I’d also argue that tax paying Americans are obligated to care. Our money is funding Israel’s crimes and we are morally culpable if we don’t resist or try to change policy.
Ps There is one think I do which I know is directly connected to this. I boycot Israeli food products, mostly grown on occupied lands. The inpact is close to nil but it’s the most I can do at the moment.
A lot of people are critical of Israel's policies, including many Israelis. There is absolutely no problem with that.
E.g. "It's not bad if i admire [ blacks / whites / asians / aryans / han chinese]?
Sounds very plausible instead. The original cancel culture is exactly that used to silence critics of Israel- the accusation of antisemitism has been used for decades to terminate careers. People have learned very well to keep their mouths shut.
Let me tell you how this sounds to me as a Jewish person, it sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory that is alluding that "we" are somehow pulling some invisible strings to get people fired for being justly critical of Israel. I could be paranoid but honestly I've earned the right to be paranoid.
I would fight for anyone's right to criticize Israel. I would also fight for the discussion to be based on facts and for Israel not to be singled out for "preferential" treatment. There is no problem being critical of Israel. Antisemitism is a big problem. If you don't feel like you can draw this line just study the question before commenting. It's really not that hard.
Let me give you a specific example. If you say Israel is intentionally trying to inflict damage on Gaza in order to deter Hamas and the population from re-engaging Israel in the future and that's a questionable tactic. I would say this is reasonable criticism (at least should be discussed). If you say Israel should not be evicting Arabs from their homes at the moment from disputed territories even if they are legally entitled to, or you want to debate said legality. Fair game IMO. However if you say look how many Palestinians died vs. Israelis in the latest round of violence and use it as a measure of morality that is problematic. In war each side tries to minimize damage to their side and inflict as much damage on the other side. People saying this are either incredibly naive or are twisting the (sad) reality to fit some agenda IMO. I don't think what I am saying here is that you can only have a voice if you agree with me. You can even choose to disagree with me on the question of war and proportionality. But you better come to this discussion with some good supporting arguments. There is certainly a lot of history and a lot of room for debate about this.
In fact I think anti-Semitism is a very real problem. Historically and now. It also hurts the legitimate arguments against Zionism because invariably real anti-Semites show up and become the focal point.
John Lennon sang:
"Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace"
Nobody has banned John Lennon from the radio last time I checked.
Until a position is backed up with some rational arguments it's sort of just your opinion. Why should we care? If you are going public with a certain position and advocating for action the burden of proof is on you. Especially if there are consequences. There's plenty of nonsense going around that doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. But you can "hold" any of those positions wrt/ Israel or any other topic.
I have no idea why you are quoting John Lennon. It has nothing to do with the topic.
Let's say we have this debate and you convince me, and I agree with you, that the Balfour Declaration was "wrong"(?) because it's not "right" to say people X should take location Y as their country while the locals are not consulted with. Not sure that really gets us anywhere. Lots of countries "exist" without Britain bothering to have declared that they should be countries and lots of countries exist because Britain and France arbitrarily made them so. Saudi Arabia pretty much owns its existence to similar circumstances, the British war on the Ottoman empire. But sure it is part of the long and relevant history of the region.
You can also say the UN should not have passed resolution 181. Again, not sure where that's gonna lead us.
If anyone is still reading this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration for reference.
If you have issues with the Balfour Declaration presumably those should be taken up with Britain?
Anyhow, at the end of the day, I think you're saying that despite the long and documented history of the Jewish people to the land of Israel the fact that the Jewish people were a minority in the area for a lengthy amount of time means that they have no right to that area at all. My counter would be that pretty much any country anywhere in the world doesn't actually satisfy your requirements and that if anything the Jewish people have a stronger "right" to that land than most other people living in other countries. And then you'll disagree. And we'll agree to disagree. And the question of how to resolve the situation today remains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declarati...
That other countries have also engaged in colonialism, doesn’t mean we have to support it, especially modern day colonialism.
We won’t agree on a solution or even the problem, but my point in this particular case is you can be against Israel as a geopolitical entity and not be anti-Semitic.
You're not a coward; you're human. Here's what I tell myself: There are people who sacrificed far more for freedom than whatever I risk - anger, rejection by some, even my job and reputation. However, I only have one job and one reputation, and I'm not sacrificing them for nothing.
And regardless, taking a dramatic stand rarely accomplishes anything. Listening to others, being curious and open about their positions, and then responding thoughtfully accomplishes much more with much less risk.
> I am no antisemitist, on the contrary, some of my favorite people are jewish.
FWIW, this is a classic line of prejudiced people: 'I'm not anti-X; some of my best friends are X.' There was even a public service commercial in the 1980s that used almost that exact line. Whatever your thoughts, I wouldn't say it. It sounds defensive, for one thing. Say something affirmative - e.g., 'Israelis have a right to peace and justice, as do Palestinians.'
If you are prejudiced (I have no idea; I'm not drawing a conclusion based on one sentence in an online post; and I am certainly nobody's judge), it's ok. We all are to various degrees - the point for me is to be aware that I am human too, that I have this human potential and to be aware of it and notice it, and also to be aware that I also have the human potential for much greater things, and I have a responsibility to embrace that and change my perspective.
On the other hand, this is just a trope that needs to die. It's a non sequitur and is in fact an example of kafkatrap: