comments

I think it's interesting how leftists like Beinart and his friends, who see any form of inequity, no matter how small, as ironclad proof of large scale systemic overwhelming institutional racism. Yet somehow, they see nothing wrong with Jews and only Jews being deprived of their national rights and sovereignty. You'd think they'd be able to recognize a minority being singled out and mistreated, but apparently not.

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world where, if only Jews gave up statehood, then everything would be fine. But even pluralistic democracies like the US and the UK have serious issues with institutional racism and discrimination (as I'm sure leftists like Beinart would agree), and Palestine is far from a pluralistic democracy. Anyone who truly cares about Jews and the rights of Jewish people would not advocate for them to be forced into a binational state where their rights and even their lives cannot even be remotely guaranteed.

Expand full comment

The question is: do Jews (like every other people in the world) get an opportunity to have their own state? The consensus I am seeing from you and others is "no" which you may not define as antisemitism, but certainly qualifies as some sort of bad feeling (whether you want to call it hatred is another matter).

It doesn't help that the anti-zionists seem perfect content to watch Jews die for the sake of Jews dying.

Expand full comment
author

there is no universal right to a state that favors you over people of a different religion/race/ethnicity. i wrote about that here https://jewishcurrents.org/there-is-no-right-to-a-state

Expand full comment

I don't want to get too into this because it's somewhat off-topic, but I want to put here (because you've said this elsewhere too) that it is not part of a common/standard definition of Zionism (which AFAIK you also accept) that Jews have to be unjustly privileged over non-Jews. The exercise of self-determination is compatible with democratic binationalism (which I also support). So opposing all Jewish self-determination (not just racist versions of ethnic nationalism) is not a reasonable view and is biased to some degree (whether we want to call this bias 'antisemitism' or not is another issue).

Expand full comment

Are you saying that the right of self-determination, as codified in the UN Charter and other international documents, does not apply to Jews?

Expand full comment
author

can't respond to all of your comments but on the question of self-determination, i've written this https://jewishcurrents.org/there-is-no-right-to-a-state

Expand full comment

I should believe you over the United Nations charter and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? Interesting. Does that mean that the Palestinians, Scottish, Kurds, etc. are all wrong in their pursuit of statehood?

Expand full comment
author

if you think Iraq/turkey/iran/syria should provide equal rights for kurds as opposed to kurds having an independent state, that position doesn't constitute anti-kurdish bigotry

Expand full comment

What a disingenuous argument. Right now, those countries don't provide equal rights to Kurds, so right now there are two options:

1. Maintain the unequal status quo.

2. Give the Kurds their own state.

It seems pretty clear your position is #1, and yes that is anti-Kurdish bigotry because it means Kurds will be unequal and massacred just because the idea of Kurds having their own state offends your delicate sensibilities. It's total nonsense.

At some hypothetical point in the future, when Palestine and its neighbors becomes pluralistic democracies that provides equal rights to their people and actually enforces those equal rights in practice, maybe then anti-Zionism will be legitimized as a coherent ideology. Until then, it should be dismissed as the anti-Semitic and hypocritical nonsense it is.

Jews should not have to suffer and die at the hands of an intolerant majority because some ivory tower leftist living thousands of miles away has a dream that that majority might someday deign to grant the Jews equal rights. The Jews have equal rights right now, deal with it.

Expand full comment

I think it does, because equal rights as a minority group isn't the same thing as having an independent state. For example, Kurds in Turkey are unable to help Kurds in Syria in a meaningful way because they are such a small minority in Turkey and cannot lobby the Turkish government to intervene on behalf of Syrian Kurds. A Kurdish state, however, could help those Kurds. Also, Kurds do not have a voice or a vote at the United Nations if they do not have a state, and having equal rights for Kurds in Turkey and the rest does not solve that problem. One could argue it actually is anti-Kurdish and anti-Jewish bigotry to deny those groups a voice and a vote at the United Nations. Maybe you can explain why it's not.

Expand full comment

Winters, the UN Charter and the ICCPR do mention the principle of "self-determination of peoples", but they don't define what constitutes a "people". My guess is that it was deliberately left vague because the diplomats who drafted them wanted it that way.

