Anti-Zionism= Anti-Semitism?

[parky76]

I'm this topic has been tackled before but I figured, what the hell?

Some people argue that anti-Zionism, in all of its forms, is a form of anti-Semitism. They argue that since it specifically targets the Jewish state, as opposed to the Chinese or the Italians or the Spanish, that it is anti-Jewish and therefore, anti-Semitic.

Some argue that the charge of anti-Semitism is thrown around too loosely, basically accusing any and all critics of Israel as being anti-Semitic. This is a ploy by ultra-defenders of Israel, they say, to basically make criticism of Israel unthinkable and unacceptable amoung the mainstream.

My take on it is kind of in the middle. Yes, there are many anti-Zionists who indeed hold anti-Jewish (anti-Semitic) views. You cannot critisize Israel, calling it part of a plot for Jewish world domination, and not excpect to be called an anti-Semite. You can't attack the Talmud, "Jewish bankers", mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and not expect to be called an anti-Semite. It is rediculous, but not unexpected, for anti-Semites to loudly yell "all anti-Zionists are called anti-Semites!!" and then talk about classic anti-Jewish conspiracies and lies.

On the other hand, there are those who are anti-Zionists, but avoid clear anti-Semitic messages. They do not talk about the Talmud, or jewish conspiracies, or the Elders of Zion, or Jewish Bankers, or the Communists, etc. They do, however, attack Israel strongly for their treatment of the Palestinians, their confiscation of lands, their discriminatory policies, etc. I would argue that these people, are not anti-Semites. There is nothing anti-Semitic about asking "why do Jews from Russia have the right to displace Arabs from Hebron?". This is a fair question and those who seek to disenfranchise any questioning and critisism of Israel, by attacking all critics as "anti-Semites", do their side no good, and indeed invite the charges by all anti-Zionists, be they jew-haters or not, that pro-Zionists use the anti-Semite charge as an dishonest way of deflecting critisism.

The term "anti-Semite" should not be used lightly. True anti-Semites seek to hurt and kill the Jewish people, both physically and spiritually. Critisizing Jews is not anti-Semitic....and anyone who throws around this term like a football to stifle debate and critisism, do the Jews a great disservice.

Anti-Semites, who seek to hide their pure hatred of the Jews, by pointing out the misuse of the anti-Semite charge, are dangerous scum. You hide behind a false demand for intellectual freedom and discourse, knowing all too well that YOU ARE anti-Semites. It is people like you who make honest anti-Zionism a very tough sell. Please find a new mission, like saving the Ailanthus tree.

[TragicMonkey]

I believe this explains everything.

[Art Vandelay]

While there are people unfairly labelled anti-semites, the focus on Israeli is rather suspicious. Is the behavior of Israel really more notable than, say, Sudan? Is Isreal more deserving of criticism than Palestinians? What's especially worrisome is the attitude that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves. One poster said that if militants are shooting at the IDF from inside a school, and the IDF shoots back, all the deaths that result are the fault of the IDF. That's just blatant anti-semitism.

[Puppycow]

TragicMonkey: That diagram suggests that the overlapping portion is very small and also that Panda suit fetishists are much more numerous than I ever imagined. While I know that there are many people critical of Israel who are not anti-semites, the opposite (anti-semites who are not critical of Israel) seems like it would be a pretty rare beast (perhaps certian evangelical Christians?).

[Puppycow]

While there are people unfairly labelled anti-semites, the focus on Israeli is rather suspicious. Is the behavior of Israel really more notable than, say, Sudan? Is Isreal more deserving of criticism than Palestinians? What's especially worrisome is the attitude that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves. One poster said that if militants are shooting at the IDF from inside a school, and the IDF shoots back, all the deaths that result are the fault of the IDF. That's just blatant anti-semitism.

Right. Of all the oppression in the world, that committed by Israel is focussed on much more. There is a double standard. But it's a complicated issue, too. Other countries don't import co-religionists while excluding former residents. I have mixed feelings.

[TragicMonkey]

TragicMonkey: That diagram suggests that the overlapping portion is very small and also that Panda suit fetishists are much more numerous than I ever imagined. While I know that there are many people critical of Israel who are not anti-semites, the opposite (anti-semites who are not critical of Israel) seems like it would be a pretty rare beast (perhaps certian evangelical Christians?).

It wasn't to scale.

