The Anti-Semitic Left Remains Alive and Well

[Intell]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

Yes, and both were just wars.

Thank you. I could see the argument against the Six-Day War (even though not engaging in it would've been suicidal for Israel), but the idea that the Jews should've just rolled over in 1948 and accepted possible genocide is absolutely absurd.

It's also absurd to see all the tiresome "the antisemitic left doesn't exist because it's just against Israel" here, but it's expected from certain posters at this point and there's not point arguing about it.

I think the argument amongst hard-left circles is that the creation of the state of Israel was illegitimate as was the jewish character of the state. They instead would have supported a unified socialist Palestine nation that reflected both the jewish and Palestinian character of the state. Noam Chomsky holds this opinion, while still calling himself a zionist.

[BP🌹]

Even if the Arab states had accepted the hilarious "partition plan" that gifted 55% of the country, including the most fertile land, to 1/3 of the population, the story would've been much the same. Zionism is about a state for Jews - and only Jews - in all of historic Palestine. The area allotted to the Yishuv still had a 40% Arab population. There still would've been a mass expulsion of the indigenous people from their land. Ben-Gurion agrees: "There can be no stable and strong Jewish State so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60 percent.”

I also have no doubt that, in the timeline I'm describing, Israel would've eventually gobbled up the Arab state.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Yeah, the establishment of a Jewish state necessitated war and ethnic cleansing one way or the other.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yeah, the establishment of a Jewish state necessitated war and ethnic cleansing one way or the other.

Just like the establishment of a Norwegian state, a Polish state, a Hungarian state, or a Czech state necessitated war and ethnic cleansing? Please.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Yeah, the establishment of a Jewish state necessitated war and ethnic cleansing one way or the other.

Just like the establishment of a Norwegian state, a Polish state, a Hungarian state, or a Czech state necessitated war and ethnic cleansing? Please.

Sure. Look at what happened in Eastern Europe post-WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia

[R.P. McM]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

The 1948 war was an unfortunate case of the infant UN failing to control a situation before it spilled out of control. Regardless, Jewish people have a right to live in Israel and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the existence of a Jewish state predicated on self determination.

Muslim people have the right to live in Spain, and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Muslims of Moorish descent immigrating, en masse, to the Iberian Peninsula, with the intent of establishing an Islamic state.

[R.P. McM]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially identical. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize that Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

[R.P. McM]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

Yes, and both were just wars.

Thank you. I could see the argument against the Six-Day War (even though not engaging in it would've been suicidal for Israel), but the idea that the Jews should've just rolled over in 1948 and accepted possible genocide is absolutely absurd.

It's also absurd to see all the tiresome "the antisemitic left doesn't exist because it's just against Israel" here, but it's expected from certain posters at this point and there's not point arguing about it.

I can't speak to society at large, but in the microcosm of this forum, have you ever come across an ostensibly antisemitic comment by a liberal poster not pertaining to the state of Israel? I don't dispute that criticism of Israel can be motivated by Antisemitism, but if 100% of your examples relate to Israeli policy, there's a good chance the intent has been misinterpreted.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

Yes, and both were just wars.

Thank you. I could see the argument against the Six-Day War (even though not engaging in it would've been suicidal for Israel), but the idea that the Jews should've just rolled over in 1948 and accepted possible genocide is absolutely absurd.

It's also absurd to see all the tiresome "the antisemitic left doesn't exist because it's just against Israel" here, but it's expected from certain posters at this point and there's not point arguing about it.

I can't speak to society at large, but in the microcosm of this forum, have you ever come across an ostensibly antisemitic comment by a liberal poster not pertaining to the state of Israel? I don't dispute that criticism of Israel can be motivated by Antisemitism, but if 100% of your examples relate to Israeli policy, there's a good chance the intent has been misinterpreted.

Yes, actually.  Multiple posters, in fact

[Stranger in a strange land]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially indistinguishable. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize the Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

The problem is that at some point the settlers become the natives and their descendants have the right to live in the land, regardless of how unjust the initial conquest was. For this reason, I support Israel's right to exist within it's pre-1967 borders, simply because the outcome of the 1948 War can't be undone without displacement and injustice even worse than the original Nakba. That being said, Israel does NOT have the right to grab ever more land through illegal settlements, and the idea that God "gave" the land to the descendants of people who lived there thousands of years ago (which is at the heart of the settlement project) should be rejected and condemned. Israel's drift towards right-wing authoritarianism an alliance with the Christian Right in the U.S. are also gravely worrying.

