The number of people on the left who can see how white Americans have been brainwashed into despising non whites . . .

But they can't see how the same powers that be and bad actors brainwash people into hating Jews.

Personally, I think it is factual, and I'm saddened by the victims becoming the perpetrators.

Israel's prosecution of the war Hamas started doesn't meet that standard, regardless what dumb crap some RW nationalist in Netanyahu's coalition might have said. The claim is further weakened because Israel has transferred 1.5 million tons of aid into Gaza. Generally speaking, countries who are defending themselves don't sent aid to the aggressor (see WWII Germany, Japan).

And given the IDF keeps killing people milling for aid, they don't get credit for delivering a tiny amount of aid and blocking other aid.

But if you're arguing that they are merely committing crimes against humanity or war crimes and not technically genocide, that's missing the forest for the trees. If you're claiming it's merely defending their country, that's a whole different problem of being unwilling to see reality.

But for the record, this is the definition of genocide taken from the U . Holocaust museum from the U.N. https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/definitions

"Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Killing members of the group.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Please explain how the first 4 aren't being done. Destroying hospitals and causing mass starvation will absolutely cause births to not happen.

Do you think Germany and Japan in WWII might be a low bar?

We have laws of war and humanity now to prevent exactly those atrocities.

As many genocide experts are concluding, the genocidal intent has become apparent through the RESULTS and ACTIONS on the ground. Undeniable genocidal results that could only have come about through meticulous planning. WHAT IS PLANNING IF NOT INTENT?

Also you need to educate yourself about the responsibility of an Occupying Power in war towards the civilian population. Not only is targeting and wantonly killing them not allowed, but facilitating aid necessary for their survival is MANDATORY. That means no blocking of aid ever and definitely no 3-month sieges followed by allowing in only "minimal" aid when people have already started dying from starvation. At that point it is too late to prevent mass starvation. But the worst MUST be prevented by FLOODING the area with food, nutritional supplements, medicine etc

That Israel still refuses to do that, is clear proof of its genocidal intent.

Famine has arrived in Gaza - it was announced TODAY by the internationational body mandated with tracking hunger and famine. Think for a minute of the mass human suffering in store now.

Lastly, ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide too. Israel has brazenly announced it plans to not only ethnically cleanse but to TRANSFER ITS OWN POPULATION (A war crime too). Gaza will be home to 1.2 million ISRAELI SETTLERS. The plan is being presented in the Knesset.

To claim there is no genocide, no intent is at this point nothing short of gaslighting in complicity of the very genocide that is laughably, infuriatingly, being denied.

Now that I've clarified some things, perhaps you will stop repeating these false talking points in other posts. I'm very tired of repeating myself.

If you respond with But Hamas! But UN! you will be ignored. Don't waste your time.

Last edited Tue Jul 29, 2025, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:


Killing members of the group.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.¹

Israel’s High Court of Justice found in 2008 that Israel’s effective control ceased in 2005. Specifically, it found that the “[m]ilitary rule that applied in the past in this territory came to an end by a decision of the government, and Israeli soldiers are no longer stationed in the territory permanently, nor are they in charge of what happens there.” It, therefore, determined that the occupation ended in 2005.

The intent has been proven. By the results
By the evidence before the world's eyes.

If you are reduced to quibbling about legal definitions - the same definition used by genocide scholars who say it's clearly a genocide - while faced with the apocalypse and HORRIFIC human suffering in Gaza.... then you are someone I cannot dialogue with.

An army/military that has invaded a territory and has control of it, as Israel has/does in Gaza, is called an Occupying Power in international law. It has obligations as I outlined. I was not referring to Gaza's prior status, which btw according to international law and the UN, was still considered occupied after 2005. You can read up on their rationale.

No one is going to rid Israel of Jews. That was never gonna happen by Hamas - how? - and even less now.

But isn't it weird though, that in fact it is Palestinians who are going to suffer that fate instead? From THEIR homeland? What a coincidence and twist of fate! That was never in the cards! Nobody EVER thought of that before! No one had such a plan and no one projected that plan onto the Palestinians!

Right?

Really no need to answer. Please.

"The intent has been proven. By the results"

- If I drop a hot skillet on the leftmost digit of my right toe, how does the result prove my intent?

