[flagged]
Is it held to a higher standard than countries America provides arms to? (Genuine question.)
Note: I'm not saying we haven't provided arms to horrible regimes. But it's loudly criticised. Rightly or wrongly, we hold ourselves and our allies to a higher standard than e.g. Iran, China or Russia. It's partly why we have so many more of them.
When the towers were hit, the gloves came off. America wasn't accused of genocide when civilians were accidentally killed as they went after ISIS. The notion of a news agency reporting on American military strategy and directly inciting an additional attack on American soil in actionable ways wouldn't be tolerated for a second. It's so absurd that there isn't even a real-world comparison, America silences that shit on a personal cellular phone level. It's treason.
Since by international law definition Gaza is an occupied territory, for one, and it's perhaps one of the most disproportionate "conflicts" in modern history.
Re: journalistic integrity - I thought the idea with investigative journalism is allow people to speak freely - and then let the individual determine how truthful the source is based on a multitude of factors? Couldn't you also argue the 4th most powerful military, and arguably best funded and most sophisticated militaries, will be the most effective at generating and distributing propaganda?
Re: journalistic integrity. It's arguable, but I would say no- and many others in democratic countries would too. Bleach doesn't cure COVID, vaccines don't cause autism, and Israel isn't commiting genocide. When the facts are being twisted and misinformation endangers human life, there is a responsibility to get it right or shut it down. I am not talking about the average person having stupid uninformed opinions and shouting it to the rooftops. I am talking about professionals. Same goes for many other professions. If you're programming firmware for a dialysis machine, and you knowingly introduce a bug to kill people, your power to distribute that code to hospitals should be taken away before people get hurt.
What if that actually applies to you and what you believe, that perhaps you've been successfully been trained with misinformation and twisted truth?
What if in fact there is a genocide going on but the population who Netanyahu needs to continue to support him has had propaganda used on them for so long that it's manufactured consent for a genocide - that some people are misled to believe it isn't.
These conversations need to happen but they haven't for obvious reasons - and it's always going to be the bad actor who's wanting the truth to be hidden; perhaps exhibit A for this is Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire - while publicly discussing doing a debate between Ben and Candace Owens - they behind the scenes were seeking and received a gag order on Candace; please of video overviews of this:
Breaking Points (4:43 mins): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R1Jhed1-iA
Mark Dice (17 mins): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9nrRH2WeUo
Glenn Greenwald (23 mins): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOh3GJxes28
etc.
The problem is most people don't stay engaged in the discussion long enough, and the ideological mob side knee-jerk reacts away to be dismissive in anger-rage and discuss - short-circuiting their critical thinking, perhaps the cognitive dissonance is too painful as well, denial of the possibility of how could your precious government do such a horrific thing?
Israel is the host country to the second largest Palestinian population on earth. I went to the Dead Sea the other day and passed by dozens of Palestinian cars on the road (not Israeli Arabs, which are another huge population- the Palestinians have different license plates).
If the goal of Israel was genocide, the number of civilian casualties would be FAR FAR greater than they are. I know programmers aren't necessarily mathematicians, but come on people, this is kindergarten stuff.
Look up the number of civilian casualties in America's fight against ISIS.
Hamas goes out of their way to use civilians as human shields. Just yesterday Israel had to try and carefully distinguish as a dual UNRWA / Hamas headquarters was put out of commission.
The narrative that Israel is commiting genocide in this war is so ridiculously stupid, a failure of basic math skills a 5 year old could do, the only way to believe it is to be horribly misinformed, or to want to believe it.
Al Jazeera incites violence by knowingly pushing misinformation on an audience who wants to believe it, to fan the flames of hate.
On Holocaust day especially, it's insane to expect Israel to provide resources for blood libels to her enemy in times of war.
Re: "If the goal of Israel was genocide, the number of civilian casualties would be FAR FAR greater than they are."
I've heard this fallacious argument regularly - one of the many counter-points the mob is trained with to parrot - stopping them from critically thinking deeper, and keeping the mob relatively done not teaching them anything to keep them in the dark:
If they weren't trying to deceive you then they should be teaching you about the broader scope/context of the situation, instead of narrowing-fixating your view on such a shallow metric. E.g. Current bad actors in Israeli government are very aware of the need to maintain public support, support of a weaponized mob to apply distributed "peer pressure" as part of the censorship-suppression-narrative control apparatus that exists; thank God Elon Musk existed to be able to pay a easy $44 billion to take that weaponized media channel out of the hands of censorious bad actors - so even if arguably more lies spread, also arguably it's more likely more truth will also spread.
