mintyfrog

Saying death to an ethnostate does not mean death to the people in it

It does when civilians are being killed.

One of those parties is a colonial occupier, the other an occupied people resisting state violence. I can support one and not the other.

Your support for Palestine doesn't make "death to Israel" not antisemitic.

Death to Israel is not antisemetic, because despite the europeans wrapping it in the trappings of jewishness, it isn't all jews, doesn't speak for all jews

Just because Israel doesn't represent all Jews doesn't absolve you of antisemitism for wishing death upon Israel. It is majority Jewish, and just above you have stated that the problems are all caused by the "European colony" of Jews. You're mad at Israel because of those Jews, but not the Jews you like? This was common Nazi apologist rhetoric under Hitler.

Israel systematically disenfranchises non-jews and sterilizes non-white jews.

1. The story isn't as simple as you've described it.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right.

state of Israel is a genocidal ethnostate

You're now admitting that Israel is a Jewish state despite trying to claim otherwise for this entire thread.

Israel kills way more Palestinian civilians every day

Two wrongs don't make a right. Israel is doing horrible things, but it doesn't deflect from the fact that "death to Israel" is antisemitic.

Before the European colony arrived, Jews, Christians and Muslims co-existed in Palestine.

Well, they aren't coexisting now. Sorry, can't go back in time. We solve problems of today because it is impossible to make things the way they once were. And which "European colony" are you referring to? The Jews? I thought this wasn't about them? Dog whistle.

the Iraq invasion was ... informed by ... islamophobia

But by your own logic, I thought a government is different from the major racial/religious group of its people? We can't say it was Islamaphobic just because the people there tend to be majority Muslim, right? We'd need other context, like... above.

hardly the equivalent of an occupied people resisting that occupation

I never said that Palestine doesn't have a right to resist its occupation.

You've taken this argument far away from "death to Israel" not being antisemitic because you're trying to argue that Palestine should exist. I'm not saying it shouldn't, but it doesn't make you not antisemitic.

For the same reason that it was Islamaphobic for the US to invade Iraq, it is antisemitic for you to say "death to Israel" while Hamas is killing Israeli civilians and saying "death to Israel." We cannot ignore the context of racial/religious tensions and the fact that these nations have racial/religious majorities.

Reach.

Even if it is an Iranian cultural phrase that's lost in translation into English, it lacks context. You've given the Iranian cultural context, but you're completely ignoring the global context: the Holocaust of 6 million Jews and the recent terror attack that killed and took hostages of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Hamas has, quite literally, brought "death to Israel."

If something needs context and explanation to not be antisemitic, it's probably best to not say that thing rather than risk being antisemitic. Otherwise, you're just demonstrating that you don't care if you're sounding antisemitic.

Peace be with you.

How exactly do you read "death to Israel" as "the peaceful dissolution of the Israeli government and end of its apartheid conditions"?

When North Korea says "death to America," surely they just mean a peaceful change of power, right?

And again, let's not ignore that the power vacuum would quickly be filled by... Hamas, a terrorist group with a violent track record. Your Germany and South Africa examples are not like Israel.

They don't even try to claim they'll stop collecting your data. No one actually cares about seeing a targeted vs non-targeted advertisement; the targeting technology is the issue.

Paying Facebook $14 a month and still being tracked, just invisibly, solves nobody's problem.

18+ is both a teenager (eighteen) and an adult according to most UK and US law

To quote Epic Rap Battles of History, "Why'd you name your company after your dick?"

This setting can be disabled. It sounds like it's for sites that are exploiting vulnerabilities in extensions to install malware. Firefox already includes Google Safe Browsing to warn for malicious sites, so I'm assuming this is just another hardening mechanism to (1) mitigate damage from someone bypassing GSB and (2) allow Mozilla to take action before Google does. Rest assured, if Firefox started using this to push advertisements through or allow tracking, the community would be in UPROAR.

Native English speaker here. Option 4 "sounds" more acceptable than 2. Maybe it's because you can more easily imply where the flowers are?

It's federal courts ruling on constitutionality of state laws