In the context of those particular documents, however, there are some clues, if we look at where the word "peoples" is used:

- Article 55 of the UN charter says, "With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: ... c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

- Article 73, "declaration regarding non-self-governing territories", refers to "the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government" and includes calls "a. to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;" and "b. to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement;"

- Article 76 on the international trusteeship system says that one of its objectives is "b. to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned", so the reference to "each territory and its peoples" here and in article 73 are hints that one territory can have multiple "peoples" within it.

- Article 80, which is again about the trusteeship system, says "nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

So just looking at how the word "peoples" is used in the UN charter, it would seem that "peoples" are understood as living in particular territories. It is not necessarily "one territory, one people"; the charter seems to acknowledge that a given territory might have multiple distinct peoples living within it. But I don't see anything here on "peoples" that could be considered to apply to a group of humans who live in a wide geographic area as a minority group in a variety of self-governing and non-self-governing territories. In the case of Palestine in 1945, it could make sense in the context of the UN charter to talk of the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine as two separate peoples within the territory of Palestine. But I don't think it would make sense in the UN charter context to talk of self-determination for a "Jewish people" spread throughout the world, any more than it would make sense to talk of self-determination for an "Arab people" as a whole, living in multiple self-governing and non-self-governing territories. And while it might make sense to talk of a right to self-determination for Kurds in Iraq, or for Kurds in Turkey, it would make less sense to talk of self-determination for "the Kurdish people" internationally. It is hard to think that diplomats at the UN, employed by national governments, would even have the intention to say that a "people" distributed across international boundaries would have some right to self-determination.

Expand full comment

Article 1, section 1 of the ICCPR says "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." Again, not defining what constitutes a "people".

Then section 2 says "All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence." As I read it, this would imply that a "people" is defined by territory, because international economic co-operation and international law are about relations between states, not relations between, say, Jews as a people and Arabs as a people.

Article 47 has the only other reference to "peoples", and says "Nothing in the present Covenant shall be interpreted as impairing the inherent right of all peoples to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources." And again this makes the most sense if "peoples" are territorially defined.

Expand full comment

J Alex Keene: "The question is: do Jews (like every other people in the world) get an opportunity to have their own state?"

What is a a "people" in the sense in which you say that "every other people in the world get an opportunity to have their own state"?

Expand full comment

Ask Mahmoud Abbas. He went in front of the UN multiple times and demanded a state for the Palestinian people.

Expand full comment

"The Palestinian people" would be an example of a people defined by origins in a particular geographic area, in this case the one defined by the boundaries of the former Palestine Mandate. Absolutely nobody says that this is the same sense in which Jews are a "people".

Expand full comment

Every historical and archeological record states that the Jewish people originated in the region of Judea and Samaria. That is clearly meeting your definition of "origins in a particular geographic area." "Jews originated as an ethnic and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE in the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel" - Wikipedia

Again, when you're denying Jewish history and jumping through hoops to try to strip Jews of their identity as a people, their statehood and their rights, I really don't think you can complain about being perceived as anti-Semitic.

Expand full comment

Winters, I don't think you understand what I mean by "a people defined by origins in a particular geographic area". By that, I mean not only that the people's origin is in a particular geographic area, but that everyone whose origin is in that same geographic area belongs to that people. If you're saying that everyone descended from humans living in the ancient regions of Judea and Samaria is, by definition, a member of the Jewish people, then yes, the Jewish people would be defined by origins in a particular geographic area. But I don't think you mean that.

Expand full comment

"that everyone whose origin is in that same geographic area belongs to that people"

That definition is entirely your own creation. Distinct nations have originated in the same geographic area since the dawn of time. Once again, the goalposts change and the definition shifts.

Again, trying to deny the Jews their identity as a nation and a people is anti-Semitism and convoluted legalese and linguistic arguments over what constitutes a "people" just makes things worse. In the 21st century, every racist and bigot has pseudo scientific and rational arguments about why their racism is justified. The Jews are a people and have been for thousands of years and they have rights, and no Internet commenter with made up definitions is going to change that.

Expand full comment

Are you seriously arguing that the Jewish people aren’t a people? If so I’d say you’re an anti semite and this conversation is over.