Re: "this is kindergarten stuff"
So welcome to my kindergarten class, unless you already realized the broader context that Israel needs to maintain enough public support so the funding tap (that Netanyahu also has bragged on video that he will "milk America dry") to Israel/IDF continues? It doesn't seem you're taking into account that perceptions matter though, even though you believe the side that there is a massive global uprising against the actions of this current Israeli government.
Have you ever written out to extrapolate, let's say reverse engineer, how you'd potentially get to this point from a historical point? E.g. we could start at the point Israel was formed as a state, "given" 55% of the Palestinian land - which initially was made up of Arabs and Jews peacefully living together, all of them in that region were called Palestinians - not just the Arabs; I've heard estimates the population of Jewish people in the region was anywhere from 3-7%, being given a highly disproportionate 55% of the land.
And then when a "legitimate" war broke out, as was expected to happen - Israel being funded by the military-industrial complex and the captured coffers of and for the pillaging of the United States of America - they of course won being outgunned, and took 70%+ of the land.
Do you know yet or even believe that Netanyahu funded Hamas? As unbelievable as that sounds, it's documented - along with the purpose. Netanyahu is also very aware of and has spoken about on video about 5th generation warfare - psychological warfare tactics including but not limited to subversion. Are you aware of any of that, and what's your take on it?
Netanyahu from a fairly young age also has had the stance that should not be a two-state solution, that Palestinians don't have a right to a state: does that make it more or less likely that he'd be willing to do unwarranted harm against them to support his fundamental beliefs?
P.S. If you're not willing to actually invest time into seeking out the truth, you're highly likely an ideologue and indoctrinated into narratives you've been trained with over many decades. Most ideologues are more lazy than not - refuse to engage at any depth - and then cite things generally, if they put in that much effort because they feel the need to be the last one to respond usually ; or whether that is because they "don't have time" - the consequences are the same.
So what's your time limit for video clips? 2 minutes?
Do you think you can learn an alternative perspective without going into any depth about it, or spending say 20+ hours studying what the other side.
Obviously I'm not going to waste more time providing you more links to videos or articles, if even the ~5 minute video is too long for you.
You're also falling for the propaganda that this is a war, it's not: they are an occupied land, recognized by international law and they are required by international law to have a higher duty of care for those they occupy; if you want to claim they're not occupied, then how did Israel turn off their water, electricity, etc. the moment they wanted to?
If this conversation did actually continue, and we kept engaging, then I am 80% confident that I'd be able to predict other rhetoric that then presents itself as more recent layers of learned reflexive narrative talking points of belief are deconstructed.
The problem is, this conversation in general, where everyone has the opportunity to put their points forward in a long-form format - over a lot of time, to create a single corpus for the layperson to follow along with and learn from - is prevented from happening; already pointed out to what the pro-Israel / arguably pro-genocide supporting side's (mislead primarily via manufactured consent) most recent "tip of the spear" move was Ben Shapiro/Daily Wire getting a gag order on Candace Owens - in secret - while publicly pretending to arrange a public debate between Shapiro and Owens - because propagandists know that too bright of a spotlight shown on their incongruent logic will start to shatter the veil of their blind followers.
The fun part to all of this - or by fun I guess I mean what is exciting and good to look forward to, to work towards for the much brighter future coming:
- In the future we'll train our own personal AI Avatars - and those avatars that are better trained will obliterate others less trained, if put up head-to-head in a conversation, say on Israel-Palestine; and then automated systems, trained initially by us, will be able to highlight the points of cognitive dissonance and/or incongruences in logic - in narrative statements presented; because this is tiring, but it is work - and work that is the most important work if you care about human life, human life as sacred vs. "kill Hamas at all costs" vs. - the reason you don't go full genocidal fascist behaviour is because it's possible - and in this case is the case - that heartless sociopath-psychopath authoritarians will pull strings towards manufacturing consent to deceive others into doing their evil bidding for them; it only took a handful of people to run the concentration-death camps in NaZi Germany - the rest of the Gestapo "just" gathered up the Jews, the crippled, etc, and loaded them onto trains - probably able to tell themselves
Conclusions,
How do you process the incongruence that interviews like this one - with head head of Israeli intelligence, is actually on the side of the Palestinians for what Israel/IDF has done and is doing to them: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5pI0nLBxR3/
Is it a fake video, fake interview? Do you think an ex-head of IDF's intelligence agency wouldn't know exactly 100% of the truth?
