Bisected Gentile/Jewish Ontology

Claiming that protection of Jewish civilians has no or little military value.
Claiming effectively that only Israeli sovereignty can be nullified by UNGA.
Claiming that it acceptable to transfer Jews but not gentiles.
Claiming that it is acceptable to transfer native born Jews but not native born gentiles.
Claiming that ethnic cleansing of Jews, but not of gentiles, is acceptable.
Claiming that Israelis are prohibited from causing collateral damage altogether.
Claiming that Israel is prohibited from defeating military aggressors attacking Israel.
Claiming that protection of Israeli civilians de facto has no military value.
Claiming that protection of Israeli civilians de jure has no military value.
Claiming that protection of Israeli civilians has no diplomatic value.
Claiming that protection of Israeli civilians has no journalistic value.
Claiming that protection of Israeli civilians has no legal value.
Claiming that Jews and gentiles in the West Bank have different ontological status.
Claiming that Jewish West Bank civil disobedience is intrinsically extreme.
Claiming that all Jews who live in Hebron are intrinsically extreme.
Claiming that access to “holy places” in Jerusalem should only apply to gentiles.
Claiming that the right to life should only apply to gentiles.
Claiming that the right to self-defense should only apply to gentiles.
Claiming that the right to self-determination should only apply to gentiles.
Claiming that the right to repatriate to one’s country should only apply to gentiles.
Claiming that “a right to not be embargoed” should apply only gentiles.
Claiming that any collateral damage caused by Israel is illegal.
Claiming that any Israeli forceful reaction against force is intrinsically illegal.
Assuming that international law changes with changes in Israeli policy.
Claiming that Israel alone should be held to the standards of Orthodox Pacifism.
Claiming that only Israel and the US should be held to standards of Orthodox pacifism.
Claiming that targeting of Jewish civilians is comparable to Jewish homebuilding.
Claiming that targeting of Jewish civilians is comparable to Jewish homebuilding.
Claiming that targeting of civilians is comparable to minimizing collateral damage.
Claiming that targeting of Jewish civilians is analogous to minimizing collateral damage.
Claiming that targeting of Jewish civilians is analogous to military roadblocks.
Claiming that targeting of Jewish civilians is comparable to military roadblocks.
“Palestinian military weakness justifies the targeting of Jewish non-combatants.”
Assuming that Euroid Anti-Jewish aversions are ethically different non-Euroid ones.
Claiming that construction of Jewish homes is tantamount to extermination of Jews.
Claiming that construction of Jewish homes is tantamount to terrorism against Jews.
Assuming that advocates of genocide against Jews are legitimate political partners.
Claiming that Israel must negotiate with advocates of genocide against Jews.
Assuming that advocates of genocide against Jews are political moderates.

Return to Typology of Antivrism