One ("There has been a persistent inability and unwillingness to distinguish between Jews and the actions of Israel.") is a blanket catch-all for any and all criticism of Israel, it's not nuanced, it's not quantified, it's not contextualised. It's a very, very different thing.
Look at the language used to describe the two sides in that article, not just of the day, but of the conflict itself, if you can't see the clear difference then I don't think you are even close to looking at it objectively or critically. The way you introduced the article into the thread here is clear enough evidence of that, zero critical consideration of the piece and a focus on one-side as being responsible.
It is NOT one bloody side, but you are continuously
refusing to apportion the appropriate amount of blame to a religion that was dreamt up by a war-mongering, slave-owning nonce and the undeniable fact that humans are, and always will be tribal.
How do you explain the
fact of the record increases in antisemitic incidents following Oct 7 apart from:
There has been a persistent inability and unwillingness to distinguish between Jews and the actions of Israel.
The Times is biased (centre-right, large Jewish readership)....but so are the Guardian, and New Statesman, and Daily Mail, and the Mirror. Should we only use the AP as a source?
Whatoutism doesn't help this at all, it's a distraction you are attempting to use in place of a reasoned position.
This is not whataboutism.
Why do you think Israel's crimes have been singled out, and why at this moment?
Do you believe there's a difference in final aims between Israel's funding of Hamas and Israel's approach to the situation? They seem rather effectively aligned to me.
They are perfectly aligned.
I countered your claim that it was the
only thing that led to Hamas being in their strong position in Gaza. They are just another part of the axis of resistance (although not as obviously as the likes of Hezbollah.)
Perhaps it would help to explain the point you want to make. I'm sure that the point is not record amounts of antisemitism. The only thing you offered that approached that kind of point was this:
These are somewhat inevitable and expected. Some racist people will treat the nearest Jewish person they find according to the actions of Israel? Of course. Morons exist. That people will split into groups and fight amongst each other? Of course. Morons exist.
What is the point you'd like to draw?
This was all in response to:
This part is the most relevant:
But the response to this agonising situation in some quarters has also been revealing. There has been a persistent inability and unwillingness to distinguish between Jews and the actions of Israel.
This is simply untrue, and pretty much parrots the Israeli state line that labels any, and all criticism of Israel and its actions as antisemitic. It's relevant, but not, I suspect for the reason you believe, it's relevant as its an example of propaganda, or Hasbara as it's policy name goes by.
Breaking it down further, we've imported the politics of the Middle East (among other tribal things) and don't have a clue on how to deal with it. See also the Montreal riots.
There's also the inability for Jews to let other Jews have any opinion on Israel other than "Israel is right and the Middle East is wrong." I've mentioned this several times, but my wife has been ostracized from a large part of her family because she thinks Israel is a genocidal state and that Netanyahu is a criminal (it's made Thanksgiving cheaper for me, so that's a plus).
So, I think the reason people don't distinguish Jews from Israel is due to the fact that Jews won't let themselves be distinguished. If they attempt to distance themselves from Israel, they're called a bad Jew or ostracized from their families.
Very true that it is also due to that. The film
Israelism shows how pernicious an influence Israeli propaganda is in the US.
But that is
one cause - it's not the
sole cause, and....again....it puts all the blame on "the Jews".