Expand full comment

When I ask you what you mean by a particular word, I am not seriously arguing anything.

Expand full comment

1) Link to zoom event?

2) Your measurements of antisemitism are based on hatred of local/Diaspora Jews. Not wanting to Jews to have power in your country, for instance. I would argue that desiring Jewish powerlessness is a common factor of left and right antisemites, just that right antisemites are with Jews' wielding distant power in a nation state but fear Diaspora Jews' political and economic influence; whereas left Jews are more ok with Jewish economic/political influence in US/Europe but distrust concentrated collective Jewish power (nation state) and are quite willing to downplay Hamas' antisemitism and the real threat it poses to Jewish lives. Both seek Jews' returning to a medieval state of powerlessness, marginality and vulnerability, and want us to fit their desired place for us in the world (for Hungarian fascists Jews are ok if they're far away in the Middle East; for American campus radicals Jews are ok as long as they are a minority of less than 2% in every country and as long as they disavow all affiliations with Israel, both the nation-state and the land). Both sets want less Jewish power and more control over what type of Jews and what type of Jewishness are acceptable.

Expand full comment

Peter, you seem to define anti-Zionism as opposition to an Israeli state that privileges Jews over Gentiles. In that case, Israel's own Declaration of Independence is an anti-Zionist document, since it calls for full equality for all of Israel's citizens, regardless of ethnicity.

Expand full comment
author

yes but that language in the Declaration in tension with its language about Jews being "masters of their own fate...in their own sovereign State."

Expand full comment

I don't see how being masters of one's own fate means being masters over Gentile citizens. It's just boilerplate language for self-determination.

Expand full comment
author

the point is that "their own" refers to Jews, not all of Israel's citizens. The self-determination is for some of Israel's citizens, not all of them.

Expand full comment

The document does not state that self-determination is for Jews only. It is silent on the matter. Perhaps you are confusing this with the Nation-State Law?

Expand full comment
author

"This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State." It's talking about the state belonging to the Jewish people. It's the Jewish people--not all Israelis (which would include Israel's Palestinian-Arab citizens)--who enjoy self-determination.

Expand full comment

How is that different than Palestine's declaration of independence, which states "And in exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory...The State of Palestine is an Arab state, an integral and indivisible part of the Arab nation."

Expand full comment

No one's denying that the Declaration grants the Jewish people self-determination in Israel. But it's missing the crucial qualifier 'exclusive', which allows for minority self-determination as well. Over the years, Peter, I've noticed you have had a tough time accepting the notion of full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and this goes back to your 2010 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic. As Democratic Zionists, Social Democrats USA has no problem supporting such equality (BDS Demand #2), inasmuch as it flows naturally out of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel.

Expand full comment

The USA and Europe are not the only places that exist. Is there a reason you focus only on those two places? I'm not sure even your empirical data or interpretation thereof is correct, but in any case among Muslims in Muslim-majority countries anti-Zionism is the norm, and Muslims in Muslim-majority countries are antisemitic. For example in Pakistan antisemitism is common and anti-Zionism is universal and expected. You acknowledged Muslim antisemitism yet somehow didn't see the implications it has for your thesis.

Expand full comment
author

I looked at the US because that's where I live and the US and Europe because those are the places where the conflation of anti-zionism and antisemitism are having serious implications for the free speech rights of anti-zionists. The relationship between AZ and AS in majority Muslim countries is an interesting and important topic. Maybe I'll try to address it in the future if I find reliable data

Expand full comment

Thank you. You can ask people from Muslim-majority societies what their experience has been with anti-Zionist and antisemitic attitudes in their country (of origin), and you can also look at policies toward Israel and see how that correlates with antisemitism. E.g. antisemitism is lower in the UAE which has normalized with Israel, whereas it is high in Pakistan which does not recognize Israel. Obviously there is also other possible data, but these are some places to look.

Also I would like to point out that antisemitism has implications for the free speech rights of Zionists and pro-Jewish people in Muslim-majority societies.