You can't infer intent from one action. But if you keep doing it knowing it causes pain, then yep, it's your intent. Your comparison is ridiculous to use your word not only because you're trying to compare a one time event to an ongoing one, you're also comparing what should logically be more likely to be an accident given the hypothetical injury is to oneself.

Here's a more accurate metaphor. If I every day drop a skillet on my neighbor's foot, how long do you think my neighbor is going to believe it's just an accident?

Written 30 years after the original, it presented significant moderation. Gone was the Koranic reference to "the Jew hiding behind the tree. Kill him (is this the "killing of all Jews in the world?). Gone was the "Israel exists and shall continue to exist until Islam obliterates it" roughly quoted.

But what was new and significant was the declaration that Hamas could get a national concensus on the 1967 borders. In essence giving up the right of return and settling for the 22% of historic Palestine (far less than allocated under the Partition) those borders represented. It was a remarkable concession.

What did Netanyahu do? Completely ignored it. Continued the blockade of Gaza and the settlement expansions.It didn't fit his plans.

Those plans becoming clear yet?

You're describing an invasion.

The Geneva Convention adopted the definition of "occupation" used in the Hague Regulations:

The definition:

if anyone is accusing someone of a crime, it's the legal and/or statutory definition of that crime that govern the case.

That's why Ireland asked the ICJ to change the definition of genocide when it joined South Africa's case.

Last edited Tue Jul 29, 2025, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)

And, even though you are desperately trying to shut your eyes and ears on the subject, there is direct evidence of intent to get as many Gazans as possible martyred, in any manner possible, coming from Hamas leadership.

And, since you freely acknowledge that we have laws of war, some of them having to do with crimes against humanity, you must also acknowledge that it is up to competent legal authorities and not "likes" on social media that determine how these laws are to be applied.

And that "many genocide scholars", who, BTW are a small minority of genocide scholars, are not the legal authorities who possess competence to interpret and apply those laws, or how proper application of those laws are not limited to freeform interpretations of RESULTS and ACTIONS.

Speaking of educating oneself of the responsibilities of occupying powers, you may want to follow your own advice. I would suggest you start with Article 42 of the Fourth Hague Convention, 1907, to learn something about what occupation entails and how it affects MANDATORY facilitation of aid. You may then proceed to Articles 4 and 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to learn that even when criteria for occupation are met, there are groups that are not subject to the rights of protected persons. But thankfully, I am not in the education business, so you are on your own.

Oh, finally, one more tidbit: while genocide may lead to ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing is not a form of genocide. But who am I to bring up the facts? That would be gaslighting, no?

If one's intent is to draw parallels with the holocaust (as in "the victims have become the perpetrators", for instance), it is without question antisemitic.

If, on the other hand, the intent is to accuse the State of Israel of "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", as in the definition established by the UN Genocide Convention, the evidence is just not there to establish guilt as charged, and the accusation is at best premature. So the intent doesn't rise to outright antisemitism, it is a mere expression of prejudice towards a certain nation.

It is possible that accusing Israel of genocide falls under one of the examples cited in the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but, according to them, it depends on the context in which it is being used.

“I feel like I’m watching something so self-evidently inhumane and horrific and to be told I have to shut up because I risk the Jewish state by speaking out? I would say the opposite — they’re putting the likelihood of a surviving Jewish state much more at risk.”

I see no relevance in your analogy.

Or are you hinting that rather than speaking out I ought to shut up?

Maybe permanent residency or even citizenship next. Silenced and deprived of free speech and civil rights. Just for being who they are or for the views that they hold.

That is reserved for the OTHER Semitic group and their supporters. What do you call that?

There should be no discrimination and harassment of anybody. All minority groups should have special protections. However, special protections for one group should not extend to impinging or negating the rights and freedoms of another group. Nor result in their persecution. We should all be able to agree on that.

was effectively participating in the exclusion by enabling it.

The judge rejected UCLA's "Yes, we knew that Jewish students were being denied services, but we didn't actually do it; we only allowed it to be done" argument.

"the OTHER semitic group".

I am gobsmacked that people here are justifying this.

TY.

The students are Americans.

On American soil.

Also - Americans being denied access to higher education facilities by other students has been done before.