And I think there are quite a few anti-Semites who are neutral about Israel, or even for it. These are the same sort of people who say they like black people, but wish they'd all go to "their own countries in Africa".

[NeoRicen]

Alot of people tend to claim they're anti-zionists but then they try to make the argument all Jews are in on it and it boils down to regular anti-semitism.

[egslim]

Is the behavior of Israel really more notable than, say, Sudan?
Sudan is a theocracy, with a civil war going on in the south. Israel is a stable democracy. I personally expect higher moral standards from democracies than theocracies, but feel free to disagree or lable that as a double standard.

[marksman]

I personally expect higher moral standards from democracies than theocracies, but feel free to disagree or lable that as a double standard.
Since both democracies and theocracies are comprised of individuals, shouldn't we expect the same standards from both?

The philosophy of low expectations is, imo, akin to Jefferson decrying slavery while thinking blacks lacked the faculties to govern themselves.

The people of Mogadishu are not intrinsically different from people living in Paris or Tel Aviv. The atrocities they commit are not to be forgiven merely because they are committed by thugs.

[Puppycow]

Since both democracies and theocracies are comprised of individuals, shouldn't we expect the same standards from both?

The philosophy of low expectations is, imo, akin to Jefferson decrying slavery while thinking blacks lacked the faculties to govern themselves.

The people of Mogadishu are not intrinsically different from people living in Paris or Tel Aviv. The atrocities they commit are not to be forgiven merely because they are committed by thugs.

Yeah, but it is easier for individuals to behave in a civilized manner when they live in a civilized society. There are different incentive structures.

For example, Jefferson and Washington were both slave-owners, right? No respectable modern American would even consider such a thing, but not because they have a better character, it's because they live in a society in which that is no longer condoned and there are no incentive to behave in that manner. People in Mogadishu have a different incentive structure.

[marksman]

Yeah, but it is easier for individuals to behave in a civilized manner when they live in a civilized society. There are different incentive structures.
That's a chicken and egg problem. i don't blame the common Mogadishuan for the violence. I blame the thugs, who actually do have power.

For example, Jefferson and Washington were both slave-owners, right? No respectable modern American would even consider such a thing, but not because they have a better character, it's because they live in a society in which that is no longer condoned and there are no incentive to behave in that manner.
I believe Jefferson and Washington can be condemned for owning slaves. After all, many of their contemporaries abhorred the practice and worked to abolish it. (Including Washington's Vice President and successor, John Adams.) That doesn't erase their good deeds, but rather places them into proper context.

Heck, I cited Jefferson's attitude as contemptible to illustrate that the time in which they live is no excuse for their behavior, particularly when the concepts that condemn them were well known.

Similarly, I can condemn Palestinian and Sudanese violence. The people perpetrating the violence are aware of the rest of the world and have the capacity to understand the benefits of living in peace, democratically and prosperously, without having to harm others.

To give them a pass because they live in a violent world is to make the perpetrators of violence their own excuse for bad behavior!

"The Palestinians can't help but be violent because they live in a violent world."

People in Mogadishu have a different incentive structure.
Because of the violence they perpetuate. That's the worst sort of apologetics.

[FenrisWolf]

While there are people unfairly labelled anti-semites, the focus on Israeli is rather suspicious. Is the behavior of Israel really more notable than, say, Sudan?

Well, Israel gets a hell of a lot of support from the US govt: loan guarantees, military hardware, political support. I don't hear about Sudan much on the news, I couldn't tell you if the US sends them money or not.

I see a kind of parallel between the formation of Israel and its expansion through settlements, and the formation of the US. During the US's westward expansion, settlers came in and kicked a bunch of semi-nomadic tribal people off their land, took it for themselves, and "improved" it (added more modern technology, more recently-invented social structures, etc).

When the tribes fought against these invaders, they lost. Then, the battles were used as further justification for keeping the land, since it was now "spoils of war". Well, what the world thought was "ok" in 1867 isn't necessarily thought to be ok in 1967.

Also, part of the problem comes from the fact that the word "jewish" can be used as a description of race, or of religion. I have no problem making critical statements about someone's religion, but I wouldn't criticize someone's race. For example, in conversation I might say: "Christians can be really stupid, look at that creation museum in Kentucky!" But I would never say: "Blacks can be really stupid, look at how many of them are in jail!"