Expand full comment

Peter is writing about the common idea in the West that being anti-Zionist makes you anti-Jewish. What isn't talked about nearly as much is the idea that being pro-Zionist makes you anti-Palestinian. Most people in the West don't think about that, and even if they do, they don't see much wrong with being anti-Palestinian. But in Muslim-majority societies, most people do see something wrong with being anti-Palestinian. By "anti-Palestinian" I mean against Palestinian people for being Palestinian people, i.e., being from the land of Palestine but non-Jewish.

As for the UAE vs. Pakistan, I don't think that their governments' policies towards Israel are a good way to measure antisemitic attitudes of the people. The UAE is run by a group of absolute monarchs. Pakistan's government has much more democratic accountability. You'd have to find some other way to measure the relative level of anti-Jewish animus in the populations. There's also the twist that the vast majority of the people living in the UAE are expatriates, including almost as many Pakistanis as UAE nationals, so you'd have to be careful in interpreting surveys of the population there.

Expand full comment

If your first argument is that Muslims are anti-Zionist because they're pro-Palestinian and not because they're antisemitic: identification with Palestinians is a factor, but is not the full explanation. In any case, whatever the explanation, there is a correlation between antisemitism and anti-Zionism among Muslims. Their antisemitism is evident in all sorts of ways, including ways that have been recorded in studies.

The fact that Pakistan is more democratic does not support your position, since Pakistan's non-recognition of Israel would therefore reflect general attitudes to a greater extent, which implies that anti-Israel attitudes are common in Pakistan. That is what I claimed. I am from Pakistan and can confirm that it is highly antisemitic. I can give loads of examples, but go look at the prime minister's and foreign minister's statements wrt Israel, the celebrity Veena Malik's tweet about Jews in May 2021, and so on. If I start listing off all the examples of antisemitism I heard growing up (and even from diaspora Pakistanis often), this comment would get way too long.

Expand full comment

I actually meant there is an overlap between anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the many cases of Muslims who are both things. The use of the term 'correlation' was not correct there, I realize (I can't edit my comment). This overlap is huge because there are more Muslims than there are leftist Americans.

Expand full comment

Sikander, yes, Pakistan's non-recognition of Israel reflects general attitudes within Pakistan to a greater extent than the UAE's recognition of Israel does within the UAE. But evidence of anti-Israel or anti-Jewish attitudes in Pakistan tells us nothing about whether or not these attitudes are comparatively stronger in Pakistan than they are in the UAE.

Expand full comment

For that I presented the report of some Jewish people that they are safer in the UAE than in many other countries. That is word-of-mouth and not a study, but it is still empirical data.

Expand full comment

Also you might want to read the study described in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41241353

Expand full comment
author

will take a look

Expand full comment

The headline is "Over a quarter of British people 'hold anti-Semitic attitudes', study finds"

The text of the article explains that to "hold anti-Semitic attitudes" in the way quantified by the headline means to express agreement with at least one statement among a list of statements that are said to express "anti-Semitic attitudes".

One of these statements is "Jews think they are better than other people."

They're saying that if you agree with that, then you hold an "anti-Semitic attitude".

If a survey showed that a lot of British people agree that "Whites think they are better than other people", would it be presented by the BBC as evidence of anti-White attitudes? Or substitute any group of people -- members of the nobility, French people, vegetarians, millionaires, Americans, men, women, or even British people. It just wouldn't be news, whatever the survey results showed, let alone some kind of alarming evidence of bias against the group.

Expand full comment

That is a false and offensive analogy, since Jews are historically oppressed, and the view that Jews think they're superior has historically been part of the ideology associated with their oppression. If you're suggesting the survey is producing false positives, that still does not explain why there was a positive correlation between anti-Israel attitudes and antisemitism according to that survey. Why would there be more false positive among the anti-Israel group?

Expand full comment

Sikander, there are lots of groups having the property that many or most of the members really do think they are better than non-members. "X people think they are better than other people" is so generic that it can hardly be said that it's "historically been part of the ideology associated with their oppression" when X = Jews. Or any other group that I can think of, for that matter.

