Statement from Germany's vice chancellor on the Hamas attack and antisemitism | Hacker News Reader

Statement from Germany's vice chancellor on the Hamas attack and antisemitism

twitter.com

14 pointsdoener21 comments

Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.

That’s not what this statement said. Unless by ‘anti-sionism’ you mean to refuse this country the right to exist at all. In which case yes, the germany vice chancelor said this was not allowed in germany. But then it’s not a problem, there’s a lot of arab countries that give you the right to express this opinion. Not all countries have the same red line regarding hate speech.

Some purported anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

https://nypost.com/2023/10/10/reprehensible-protestors-chant...

For example, 2/3 sample of Lebanese, Israel’s next door neighbors, answered probably true to “Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars”

https://global100.adl.org/map

You haven't made the point you're claiming to make. That some anti-Zionists are antisemetic does not imply in any way that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

> does not imply in any way that anti-Zionism is antisemitism

Well he never argues that it necessarily does. You should be happy about that. You agree.

No it doesn't imply causally, but you'll be mostly in antisemetic company. For your logical consistency, make sure that when a white nationalist is claimed to be white supremacist, you're there to defend the distinction. Because the minority that are about nationalism instead of hate is similar and what you're debating.

What's that saying leftists and antifascists loved until a few weeks ago? "if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis." Leftist protestors sure went from "punch a Nazi in the face" to "gas the jews" real quick.

> Some purported anti-Zionism is antisemitism.

I'm pretty sure the parent meant to say "Anti-zionism does not imply antisemitism".

And antisemetism does not imply antizionism: one might dislike Jews so want them out of Europe, so some desert in the middle-East would be ideal. Some argue that the Nazis held this position pre-war.

> And antisemetism does not imply antizionism

Why is this relevant though? Saying "antizionism does not imply antisemitism" is relevant because a lot of people think it does. But no one thinks that "antisemitism implies antizionism".

Threatening and attacking Jews who don't even live in Israel is not "anti-Zionism".

This seems irrelevant to the post.

As you may know, Jews have lived under the whims of others for at least 2,000 years. Regularly they were subject to oppression, murder, and savagery by their neighbors. Then the Holocaust happened. Israel as a nation was formed as a result, as a promise to Jewish people to have a home of their own that will protect them.

To hope for the destruction of the state of Israel (anti-Zionism) is to hope to have Jews again be subject to unchecked savagery for the next 2,000 years. Even in Germany now it is scary to be openly Jewish, doing Jewish things, as the vice chancellor noted. It may technically be correct to say that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, in terms of language structure and precise meaning of words, but anti-Zionism leads to anti-Jewish consequences.

"Regularly they were subject to oppression, murder, and savagery by their neighbors."

The problem seems to be that Israel, the victim, has become the perpetrator.

What do you think zionism means?

I have the same thought as you in relation to what I just heard. 60% of the message had to be delivered to reinforce Germany's responsibilities, and the last 40% was great “both sidism” that I would want to hear.

My only reservation is that the line of where “criticism of Israel” jumps into “antisemetic rhetoric” seems to be defined by the listener rather than the speaker. How can one express a pro-Zionist, anti-Zionist action, pro-Palestinian autonomy, anti-Hamas action opinion without being called a hypocrite by someone somewhere? It’s not an insane position to hold, but listeners always want to define the speaker as supporting some kind of heinous past.

Comes across a little as an Israeli stooge to me.

The backwards antics of some immigrant communities in western nations, burning flags and whatever, should indeed not be tolerated.

But the fact is that terrorism is winning. And it is winning because these utterly barbaric and heartless acts are inciting their much more powerful targets to reveal their worst natures, and lose their reputations (which are as life, and should be guarded as such).

We should not be condoning or even tolerating those worst natures, just as we should not be even thinking about justifying or tolerating the barbaric outrages themselves.

It's true, there's a lot antisemitism in Germany.

But besides the nice words and the threats of deportations, the government could do something more concrete that would demonstrate its good will. How about calling for a ceasefire, like the UN Secretary-General did[1]? Gaza city is now encircled with a million people inside, most of them civilians, with no access to water and energy, while being carpet-bombed[2] on a daily basis. Mere words of supports for humanitarian help in such a situation are disingenuous.

[1] https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-10-24/secr... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/right-now-it-i...

So you are saying that it’s Israel’s fault that jews are being subjected to antisemitism? Not sure what’s your point, that it is then justified?

Also using carpet bombing to describe what is going makes you lose all credibility, war is already awful as it is without applying exaggerated propaganda terms that do not relate to what is actually going on. Look up what carpet bombing really means.

> So you are saying that it’s Israel’s fault that jews are being subjected to antisemitism?

Absolutely not.

My point is that besides antisemitism (widespread, and disgraceful), the demonstrations stem from well-founded humanitarian concerns. The German government has only offered empty words in that respect. As an allied of Israel, it could do much more.

The UN SecGen Guterres put it in better words than I can:

> But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

Regarding "carpet bombing". If that seems exaggerated to you, let's use IDF spokesperson Daniel Hagari's words: “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy”. Satellite images show entire neighborhoods flattened[1] to facilitate the ground incursion. Those were residential buildings.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/0e1fb7a1-8547-48d0-b4d6-bd30f566a...

Your line of thinking begets terrorism. If you advocate for a ceasefire after terrorists massacre civilians then hide behind more civilians you’re simply defending terrorism.

did the 240 people kidnapped returned already? the babies, children, etc...? if not, why would israel stop? if they stop, the kidnapped remain in hamas hands and the next massacre by hamas would be just around the corner. also, if you care about the gazans, why would you want the operation to stop? don't you want them free from hamas? they sure do want to be free from them. cease fire sounds like positive but would mean gazan stay prisoned and used by hamas and hamas gaining more motivation to do more massacres and leaving the kidnapped civilians at the hands of the terrorists. you care about gazan -> help them get freedom from hamas

Reply on news.ycombinator.com