So, can I say, "Jews can be really stupid, do they really think god promised them that particular patch of land?" ? I'm not sure, the statement makes me uneasy because I can't separate jewish religious belief (ok to criticize, imo) from jewish racial heritage (not ok to criticize, imo) in my head.

[egslim]

To give them a pass because they live in a violent world is to make the perpetrators of violence their own excuse for bad behavior!
You have to distinguish between individuals and the collective of individuals around them, of which they are simultaneously part. As an individual your power to change the behaviour of the collective is limited, especially if the collective suppresses opposition to the status quo.

The beauty of freedom of expression is that it allows a kind of individualism for everyone. Without it any individualism will be very limited. And without individualism individual responsibility doesn't exist.

[davefoc]

While there are people unfairly labelled anti-semites, the focus on Israeli is rather suspicious. Is the behavior of Israel really more notable than, say, Sudan? Is Isreal more deserving of criticism than Palestinians? What's especially worrisome is the attitude that Israelis don't have the right to defend themselves. One poster said that if militants are shooting at the IDF from inside a school, and the IDF shoots back, all the deaths that result are the fault of the IDF. That's just blatant anti-semitism.

If Pennsylvania was involved in a major conflict with Mexico I think there would be a lot more interest in that than in the Sudan.

Israel is a country that gets staggering per capita subsidies from the US, that has many US citizen residents, that has many citizens who are relatives of US citizens and that the US is often the sole supporter of in the UN. Do you think any of that could contribute to a greater interest in Israel and more criticism of Israel when it is viewed by many of us to be acting unethically?

If the US was subsidizing the Sudan so that it could grab land and water from its neighbors, I think you'd see a whole lot more criticism of the Sudan in the US.

Right now the US is engaged in a war and is threatening another one driven at least partially by the Pro-Israeli sentiments of the Bush administration neo-cons. So it seems pretty reasonable to expect that people are going to be pretty interested in Israel even if they aren't a bunch of raving anti-Semites.

[marksman]

You have to distinguish between individuals and the collective of individuals around them, of which they are simultaneously part.
Which I did, in my post.

Also, when people criticize a nation, they are usually criticizing the decision-makers of that nation as opposed to all individuals. Thus, when people decry Palestinian violence, the presumption is that the criticism is of those orchestrating the violence. When people decry Israeli action, it is a criticism of the government.

Even in a democracy, we don't attribute to voters full responsibility for all actions taken by their leaders. After all, many voters didn't vote for the leader. (This is particularly true in Parliamentary systems.) Furthermore, a voter may not approve with a specific action a leader takes after having received the vote.

If Pennsylvania was involved in a major conflict with Mexico I think there would be a lot more interest in that than in the Sudan.
But what about people from nations that don't contribute to Israel. Obviously, Americans have an interest in seeing how their money is spent.

How about Australia? Australia has donated $40 million (http://www.ausaid.gov.au/hottopics/topic.cfm?Id=8118_9239_5709_3630_3046#media) to the Sudan since 2004. I don't know of any aid the Australian government gives to Israel. When individual Australians (or Germans, or Englishmen, or Frenchmen) seem to have more interest in the actions of Israel than the Sudan, is that something that raises questions?

[davefoc]

How about Australia? Australia has donated $40 million (http://www.ausaid.gov.au/hottopics/topic.cfm?Id=8118_9239_5709_3630_3046#media) to the Sudan since 2004. I don't know of any aid the Australian government gives to Israel. When individual Australians (or Germans, or Englishmen, or Frenchmen) seem to have more interest in the actions of Israel than the Sudan, is that something that raises questions?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, although I think the answer may lie partially in the fact that there is a tendency for western countries to see Israel as an extension of western civilization and thereby be more interested in it than countries with only minimal connections to the west.

Maybe AUP or the Fool would like to weigh in on this.

I think, as part of being a life long atheist, I was slow to see the religious aspects of antisemitism. It was only after I began to participate in this board that I became aware of the antisemitic elements of Christianity. Perhaps I have underestimated antisemitism as one of the root causes of the continuing criticism of Israel. But there are certainly other factors.

Both Europe and the US have reasons to align themselves with Arab countries for oil reasons. This might serve as some sort of bias against Israel.