And Intergenerational Trauma dictated my rage at the pro Palestine American Students for acting the way white students in the South did.

Also - no bullshit about that was decades ago and not the same. American Jews are the oldest Allies of Black Americans and I'm going to stand with the descendants of the founders of the NAACP.

I'm an old white, lapsed Catholic lady and I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

Murdering Israelis because of what their government is doing is antisemitic.

Demanding to know why every Jewish person in the U.S. isn't protesting in the streets is antisemitic.

Accusing Jewish people of being Nazis is antisemitic (unless the specific individuals being accused are in fact members of a Nazi Party).

It's quite easy to criticize Netanyahu and disagree with his government's actions without being antisemitic. I do it all the time.

I also see a lot of casual antisemitism from people who ought to know better.

Is blaming Israel for what Israel is doing antisemitic? Is calling it Genocide antisemitic?

If the Trump administration is using the Nazi playbook, is it antisemitic to call them Nazis, whether they are Jewish or not? (I just don't believe someone has to self-identify as a Nazi to be labeled as a Nazi; for example, it's fine to call Qanon a Nazi cult). To me, the MAGA hat and the Swastika are essentially the same. Is that antisemitic?

I don't know about the genocide label... I have some problems with that. I strongly disagree with Netanyahu's actions.

Personally, I think it's fine to call Trump and MAGAs Nazis.

I think we should be very careful about calling any Jewish person a Nazi, because of the historical context. That's why I'm not very comfortable with the way the term genocide gets thrown around.

Are we committing genocide at our southern border? Nobody ever says so. Why is the specific term genocide leveled at Israel? However. Netanyahu's recent actions start to look like it.

People disappearing, held without legal process in very poor conditions. Violent arrests by masked ICE-men, and threats of deportation against naturalized citizens. And new detention facilities, like "Alligator Auschwitz".

Technically not genocide, but eerie reminders of Fascist practices. And a looming potential for genocide that we all know is there.

Meanwhile, Israel is accused of outright genocide by people who simply believe what they see, including Trump's cute video about the Gaza Riviera, next to photos of starving children or people shot when trying to get food. All happening to a population enclosed by a fence.

This isn’t a new phenomenon but it has become far more common. Antisemitic tropes are marched out but they are played off as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist rather than antisemitic. However it doesn’t change the fact that the argument started with an antisemitic root and just replaced the word Jew to provide a fig leaf of an excuse. As you note, it is very easy to criticize the actions of the Netanyahu administration without resorting to antisemitic tropes.

It can also be seen when antisemitism in the US is immediately compared to the actions of the government of Israel. There is no connection between the two, a random American Jewish person has no effect or responsibility for the actions of Israel, but we see people wave it away as “understandable”. I cannot think of any other hate related actions, e.g. racism, Islamophobia, homophobia…, labeled “understandable”.

I'm hearing the words used interchangeably in real life. It's being promoted heavily to young people. It's going out through the usual antisemitic right wing channels, but it's also being promoted with left wing sites and organizations.

blaming Israel for various wrongs to blaming all Jews. I have personally witnessed this (and written about it in this forum). Where they are getting their information I don't know.

It's going out on the internet from both left-leaning and right-leaning sources.

Less than 2 months after the October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel, I wrote the following:

https://democraticunderground.com/100218502791

Since then, this person has only spiraled further down a rabbit hole of their own making.

Oh I see, I'm already too late.

Courtesy of Elica Le Bon, non-Jewish English daughter of Iranian immigrants, now practicing law in L.A.

I believe she misses some important factors, but her theory otherwise feels sound:

On what claims to be the left. Sadly, inhumanity is all too prevalent in our society.

Is that how you live with yourself? I suppose you have to concoct some fiction in order to look yourself in the mirror.

There are scores of pictures of starving children in reliable news sources. You point to one child as a pretext for covering up the murder of hundreds of thousands.

And although I feel sorry for the people who believe Hamas propaganda, it is unconscionable for news organizations to spread it widely in the interest of generating revenue.