Complicating the issue further is that while criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, much criticism of Israel IS motivated by anti-Semitism and conspiratorial beliefs about Jewish control of finance, the media, or U.S. foreign policy. Part of the reason why I'm uncomfortable with so much of the BDS and anti-Israel movement is because they often traffic in rhetoric and imagery indistinguishable from that used by White Nationalists.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Six-Day War is a classic example of a preemptive offensive. The war itself was a just war. The problems stem mainly from what Israel did later with the territory it occupied, not the war itself.

Why? Because a second Holocaust was imminent? Get real. The Israelis knew that they would win a war with the Arabs rather easily. Gen. Matituahu Peled, chief of logistical command during the war, said:

"The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war."

Just because Israel was likely to win the war that Nasser was doing his best to start was no reason to sit back and take the first blow. A truism of war is that often the best defense is a strong offense, or at the very least securing the initiative.

[R.P. McM]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially indistinguishable. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize the Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

The problem is that at some point the settlers become the natives and their descendants have the right to live in the land, regardless of how unjust the initial conquest was. For this reason, I support Israel's right to exist within it's pre-1967 borders, simply because the outcome of the 1948 War can't be undone without displacement and injustice even worse than the original Nakba. That being said, Israel does NOT have the right to grab ever more land through illegal settlements, and the idea that God "gave" the land to the descendants of people who lived there thousands of years ago (which is at the heart of the settlement project) should be rejected and condemned. Israel's drift towards right-wing authoritarianism an alliance with the Christian Right in the U.S. are also gravely worrying.

Complicating the issue further is that while criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic, much criticism of Israel IS motivated by anti-Semitism and conspiratorial beliefs about Jewish control of finance, the media, or U.S. foreign policy. Part of the reason why I'm uncomfortable with so much of the BDS and anti-Israel movement is because they often traffic in rhetoric and imagery indistinguishable from that used by White Nationalists.

I'm on the same page. My point was simply that we shouldn't try to whitewash history.

[R.P. McM]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

Yes, and both were just wars.

Thank you. I could see the argument against the Six-Day War (even though not engaging in it would've been suicidal for Israel), but the idea that the Jews should've just rolled over in 1948 and accepted possible genocide is absolutely absurd.

It's also absurd to see all the tiresome "the antisemitic left doesn't exist because it's just against Israel" here, but it's expected from certain posters at this point and there's not point arguing about it.

I can't speak to society at large, but in the microcosm of this forum, have you ever come across an ostensibly antisemitic comment by a liberal poster not pertaining to the state of Israel? I don't dispute that criticism of Israel can be motivated by Antisemitism, but if 100% of your examples relate to Israeli policy, there's a good chance the intent has been misinterpreted.

Yes, actually.  Multiple posters, in fact

Cite them.

[Devout Centrist]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

The 1948 war was an unfortunate case of the infant UN failing to control a situation before it spilled out of control. Regardless, Jewish people have a right to live in Israel and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the existence of a Jewish state predicated on self determination.

Muslim people have the right to live in Spain,

Nothing objectionable here, Spain shouldn't be excluding Muslims.

and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Muslims of Moorish descent immigrating, en masse, to the Iberian Peninsula

This is a flawed analogy; Moors refers to people from the Maghreb who are typically Muslim. Moorish people are not indigenous to Spain and while they certainly have some right to live there, there are already several 'Moorish' states.

with the intent of establishing an Islamic state.

Jewish ethnicity and Judaism are not the same thing.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The take that Israel is a rich, white, European colony that shouldn't exist is hot garbage. For many historical and contemporary reasons, there needs to be a Jewish state in the Jewish homeland. Calling Jews rich white Europeans who intrude into places where they don't belong, is the essence of anti-semitism. We were called rich people intruding into places where we don't belong when we tried to make a home in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Russia.

The take that the State of Israel is committing war crimes and engaging in apartheid, the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is terribly unjust to the Arab people living there, and the settlements are illegal and damaging to the cause of peace, is solid, and it's a take I agree with. There is nothing anti-semitic about that. I think Netanyahu is satanic, as do pretty much all liberal Jews.

Finally, making a false equivalency between leftist accusations of "colonialism" against Israel and right-wing, white supremacist hatred of Jews, is a repulsive talking point used by the right. They are in no way the same. It's a canard used to discredit the vast majority of the left, who are fighting for diversity and respect for all people regardless of ethnicity or national origin.