But, and this is undoubtedly my own biases speaking here, I suspect that Israel's actions, many of which seem to be aimed at furthering its own interests in territorial expansion are the root cause of most of the criticism of Israel by the western countries.

[corplinx]

Its funny, I am against Israel taking back its historical land claims but no one has ever claimed I'm anti-semitic.

Then again, when I usually hear people declare they are anti-Zionist it usually sounds like that racist uncle who declares tackily "I'm not racist I'm just anti-Nword".

[billydkid]

Sudan is a theocracy, with a civil war going on in the south. Israel is a stable democracy. I personally expect higher moral standards from democracies than theocracies, but feel free to disagree or lable that as a double standard.There is a central point which is always missed in the same way it is missed when Americans criticize America. There are a lot of bad guys in the world and we all know they are bad guy and we expect them to be bad guys and nobody defends them. It's a given and we know it so it is a red herring when people attack any criticizm of the US and, say, Israel saying, for example, "Well, how would you like to live in Iran or N. Korea." Well, obviously nobody in their right mind wants to live in these hell holes. (I don't really know, is Iran a hell hole for Iranians?) The US is my country and I am a US citizen. It is my business to criticize the US and to expect it to behave in a better way than North Korea. Likewise, Israel is our ally and a democracy and we hold them to a different standard than we do an enemy dictatorship or totalitarian state. There is a serious element dishonesty in name calling people who might have a genuine and legitimate criticizm of the policies of the Israeli government. Conflating any criticizm of the political policies of the Israeli government with anti-jewish sentiment, whichever party happens to be governing, is dishonest and simply a way to thwart honest discussion. I don't happen to have any particular criticizm of Israeli policy, but I certainly don't think they should be considered immune from criticizm anymore than I think any US administration should be immune from it.

[davefoc]

Its funny, I am against Israel taking back its historical land claims but no one has ever claimed I'm anti-semitic.

I wasn't quite sure I understood above. Would you mind restating it?

[corplinx]

I wasn't quite sure I understood above. Would you mind restating it?

Well, Israel is a done deal. The state exists. There is no longer a Zionist cause to create a Jewish state. Its done.

Some Israeli Jews believe that Israel should expand, which is the closest thing I can find to a zionist cause to attach to. And I think its silly personally.

Unless we are going with the definition of anti-zionism that we see some people using with is they are against people who believe in "keeping the country they already got over half a century ago".

[parky76]

Israel claims to be the Middle East's only true democracy. They claim to share good, wholesome, western liberal values with the United States and the West. They get billions of $$ in American aid (as does Egypt). Israel almost demands that the world remember the atrocities of WW2 (as they should). Point is, Israel has set up a double standard for itself. When you set up a a double standard for yourself, you have to expect other countries to apply a double standard to you. If Israel, like its neighbors, was just a dictatorship and didnt claim to be this or that, then I would say that Israel has the right to be have crappy policies because...hey...its the Middle East. But Israel demands and expects to be treated special, and so they should be. Along with your incredible amount of aid comes incredible amounts of scrutiny. Along with our acknowledgement that you are the only liberal democracy in the ME, so includes our expectation that you ACT LIKE a liberal democracy. Want the world to remember the suffering and torture that the Jews went through during WW2? Fine. But then you should be a damn beacon of light when it comes to your treatment of minority groups.

If you want special treatment, then you get special treatment. If you want different standards to be applied to you, then thats exactly what you will get.

[marksman]

I think the answer may lie partially in the fact that there is a tendency for western countries to see Israel as an extension of western civilization and thereby be more interested in it than countries with only minimal connections to the west.
I agree, but isn't there something pernicious about this? It seems to imply that we don't have very high expectations for non-Westerners, as if they were somehow less capable of adhering to certain standards of conduct.

I suspect that Israel's actions, many of which seem to be aimed at furthering its own interests in territorial expansion are the root cause of most of the criticism of Israel by the western countries.
Well, they don't help. But of course, other than obvious efforts at territorial expansion (the Wall/Fence/Barrier being built on Palestian territory, for example, or new or expanded settlements), there's a lot of grey. Criticism of bulldozing programs aren't related to expansion. Assassination of Hamas leaders is not related to expansion. Restrictive checkpoints between Israel and the West Bank is not expansion.

But to say that, essentially, settlements and the Fence/Wall/Barrier, are "the root cause" is simply ignoring the history of criticism of Israel.

