Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 15th, 2024, 9:45 am
My point - which I suspect may never be acknowledged - is that it is inherently anti-Semitic to focus on what Israel did wrong over that of Hamas, over that over Sudan, of Syria, of Yemen, of the Central African Republic.
...
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 16th, 2024, 7:41 am
By the worst estimates, Stalin killed more than three times as many Russians as died in Nazi camps. 
So, by your logic, mentioning the Holocaust without also acknowledging the (possibly) far higher numbers of Russians killed in the same conflict (WW2), makes one anti-Russian.
I submit that your 'logic' just isn't helpful. And, by the Goddess, we could do with "helpful" when discussing this awful conflict.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 16th, 2024, 9:51 am
My logic is the most helpful possible, being centrist. Your "logic", by contrast, is part of the problem. Millions have been influenced by journalists and academics who had been trained in social Marxism at university, who denigrate Jews because they have been deemed The Oppressor. Then these jaundiced observers spread their anti-Semitism to a general public, who largely lap up whatever they are fed.
This exchange is not a political or ideological one. It's more basic than that. You claim that anyone who criticises Israel without taking into account — and
citing, clearly! — every other vaguely-similar situation across the world, is "anti-Semitic" (which term, in this case, must mean
anti-Israel, as the target of criticism is Israel, not Jews or the Jewish faith).
The problem with that is that, since the beginning of recorded human history, our world has been filled with such conflicts. It simply isn't possible, in a purely practical sense, to mention them all, or even most of them, when discussing just one of them. There are just too many of them. But should we prevent the discussion of one because we can't list all the others every time we do it?
All such conflicts are wrong. So any action against just one of them is a step in the right direction. Action against all of them would be better, but impractical to achieve all at the same time. In practice, that level of multitasking might actually prevent us from considering each issue justly and fairly, with appropriate scope, depth, and breadth.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 16th, 2024, 9:51 am
The constant attacks on Israel while ignoring equivalent and worse issues in multiple places in the world (not just Sudan) is simply anti-Semitic.
So would it be acceptable to create a topic to discuss the Sudanese conflict? After all, to do so without mentioning Israel (and all the other similar situations throughout the world) would be displaying anti-Sudanese discrimination/prejudice,
by your logic.
The end result of following your recommendations is that no 'military injustice' can be morally discussed in isolation, but only all together, all at the same time, so that no-one is criticised when someone else equally guilty is not mentioned explicitly. Looked at in one way, your logic offers a Bullies Defence, that no bully can be stopped without stopping all bullies, everywhere, to avoid 'unfair' focus on any one bully. It just doesn't make sense. It isn't helpful, and it isn't justifiable.