You seem to be suggesting that a history of persecution distinguishes Zionism from other European colonial projects, despite the fact that the reality on the ground is essentially indistinguishable. Did oppression endured in the UK justify the Irish and Pilgrims' mistreatment of Native Americans? I recognize the Jews had it much worse much more recently, but I'm trying to establish a general principle.  

Except that Jews are native to the Levant and have had a continuous presence there for at least 2500 years. If the Irish and Pilgrims were native to the Americas, most were forced out 2000 years ago except a few small communities that remained, over the course of the next 1900 years they were persecuted and expelled from everywhere they tried to make a home in Europe, then many started migrating back to the Americas to join their brethren who had been there the whole time, then you might have a good analogy.

[Kingpoleon]

Just like the establishment of a Norwegian state, a Polish state, a Hungarian state, or a Czech state necessitated war and ethnic cleansing? Please.

It wasn’t necessitated, but considering in Eastern Europe literally a million ethnic Germans died due to anti-German sentiments and as many of more were interned by our Communist ex-allies in the East? Germans used to make up 10%+ of the population in the Baltic trio, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia; a plurality or majority in Kaliningrad, Poland, Lithuania; et cetera. You could have used almost any example outside of Eastern Europe.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think Bernie Sanders has an excellent take on Israel. Firstly, he makes clear several things: He is proudly Jewish and he has a personal connection to Israel, having lived on a Kibbutz outside of Haifa in 1963.

I don't know why many "leftists" in the West think that the Six-Day War (Naksa) and the occupation of more territory was unjust, but the 1948 war (Nakba) and establishment of Israel was just. They're the same thing.

Yes, and both were just wars.

Thank you. I could see the argument against the Six-Day War (even though not engaging in it would've been suicidal for Israel), but the idea that the Jews should've just rolled over in 1948 and accepted possible genocide is absolutely absurd.

It's also absurd to see all the tiresome "the antisemitic left doesn't exist because it's just against Israel" here, but it's expected from certain posters at this point and there's not point arguing about it.

I can't speak to society at large, but in the microcosm of this forum, have you ever come across an ostensibly antisemitic comment by a liberal poster not pertaining to the state of Israel? I don't dispute that criticism of Israel can be motivated by Antisemitism, but if 100% of your examples relate to Israeli policy, there's a good chance the intent has been misinterpreted.

Yes, actually.  Multiple posters, in fact

Cite them.

Snowstalker obviously comes to mind and either JacobinAmerican or PublicUnofficial definitely has as well, although I forget which those two it was who said that "Jews have no place" in the world the progressive movement is trying to create (one of them definitely did though) or words to that effect.  Of course, that's just off the top of my head, pretty sure there have been others.  

Also, pretty sure I wasn't misinterpreting Cora's intent - even if it was Israel-related - when s/he literally argued in support of blowing up school buses full of Jewish children.  Such comments leave little room for ambiguity

[BP🌹]

The Six-Day War is a classic example of a preemptive offensive. The war itself was a just war. The problems stem mainly from what Israel did later with the territory it occupied, not the war itself.

Why? Because a second Holocaust was imminent? Get real. The Israelis knew that they would win a war with the Arabs rather easily. Gen. Matituahu Peled, chief of logistical command during the war, said:

"The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war."

Just because Israel was likely to win the war that Nasser was doing his best to start was no reason to sit back and take the first blow. A truism of war is that often the best defense is a strong offense, or at the very least securing the initiative.

Nasser made some very poor decisions, yes. But I'm not very interested in defending non-Palestinian Arab leaders/states. While often lumped together, they have had different motivations for opposing Israel. And in some cases, have been actively hostile toward Palestinians (see: Black September, Sabra and Shatila massacre, etc...)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Six-Day War is a classic example of a preemptive offensive. The war itself was a just war. The problems stem mainly from what Israel did later with the territory it occupied, not the war itself.

Why? Because a second Holocaust was imminent? Get real. The Israelis knew that they would win a war with the Arabs rather easily. Gen. Matituahu Peled, chief of logistical command during the war, said:

"The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war."

Just because Israel was likely to win the war that Nasser was doing his best to start was no reason to sit back and take the first blow. A truism of war is that often the best defense is a strong offense, or at the very least securing the initiative.

