There lies the difference. IMO, as long as Israel’s aggression is limited to what we know see as the borders of modern Israel, they should have the military might to keep their land.
I don’t believe that Israel is fighting to convert Iran to Judaism or kill them. They just want to cripple the machine that supports others attack Israel or itself inflicts damage to Israel.
Israel has acquired a position of being disliked or hated by others by no accident. They actually asked for the chaos that they have endured
Matthew 27: 24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
I would expect that if it gets to any boots on the ground, there would remain a permanent US military base. Putin wouldn’t like that, neither would China.
Can you explain that in different words? When attacks were made outside of the borders of modern Israel, despite ongoing negotiations, how is that not aggression beyond it’s modern borders?
It can be called anything anyone wants to call it. I, unapologetically, see it as Bible interpretation. BTW, antisemitism is a horrible descriptive word. Arabs are Semites too.
If Israel is getting bombed, who cares if negotiations are being held? You expect Israel to just turn the other cheek? They have not accepted that they exist in the current dispensation.
Try lobbing some bombs into the USA and see if current negotiation prevent you from be on the receiving end of what will look like the sky has fallen.
I have hated that word as soon as I realized that Jews were not the only Semites. In fact, the group of people who most hate the Jews are also Semites!
Antisemitic is counterintuitive. The word needs to be used etymologically correctly. I will not budge from that position!
I know, but I still respect your opinions and insight, so I listen and seriously consider what you have to say. I appreciate the fact that you are solid in your convictions.
Definitions change and we have lot of words which implications, connotations or meaning have shifted over time.
Originally the word semite meant bunch of things, but we all understand the meaning of antisemite now. Although some use it as weapon against those who criticize Israel’s actions.
I do appreciate the etymological pondering though. It’s always interesting to think where words originate.
I do not know what you are referring to here. You are saying it was defense and not aggression because Israel was being bombed, and that therefore aggression is not possible?
I was not understanding your statement that I quoted, and I explained why.
Another question I had was would your statement apply if Israel’s borders were to expand?
I do not expect Israel to just turn the other cheek.
Separately, dispensation usually relates to religion. Children of Israel are mentioned many times in the Quran. Israelites existing is Quranic. Shia believe in the same Quran.
I do not know what you mean by this. I guess implying that religion tells them that the modern state of Israel does not have the right to exist
Don’t I know it? I call it the devilutiion of the English language. My position is that the English language in the USA was sealed in 1828 with the dictionary by Noah Webster. Any words felt necessary should be added to the dictionary and not alter the meaning of a word (that was sealed in 1828). I know that “antisemitic” did not exist when the 1828 dictionary was printed. It is an added word. But why allow Wilhelm Marr to decide the meaning of the word?
Much of today’s political disagreement boils down to extremely pliable interpretations of words.
Graham Platner’s campaign is a great example of how that plays out. According to them, he never had a Nazi tattoo, but Maine has many Nazis in politics that Graham is fighting.
Vast numbers of people speak the same language but use completely different dictionaries.
And I appreciate the pedantic approach to terminology, that’s how it should always go. And I agree it’s not the best term to use. Antijudaic or so would be more precise. Anti-Israelite would have too strict connotations towards the country.
But 100 years is a long time for language, which is never stale. Most modern dictionaries do use the word as it is.
For all politicians. Sometimes it’s not even done on purpose. People toss words like leftist or conservative or woke with different meanings.
In philosophy and science definitions are crucial, and they need to be somewhat shared. In politics definitions are often intentionally vague or blurry.
Actually, big part of philosophy is to define what word x or y actually means.
I am a black and white kind of guy. If you throw words that have different levels of meanings, I expect you to expound to clarify your meaning. If you elect to be deceptive, we have nothing to converse about. I will disengage.
I know that I cannot change a person, and much less a group of people, but I don’t need to acknowledge their point of view. I am never convinced with mush.