And the accusations of antisemitism to those of us that are disgusted and repulsed and sickened by what we have clearly seen with our own eyes of what Israel has done to Palestinians for the last 80 years roll right off my back as my eyes roll.

that is part of a coverup. The insults have no effect on me because I know their purpose is to obfuscate.
I'm disheartened by some of what I have seen on this site. I've learned that just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean they value compassion. There is no moral equivalency between mass starvation, a death camp, and excuses for and denial of the horrors that are taking place in Gaza. There is good and there is wrong. Period.

You said it much better than I.

Not surprised. I've only been seen by a Physician twice in Italy as it relates to my A.S. and she is absolutely brilliant in guidance and treatment.

As for the NYT photo, they apparently have a contract with a *photojournalist* based in Gaza.

The NYT posted a vague "addendum" about the misleading picture on a secondary twitter account that has 88,000 followers as opposed to their main account which has millions of followers.

The NYT also removed a line in the story that said that, "according to his mother", the child was born healthy. I would imagine that that that piece of disinformation came via the *photojournalist* as well. I can't imagine the mother lying about her child.

The NYT should ask the *photojournalist* if he has photos of the starving men of Gaza. Those photos are missing from the equation.

Riiiiight

Definitely not related at all to people trying to use that silly term to deflect from anything else going on. That's not a believable claim.

With that I would say I have seen everything but there is always tomorrow

You can't make a serious argument that Israel is incapable of doing bad things because of the Holocaust because that's laughable given what we know of history and human nature. Please explain why we know that about a third of abused people then go on to abuse if you're going to hold that it's utterly impossible that Israel in an unrelated action in a different time, involving different people, can't act in abhorrent ways?

If things are so immutable, please explain why Germany isn't still nazi, Japan isn't committing war crimes in China, and the U.S. doesn't still have slavery. If we hold that times change, your term is just a hollow shield to avoid the issues of today. Sorry if you don't like that, but there's a reason you didn't refute it, just suggested I'm antisemitic without actually saying the words. It seems like you only have one liners because you aren't willing to actually defend your claims.

Last edited Thu Jul 31, 2025, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)

The basic premise that becomes bad thing happened to someone, they can't then also do bad things isn't a supportable contention.

If someone can present that, I'm happy to listen. Otherwise I see no valid reason to regard it as a legitimate answer to why Israel isn't committing abhorrent acts.

How about racism? Is that a silly term? Misogyny? Homophobia? Islamophobia?

Are they all silly terms or just the one that deals with bigotry against Jews?

It's not supported by anything other than a fervent belief that a harmed party can't then commit harms.

Antisemitism, racism, misogyny etc are real. Holocaust denialism is real. But saying that the Holocaust means that Israel or Jewish people couldn't then commit war crimes or genocide is a faulty premise.

No one ever seems willing to hold it accountable, other than a slap on the wrist.

Well, look no further. The answer is right here.

Sadly, I only can see 6 of 69 comments on this thread. Remarkable.

I will not see any replies to this post either -except yours and a couple of others. Shame.

I think you can't see this but it needs to be said.

Don't grouse about the consequences of your own actions while being totally capable of reversing them yourself.

have finally agreed to condemn Hamas's genocidal October 7 rape-torture-murder spree, do you think that the UN General Assembly will finally condemn it as well?

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250729-qatar-saudi-egypt-join-call-for-hamas-to-disarm-give-up-gaza-rule

And the UN has yet to follow.

But Israel.

compassionate, strong vitally important ally Speaking out Against Antisemitism.

Fuck the Hamas Propaganda Machine that they're so proud of and Brag about.

Wholly regardless of race, ethnicity, or faith.

This nonsense of painting every criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic is old and played out. Folks like you on the left are part of the problem. You are so willing to join the chorus of fellow Democrats on virtually every issue because you respect the intelligence and objectivity of those Democrats. But as soon as any of them point a finger at your precious Israel, you paint them all as prejudiced people who deep down hate Jews. You have no shame in throwing out those accusations or in blindly supporting Israel in everything it does. Maybe that tactic still work on some people but I think most of us aren’t losing any sleep over these tired tricks. It’s amazing how we can all point out the rot that has taken over America but somehow we are being told we are biased when having a similar view on Israel. So here is some pushback with a bit of your own medicine: people who keep defending Israel and seek to quash any criticism are Netanyahu apologists who have racist feelings towards Palestinians. Fair enough?