Right in the second paragraph of the article, it says "Ga’ava, a group that is affiliated with the Toronto-based Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs"

Conflating "Israel" and "Jewish affairs" is about as zionist as anything gets.

To me, this just sounds like moral contamination fallacy

It isn't fallacious, no. The "10 Nazis at a table" analogy applies here: willingly affiliating with a zionist organization is zionism-neutral at the VERY best, which is in itself a morally repugnant stance for anyone to take during the worst genocide since the one that the regime claims justifies their many crimes against humanity.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

You’re still making a guilt-by-association argument. Saying affiliation with a “Zionist organization” is “Zionism-neutral at best” still assumes that any association is inherently an endorsement - even if partial - of its politics. Affiliation doesn’t automatically mean ideological alignment, and if you think it does here, you still have to show why.

You’re also collapsing “Jewish affairs” into “Zionism” without explaining why those terms should be treated as inseparable. That’s the leap your Nazi analogy skips over - it only works if you’ve already decided the affiliation is inherently culpable.

By your “10 Nazis at a table” standard, Daryl Davis - the black musician who’s convinced dozens of KKK members to leave the group - would be “white supremacy neutral at best.” That’s the problem with that analogy: it assumes all association equals to approval, and it ignores contexts where the association has nothing to do with endorsing the ideology.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago

You’re still making a guilt-by-association argument

Which is sometimes a valid one. Including in this case where the organization they associate with exists solely to promote zionism.

There's no alternative reason for associating with a group that's about one thing and one thing only.

Saying affiliation with a “Zionist organization” is “Zionism-neutral at best” still assumes that any association is inherently an endorsement - even if partial - of its politics.

Because it IS. See above.

Affiliation doesn’t automatically mean ideological alignment,

It does when the group in question has only one purpose and that purpose is ideological.

if you think it does here, you still have to show why.

I have, see above.

You’re also collapsing “Jewish affairs” into “Zionism”

No. I'm specifically saying that conflating Israel has Jewdom is zionism. Because that's literally what zionism is.

I wouldn't assume that a group called "Jewish Affairs" with no mention of Israel would automatically be zionist.

You're skipping a whole mess of context, making it increasingly difficult to assume that you're arguing in good faith.

That’s the leap your Nazi analogy skips over - it only works if you’ve already decided the affiliation is inherently culpable.

Nope. Again, "Israel and Jewish Affairs" ≠ "Jewish Affairs". To wring the very last drop out of the same comparison, "national socialist worker party of Germany" ≠ "German Socialist Party"

By your “10 Nazis at a table” standard, Daryl Davis - the black musician who’s convinced dozens of KKK members to leave the group - would be “white supremacy neutral at best"

Ok, that does it. DEFINITELY arguing in good faith, if not absolutely deranged.

Either way, not worth any more of my time and effort. Have the day you deserve.