I'm not necessarily "suggesting the survey is producing false positives". That would imply that there is an actual thing, a person's anti-Semitism or lack of it, that the survey is intended to uncover. People's attitudes to Jews, or to Pakistanis, or to Palestinians, or to any group, are complex. Why a positive correlation between the belief that Jews think they are better than other people, and anti-Israel attitudes? Well, I'd say most obviously because Israel proclaims itself the state of all Jews, and it is a fact that most Jews even outside of Israel support Israel's policies towards non-Jews in Palestine, generally speaking, such as the big one of never allowing the repatriation of its ethnically cleansed non-Jews who originated in Israeli territory. So certainly the policy of the "Jewish" state of Israel would appear to be that Jews are better than other people in the land of historic Palestine.

Expand full comment

Pretty much every nation-state acts in the best interests of the nation. None has ever been criticized for it, until Israel.

Expand full comment

Winters, you posted that as a reply to my comment, but I am not sure how it is relevant to my comment. In any case, you could hardly be more wrong, because pretty much every nation's government IS criticized by others whenever its actions in the best interests of the nation are at the expense of others.

Expand full comment

Iam a Muslim and I agree with you 100 percent. At the end of the day we have to fight both anti semitism and Islamophobia or anti Muslim bigotry where ever we find it...even though I understand why some muslims hate the jews because of the actions of Israel is never okay to do that and it is dangerous path to go .

Expand full comment

Peter, do you believe that "“Israelis behave like Nazis towards the Palestinians" is an antisemitic statement? You seem to imply that you do.

Expand full comment

Excuse me sir but Ive engaged with Salman Abu Sitta and the Anti Zionists on Facebook and I can tell you that they seek a Palestinian majority in a single state so that they can repeal the law of return for Jews thereby undermining Jewish autonomy. There is an antidote to this that meets all of the Palestinians legitimate needs including return but Abu Sitta rejected the model. They are trying to turn the clocks back to 1939. Be careful what you wish for. Abu Sitta's rejection of the Supranational Federation Model whose dual Parliamentary Structure nullifies the demographic issue proves that BDS is a Supremacist movement. https://www.pa-il.org/

Expand full comment

Is Zahra Billoo's recent speech anti-Zionist, antisemitic, or both?

Zahra Billoo is the executive director of CAIR - San Francisco Bay Area. Note that the word "Israel" is not mentioned once in this speech.

* * * * *

"“We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses. Because just because they are your friend today doesn’t mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights.

So oppose the vehement fascists, but oppose the polite Zionists too. They are not your friends. They will not be there for you when you need them. They will take your friendship and through your Palestinian brothers and sisters under the bus . . .

When we think about Islamophobia and Zionism, let’s be clear about the connections . . . . There is no difference between domestic policy and foreign policy when it comes to those who seek to target us, and by the way, you should be a monthly donor to American Muslims for Palestine . . .

Know who is on your side . . . Because the next thing I am going to tell you is to know your enemies, and I’m not going to sugar coat that. They are your enemies.

There are organizations and infrastructure out there who are working to harm you. Make no mistake of it. They would sell you down the line if they could, and they very well often do behind your back. I mean the Zionist organizations. I mean the foreign policy organizations who say they are not Zionists but want a 2-state solution . . . so know your enemies.”

* * * * *

Yes, many do not like MEMRI, but this speech is scary, as it a direct attack on my synagogue and my community by claiming that we are the enemy of American Muslims and would stab the Muslim community behind its back.

There must be a better way to fight Islamophobia then to attack the American Jewish community and its institutions.

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AxxiROIvWo

Expand full comment

Hasn't the term "anti-Semitism" from its coining in 19th-century Germany always meant the notion that since Jews are Semitic and not European in origin, they don't deserve to have the same rights and privileges as White people? That is how the term has been used both by anti-Semites and people who fight against anti-Semitism. The core idea of anti-Semitism is that Jews differ racially from Europeans. Ironically, the Zionist narrative itself plays up this notion, that Jews don't belong in Europe, but in Palestine, because that's where they're "really" from.

Talking about "anti-Semitism" among non-whites has seemed to me to be the wrong term, not just for the usual reason that "Arabs are Semites too", but because the phenomenon that goes by the name "anti-Semitism" has always been about the dynamic between White society and Jews. My impression from Palestinians is that a lot of Palestinians hate Jews, obviously, but it's not based on the idea of Jews belonging to a separate race; indeed, they will freely acknowledge that their own ancestors who lived in Palestine before Islam and Christianity were probably Jews.