[UserGoogol]

I believe Jefferson and Washington can be condemned for owning slaves. After all, many of their contemporaries abhorred the practice and worked to abolish it. (Including Washington's Vice President and successor, John Adams.) That doesn't erase their good deeds, but rather places them into proper context.

You can condemn Jefferson all you want, but at the same time, there's a significant difference between Thomas Jefferson owning slaves and say... Bill Clinton owning slaves. Owning slaves is bad no matter who does it, but context can determine how bad it is.

[Mycroft]

Sudan is a theocracy, with a civil war going on in the south. Israel is a stable democracy. I personally expect higher moral standards from democracies than theocracies, but feel free to disagree or lable that as a double standard.

It does make sense to expect more from the democracy, I agree. However it doesn't make sense to focus your criticism on the democracy. The pressure to reform should be greater for the theocracy.

[The Great Hairy One]

How about Australia? Australia has donated $40 million (http://www.ausaid.gov.au/hottopics/topic.cfm?Id=8118_9239_5709_3630_3046#media) to the Sudan since 2004. I don't know of any aid the Australian government gives to Israel. When individual Australians (or Germans, or Englishmen, or Frenchmen) seem to have more interest in the actions of Israel than the Sudan, is that something that raises questions?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, although I think the answer may lie partially in the fact that there is a tendency for western countries to see Israel as an extension of western civilization and thereby be more interested in it than countries with only minimal connections to the west.



I'm not sure what you chaps are asking here... Yes, we've donated a lot of money to the Sudan. Mostly it was to try and help repair the damage to their country, help them buy food, etc., etc. A lot of it is through Oxfam (http://www.oxfam.org.au/world/africa/sudan/) and a lot of it pre-dates the current situation.

As far as I am aware, there's no charities or government agencies here in Oz which donate to Israel, but there may be private citizens who do so. Israel is seen as a developed nation, not really needing aid or assistance, whereas the majority of Africa is seen as developing or pre-developing, and thus "requires" aid.

*Shrug* So what was your question again?

Cheers,
TGHO

[marksman]

I'm not sure what you chaps are asking here...

Well, to cover the sordid history of this thread.

In post 1, parky asked why antisemitism is sometimes lodged against people sometimes critical of Israel.

In post 3, Art Vandelay asked "Is the behavior of Israel really more notable than, say, Sudan?", with the implication that, if the answer is "No", then there must be another explanation for criticism of Israel. One such explanation might be antisemitism.

In post 12, fenriswolf (and later davefoc) offered one such non-antisemitic justification: America gives a lot more money to Israel than to the Sudan and thus has a commensurate interest in how that money is spent.

In post 15, I agreed that was a legitimate interest and pointed out that other nations, such as Australia, give more money to the Sudan than to Israel. So if an Australian was more critical of Israel than the Sudan, they would not have the same justification as an American, leaving Art Vandelay's question open. (davefoc agreed.)

And that's when you showed up asking what the point was.

Meanwhile, in another part of this thread...

In post 8, egslim argued that we should be hold Israel, a democracy, to a higher standard of behavior that theocracies like Sudan.

In post 9, I pointed out that doesn't make sense, since all people are, presumably equal and thus Israelis and Sudanese should be held to the same standard of behavior.

In post 10, puppycow stated that we should hold Sudanese and Israelis to different standards of behavior because it is more difficult to be civilized in the Sudan, and also that we should judge people with an understanding of their cultural mores (his example was judging Jefferson for being a slaveowner).

In post 11, I responded by stating that it is illogical to forgive the Sudan on the grounds that it is more violent. That allows violent people to create their own excuse. I also pointed out that Jefferson can be criticized for owning slaves, and, in fact, he was roundly criticized by many of his contemporaries who were antislavery.

In post 13, egslim asked me to distinguish between individuals who engage in the behavior and the other members of society.

In post 15, I stated that I had been distinguishing on that basis.

In post 23, usergoogol argues that context can determine how bad a transgression is, in that Jefferson owning slaves is less bad than Clinton owning slaves.


Meanwhile...
in post 21, parky makes the argument that we can be more critical of Israel because Israel claims to be a liberal democracy. I suppose this means that Israel opens itself up to the charge of hypocracy in addition to whatever criticism it receives. (Parky also repeats egslim's argument that democracies and allies are more worthy of criticism than despots and thugocracies.)