No, not at all, the number of Palestinians in Israel is a matter of public record. The Hamas strategy of human shields is extremely well documented. It's trivial to get footage of Palestinians driving on Israeli roads without hassle. Literally only need to go to a supermarket 15 minutes outside of Jerusalem, even in Jewish areas like mishor adumim.
> unless you already realized the broader context that Israel needs to maintain enough public support
Huh? There's no "broader context" to accusations of genocide. Either Israel has a policy of murdering all the Palestinians or it doesn't. It doesn't.
(Though there isn't really a genetic difference between Palestinians and Jordanian/Egyptian Arabs, not sure if that would even be genocide- but that's semantics, Israel is obviously not trying to wipe these people out, even if their identity is based on recent tribal affiliations)
Eh.. honestly, I'd go through your response point by point, but you are both clueless _and_ passionate, which is a combo I don't feel like dealing with.
If we're going into "you should watch", I literally worked on a documentary series about the formation of the state of Israel called "Faith and Fate", produced by Rabbi Berel Wein. It covers the period leading up to the state of Israel. It speaks to some of the issues you brought up like pogroms against Jews in Israel in the 1920's, the white paper, yearning of the indigenous people to return to their homeland for a couple thousand years, etc. etc.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C5pI0nLBxR3/
Re: 'If we're going into "you should watch", I literally worked on a documentary series about the formation of the state of Israel called "Faith and Fate"'
You're playing the avoidance game - to avoid having to challenge your currently blindly-unchallenged narrative you've convinced yourself is the truth; common practice of an ideologue who's beliefs can't hold water once challenged.
Re: "Either Israel has a policy of murdering all the Palestinians or it doesn't. It doesn't."
This is called bipolar or all-or-nothing thinking. You either have a mental block or you're being intellectually dishonest by not being willing, avoiding actually integrating my logic into your thinking to then respond to that vs. blatant knee-jerk reaction dismissal.
And you throw in ad hominem claiming I'm clueless while 1) only shallowly answering a cherrypicked few points so it looks like you responded, and 2) to avoid entering into a logic thread that will break apart your beliefs.
Straw man argument - the video is one piece of evidence towards a corpus that paints all of this current Israeli government as genocidal.
And are you claiming Netanyahu doesn't have a political agenda?
Didn't Netanyahu fund Hamas to prop them up?
And that you're ignoring/dismissing what the ex-IDF intelligence agency's head says because he supposedly has a political agenda - while Netanyahu certainly has a political agenda, as well do many of his Ministers et al made public statements to that effect - supported now by their actions considered war crimes/crimes against humanity based on international law.
Netanyahu since a long time has stated he doesn't believe Palestinians deserve their own state - and his actions have been working towards making that nearly impossible now.
Israel government has even shown a map of Israel - where it covers and includes all of Palestine: if that isn't evidence of premeditated genocide, then what is showing such a map "from the river to the sea" [this is a map shown by Israel by the way, and that phrase comes from being used by Israel first] - what does or could that signify in your mind?
I doubt you even understand where in the line of evidence his interview would fit in the puzzle pieces, your mind seems very locked up/bound in fabricated weave of thin narrative lines.
And are you so certain Hamas has the stated goal of wiping "us" out?
Are you aware the part in the Hamas Charter, associated with it, claiming to say Hamas will "obliterate all Jews" is mistranslated?
You've already already lazily avoided enough of my argument points that I'm not going to waste my time with someone who's probably just a dishonest emotional "fast talker" on live video, if this is how you behave in writing.
You have a bunch of logical fallacies in your thinking - that bipolar / all-or-nothing thinking perhaps skewing your understanding the most, for starters, where genocide doesn't require immediately or successfully killing 100% of people.
And then you parrot boring rhetoric like "accusations are weird and baseless" to just add as filler, to make your argument look longer and probably to try to calm yourself down as a keyboard warrior for high emotions.