Nasser made some very poor decisions, yes. But I'm not very interested in defending non-Palestinian Arab leaders/states. While often lumped together, they have had different motivations for opposing Israel. And in some cases, have been actively hostile toward Palestinians (see: Black September, Sabra and Shatila massacre, etc...)

You do realize Black September was a terrorist organization that murdered numerous innocent people, right?  I only ask because you seem to be quietly implying that opposing the group constitutes unwarranted hostility towards Palestinians and I want to be sure I'm not misinterpreting your post.

[Horus]

If you have to go all the way back to Snowstalker to find an example of the anti-semitic left on Atlas, that just proves my point that it's pretty much nonexistent because he's been gone for like a decade.

I think JA is just anti theist in general. Don't know enough about the third person you mentioned.

[John Dule]

Between its ethnocentrism, nationalism, border wall, and recent use of genetic testing to prove one's status, Israel is basically as close to a MAGA endpoint nation as we'll ever see.

[Former President tack50]

I will say this, if for some reason you think the establishment of a Jewish state should have been prevented, the moment to act was probably some time in the early 20th century, before even WW1 (let alone the Holocaust and WW2).

Nowadays, the Israel-Palestine issue is an almost impossible one to solve. I can't think of any solution that would make everyone happy and fulfill the requirements of both sides. Trying to think of some ideas:

a) A 2 state solution that makes Israel a Jewish/ Israeli state and Palestine a Palestinian state. This should have been done back in 1970 or so, but the settlements now make it impossible. It would require ethic cleansing and/or lots of border changes so it's an easy no go. In practice this proposal might look a bit like the Lieberman Plan.

b) A 2 state solution or loose EU-like confederation under current borders that avoids any sort of ethnic cleansing. Of course this is easier said than done. Israel has a decent track record with its Arab minority (ie no terrorism or genocide), but would the reverse be true of an independent Palestine with a Jewish minority?

c) A 1 (federal) state solution. This looks a lot like modern day Bosnia or Lebanon, both very dysfunctional countries. Even the "ideal, rainbows and sunshine" version looks like Belgium or Northern Ireland at best. So you know what this means, powersharing, lots of compromises, a dysfunctional country, etc.

This also might require Israel dropping the "Jewish state" slogan (I don't think Bosnia markets itself as the Bosniak state), becoming some sort of bi-national state. Since it's a 1 state solution you can also get away with border gore, keeping all the Israeli settlements inside the Jewish half of the state (again, look at the borders of the Republika Srpska, though even that would probably look tame compared to the final outcome of this)

Worth noting that under C you could theoretically keep a Jewish majority state if you leave Gaza out of it (so settlement-free Gaza becomes independent while the West Bank does not). However the Jewish minority would be extremely slim (iirc something like 51-49).

I imagine b would be extremely unlikely. A requires ethnic cleansing so again a no go. C might be the most likely but even then it is remote. It is fairly clear to everyone that the status quo is not morally right, but the alternatives are either worse (a; requiring ethnic cleansing in the year 2019!) or politically unfeasable (b or c).

Either way, back on topic there are definitely antisemites on the left just like there are on the right. Critizising Israel by itself does not make you an antisemite though, but most (all?) left wing antisemites are also Israel critics.

[BP🌹]

The Six-Day War is a classic example of a preemptive offensive. The war itself was a just war. The problems stem mainly from what Israel did later with the territory it occupied, not the war itself.

Why? Because a second Holocaust was imminent? Get real. The Israelis knew that they would win a war with the Arabs rather easily. Gen. Matituahu Peled, chief of logistical command during the war, said:

"The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war."

Just because Israel was likely to win the war that Nasser was doing his best to start was no reason to sit back and take the first blow. A truism of war is that often the best defense is a strong offense, or at the very least securing the initiative.

Nasser made some very poor decisions, yes. But I'm not very interested in defending non-Palestinian Arab leaders/states. While often lumped together, they have had different motivations for opposing Israel. And in some cases, have been actively hostile toward Palestinians (see: Black September, Sabra and Shatila massacre, etc...)

You do realize Black September was a terrorist organization that murdered numerous innocent people, right?  I only ask because you seem to be quietly implying that opposing the group constitutes unwarranted hostility towards Palestinians and I want to be sure I'm not misinterpreting your post.

I won't be gaslighted Israel apologists calling Palestinians child-murderers. It shows an unbelievable, stunning lack of self-awareness.

[Kingpoleon]

Glad to hear somebody supports the Munich massacre.