[Darth Rotor]

In post 9, I pointed out that doesn't make sense, since all people are, presumably equal and thus Israelis and Sudanese should be held to the same standard of behavior.


I am being discriminated against by the San Antonio Spurs for not being their point guard, all people being equal and all that moonshine. :D

By the way, thanks for the summing up. :)

DR

[marksman]

Israel claims to be the Middle East's only true democracy.... Point is, Israel has set up a double standard for itself.
Is it your position that Israel is open to more criticism for its wrongs because of the hypocracy involved?

It would seem to me that in that case, they should get the same criticism of the actual transgression as any other transgressor, but the hypocracy would be a separate issue.

So what are we to make of people who criticize Israel more than the Sudan, even after removing references ot Israel's hypocracy, and whose taxes do not go disproporotionately to Israel (such as Australians). Once we have accounted for these two factors, isn't a disproportionate criticism of Israel vis-a-vis Sudan questionable?

I would say that Israel has the right to be have crappy policies because...hey...its the Middle East.
So you think Middle Easterners are less capable of appropriate conduct that Israelis?

You can condemn Jefferson all you want, but at the same time, there's a significant difference between Thomas Jefferson owning slaves and say... Bill Clinton owning slaves. Owning slaves is bad no matter who does it, but context can determine how bad it is.

That might (might!) justify looking at people in different times differently, although Jefferson was well aware of the abolition movements and even agreed with them in principle. His writings expressed his belief that the innate inferiority of blacks made them unsuitable for emancipation. I think that is an utterly contemptible belief.

At any rate, we're discussing the governments in Israel and Sudan, not people in different eras. They exist in the same time frame. They have the same access to information. I believe they are equally capable of rational thought. On this basis, I believe they should be held to the same standard of behavior.

[marksman]

I am being discriminated against by the San Antonio Spurs for not being their point guard, all people being equal and all that moonshine. :D

Equally capable of moral behavior is of course what I meant. :P

[Chaos]

One reason that there is more criticism of Israel (or, for that matter, the US) than of Sudan (or, for that matter, of Iran) voiced in circumstances that suggest that people in Israel (or the US) might become aware of them is that, as Israel and the US are liberal democracies (even more so compared to Sudan or Iran), we would expect them to be open to criticism, wheres with Sudan or Iran, we know right from the start that our criticism will fall on deaf ears.

[marksman]

Chaos has a good point. I wonder, however, if this forum constitues a "circumstance[] that suggest that people in Israel (or the US) might become aware of them" and whether it isn't also important to speak to other members of liberal democracies who might take more assertive action to prevent harm from occurring in non-democracies like Iran and Sudan. After all, one of the reasons it's taken so long for the liberal democracies to take action on Sudan is because it's taken so long for voters to become cognizant of the problems there.

[parky76]

I expect a lot less from people who live in a dictatorship then I do from people who live in a liberal democracy. It does not surprise me when people in China or North Korea do horrendous things. I am shocked when the same things happen in the UK or Brazil.

[logischer]

I dunno. I think there's a lot of passive-aggressive tendencies to the Anti-Zionist talk. It absolutely *is* a double standard, in many cases. It seems that it is absolutely forbidden for Israel to do anything about terrorists.

I think that if the same situation was happening in France or Germany -- say the Swiss suddenly are launching rockets into Dusseldorf, killing school children, nobody would bat an eye at the notion of Germany blowing up the houses of those involved. Certainly if Swiss terrorists were crossing the border and blowing up German markets and busses, nobody would be upset by the notion of a fence between the two countries.

It seems like some people want the Israelis to simply die. Maybe not consciously, but they seem to condemn any action that might slow down the death of Jews in Israel. This seems fairly in character for the Europeans who seem to be the loudest voices condemning Israel. I mean historically, Europe has been anti-semetic, and it was more or less official until 1945, and these are the same people shaking their heads over a fence intended to stop suicide bombings. The other explanations are probably post colonial guilt and frankly Arab oil, and they probably play a part here.

[marksman]

I once heard it said that Palesitnians and Israelis look at one another as if the other were Europeans.

Palestinians look at Israel and see colonial powers taking their land.
Israelis look at Palestinains and see pogroms and exterminations (and people taking their land).

Perhaps something similar occurs when Europeans and Americans examine the situation, seeing everything through the lens of thier own history.