Claiming the interview with ex-IDF head saying if he was a Palestinian he'd be fight the Israelis for his freedom - he'd do anything - implies a lot.
I'd be happy to walk you through that but you don't seem open to new information, e.g. from his statement it can 100% be inferred that from his perspective at the very top of their intelligence agency - which gives him a lot of credibility, even if you claim to just want to dismiss him offhand, honest-rational-reasonable-unbiased people won't) - and that the Palestinians aren't a free people, that they are occupied and controlled-suppressed by this Israeli government.
How about you start addressing each of my points, not cherrypick, show that you can think through situations and information put forward to you - instead of regurgitating your propaganda narrative lines like that list you made?
Since you have experience doing documentaries, why don't you do a documentary for "the other side"? Gather all of the evidence, video clips, etc - and piecing them together, and then work through the cognitive dissonance you're clearly having - and outline in the highest detail possible the differences in the narratives?
Here's a starting point for you in the documentary, a thought exercise us: I'm going to give 55% of your land/properties/assets/money [yes, yours dakom] to the Palestinian refugees because of the allegedly accidental killing of 10,000s of civilians as compensation to give them new places to live. You agree to doing this, yes? Why or why not? Or will you avoid answering this question too because you'll infer and understand the point I am making you run into?
Yeah, thought so. If you want to debate this on live video with full transparency (real names, agreement to have it publicized, third party mediator we both agree to), let me know.. otherwise- this is not worth my time.
I don't address each of your points because they are so ridiculous it's not about rational argument in text. I assume you are much smarter than these points indicate, and so the actual issue at hand is deeper, and I think if you're forced to confront that with some real accountability you _might_ be able to recognize this with your reputation on the line.
One example: Chalking up Hamas's intent to eradicate Israel entirely to "mistranslation"... that's a new level of willfull ignorance. Do you really need me to break down the Arabic translation on Wikipedia part by part, or source the numerous public statements by Hamas officials calling for the eradication of Israel by jihad and any means necessary? No, you don't need me to do that, it's obvious, so where does such a clear mistake come from? Not from misunderstanding facts.
(P.S.. your ad-hominem attacks are clearly projecting your own insecurities. I know that telling you this won't change anything, but I want you to know that it not only doesn't bother me, it makes you look bad, you might want to stick to evidence-based points in the future)
Also, couldn't this actually be you projecting - or is that an impossibility? "I don't address each of your points because they are so ridiculous it's not about rational argument in text. I assume you are much smarter than these points indicate, and so the actual issue at hand is deeper, and I think if you're forced to confront that with some real accountability you _might_ be able to recognize this with your reputation on the line."
Here's my citation for the Hamas Charter mistranslation - I actually forgot to add my source and details for that, so I'll do that now, though it points to you're not even aware of most of the "other side's" argument points:
PROPER TRANSLATION: "Israel will be established and will continue to be establishment until Islam invalidates it, just as Islam invalidated others before it."
Source: https://jstor.org/stable/26331116
The actual language used is properly translated to "invalidate" Israel (and not specifically Jewish either, and more people are now differentiating between Judaism and Zionism - the bad-unjust actors wanting to conflate themselves with Judaism, wolves wearing sheep’s clothing, as is said and warns us in the bible - in the context of speaking of unjust actions, e.g. it won't be Jewish (or even specifically Zionists) that will be eradicated, it will be any bad-unjust behaviours that won't be allowed to continue.
So are you saying then you disagree with the translation in my citation above?
Also, have you yet watched the videos by credible investigative journalists debunking the propaganda/lies created and distributed by your side? E.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxfnya3ZRc
You do understand the concepts of and how propaganda and manufacturing consent works, right?
While you're at it, perhaps you can also explain this fun passage from the 1988 covenant:
The Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."
Any translation issues with the phrases "killing of the Jews" and "There is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"? There are also two appearances of the phrase "battle with the Jews" -- can you explain those as well, please?
The JSTOR article conspicuously avoids analysis of these passages.
And once again, we'd need unbiased scholars to give an unbiased translation - as what you're citing could likely be purposefully or poorly mistranslated to change, even slightly, the context or scope - and when doing so could completely change the meaning.
So where exactly did you pull this quote from? And does it cite where it's pulling the original quote from, or is it pulling from someone else who may have dishonestly translated it to begin with?