Expand full comment
author

interesting point. that's why i and many others now use the term "antisemitism" (no dash)--to get away from the idea of semites and make it a simply synonym for bigotry against jews

Expand full comment

"This Friday’s call will be about “settler-colonialism.” If you follow pro-Palestinian discourse, you’ve probably heard the term. It suggests that Israel—like the US and Australia—is a country created by settlers who dominated and displaced the indigenous population. If you follow pro-Israel discourse, you may have heard this claim rejected as inaccurate and offensive."

Readers who follow the pro-Israel discourse of the ADL may have gotten the impression that settler colonialism is something that did not happen in the US and Australia, but in some other parts of the world:

https://www.adl.org/resources/glossary-terms/allegation-israel-is-a-settler-colonialist-enterprise

"Allegation: Israel is a Settler Colonialist Enterprise

"The term “settler colonialism” conjures historical memories of exploitative white European empires militarily invading lands in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, implanting their citizens in colonies through the use of force, subjugating the native and indigenous populations and stealing their natural resources."

No hint anywhere in this piece by the ADL that the US is a settler colonialist enterprise, even though the ADL is based in the US, and this is written for an audience of predominantly US residents.

Expand full comment

You'd also never have guessed that the entire Arab presence in the Middle East outside of the Arabian peninsula was the result of settler colonialism in the 7th century.

Expand full comment

The idea of settler colonialism is that some group of people come in from outside and displace the indigenous population. This is what Europeans did in North America. The French did this in Algeria to some extent with settler communities there that were distinct from those of the natives. British colonialism in India was not settler colonialism because there was never any attempt to set aside areas there for Brits to settle and live permanently for generations. So that said, my understanding of the Arab conquests in the 7th century is that it is more of the non-settler colonialism type, more like India rather than America. The reason why there are lots of Arabs today outside the Arabian peninsula is not that they are largely the descendants of people who moved there from the Arabian peninsula, but because they are mostly descendants of indigenes who were conquered by people from the Arabian peninsula and eventually adopted their language, which made them Arabs.

Expand full comment

The Arab conquests are clearly more similar to the Europeans than India. The Europeans came in, took over, drastically reduced the native population and made the ones who were left speak their language (!) and adopt their traditions. Exactly what the Arabs did. The Arab conquest was a cultural genocide, if not an actual one. But it wasn't simply a language change, the people living there considered themselves Arabs from the Arabian peninsula and genetics backs that up.

Arab nations are in no position to criticize anyone for settler colonialism, the historical record is clear they are just as guilty of it as anyone else.

Expand full comment

Winters, you give your game away by saying "Arab nations are in no position to criticize anyone for settler colonialism." The point is not to criticize anyone for settler colonialism, it's to understand where and when settler colonialism can be said to have happened. I don't know anything about drastic reduction in the native population done by Arabs in the 7th century. I've never heard of "the people living there considered themselves Arabs from the Arabian peninsula and genetics backs that up." What genetics are you thinking of? Here's an article I found that doesn't back that up; I invite you to critique it or to cite something else:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5844529/

Expand full comment

Your original post quoting Beinart: "”If you follow pro-Palestinian discourse, you’ve probably heard the term. It suggests that Israel—like the US and Australia—is a country created by settlers who dominated and displaced the indigenous population". The pro-Palestinian discourse does in face criticize Israel (but not Palestine) for settler colonialism, all day every day, in their attempts to justify anti-Zionism. They are hypocrites as they refuse to hold Palestine to the same standard. They are "pro" a country and nation that itself only exists because of settler colonialism of the Arab variety. Agreed?

This is not some high brow academic thought exercise. This argument is an attempt to deny millions of Jewish people their rights and sovereignty today through a justification of anti-Zionism, and this argument is built on double standards and lies.

As for genetics: "According to a 2010 study by Behar et al. titled "The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people", Palestinians tested clustered genetically close to Bedouins, Jordanians and Saudi Arabians which was described as "consistent with a common origin in the Arabian Peninsula". I'd be happy to provide more.

Expand full comment