You'd have to agree with me that confirmation bias exists - and is a very difficult minefield for any individual to navigate, right? Especially a difficult trap or valley to climb out of if someone may have been deeply indoctrinated into certain a weave of "disgust" producing narrative lines/threads for nearly a century, passed on through multiple generations?
There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember, so it's okay if one side does it - but not the other?
The rabbit hole goes very deep - has many misleading paths - and the problem is is proper conversation is heavily prevented and suppressed, primarily by one side, for example: Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, while being deceitful - in public attempting to organize a public debate with Candace Owens - behind the scenes in parallel were applying for and got a gag order on her.
Do you think preventing people from "either side" from diving into long-form, thorough discussion to hash out as many points as possible - is good or bad?
Thankfully people like Piers Morgan are having some of these people on to discuss, and it allows the general population to see for themselves who uses dishonest and disgusting tactics as part of their arguments - and which side aren't deceitful or avoidance, who are clear and articulate, etc.
And should I bring up again now that the phrase "from the rivers to the sea" was first used by Israel? How about I mention again the Israeli government (I think it was Netanyahu himself but I don't remember at the moment) showed a map of Israel - that only showed Israel, with no Palestine nor Gaza nor West Bank marked on it. So it's okay when Israeli uses it but demonized and misrepresented as to its meaning when Palestinians use it?
The very same document you were dissecting - the 1988 charter. The phrases are easy to find in any reliable translation you have handy. Just look for keywords like "Judgement", "tree", "Jew", "battle". The other questions you're raising are also interesting, but if you don't mind -- for now I'd be keen to know your interpretation of the phrases cited in the post above this one.
The context for each phrase would be the immediately surrounding text, of course.
(Yes, is a turgid sprawl, the '88 charter. But give it a shot!)
1) Look at a map of Palestine in 1947. Now look at the Palestinian flag side by side with the Jordanian flag. I bet you can figure this one out.
2) When did the nation of Palestine ever have their own land and national identity, prior to 1948? Who was their president/leader?
3) On that note, where was Arafat born?
The thing is- this whole farce of "Palestine" is, in fact, nonsense, and the obvious real answer to peace if the Arab refugees from 48 want to call themselves after an old Roman slur to the Jews is for Jordan to designate a chunk.
There's like, what, two million so-called Palestinians in Jordan already.
> There is also biblical-religious verses that Netanyahu has cited that have the same annihilation rhetoric, as far as I remember
I call B.S. the Torah not only doesn't encourage murdering Arabs of any kind, it outright prohibits it. The idealized Torah-based government encourages all the nations of the world to come and live and visit in Israel, provided they follow the 7 Noahide laws (which moderate forms of Islam do).
Be honest- did you just completely make up this point? What could you possibly be misremembering? Netanyahu has issues, but misquoting the Torah and using that misquote as a basis for an extreme position of genocide is _very_ out of character for him, doesn't ring true at all.
(there _is_ an imperative in the Torah to kill Amalekites. They don't exist anymore and it's completely irrelevant.)
And then what needs to happen, specifically? Tell us more, please.
I realize that's a stretch- but it shouldn't be.
Fantasy scenario: it just happens. Many Palestinian/Arabs continue to live in Israel under Israeli sovereignty because they like the job opportunities or whatever. No persecution, they live and flourish no problem (assuming they genuinely accept Israeli government). Many emigrate to Palestine in eastern Jordan because they feel a connection to the land their great grandparents grew up in, it's worth the tradeoff for them (assuming it's less prosperous than Israel which of course may be inverted, who knows)
If 80% of the energy from world hatred of Jews went to actually trying to solve the problem, we'd be in a far better place- less war, less innocents dying, less needing to censor treasonous media, etc.
To be completely honest, it boggles my mind that this _isn't_ happening. Instead we have pointless shit like Gays for Palestine blocking entrance to Disneyland. The world has lost its mind on this issue.
In an optimistic scenario -- approximately what percentage of the current Palestinian/Arab population (in the West Bank + Gaza) need to make this move in order to create conditions for peace, in your view?
100% of those who actively support the eradication of Israel and driving every Jew into the sea.
In the middle, it may need to lean to less tolerance due to the reality of democracy and demographics, but I'm not sure.
My hope would be that most would fit in the 0% category.
Am I reading you correctly, here?
Do you have a sense as to what portion of the non-Arab population in Israel would support such a project? A rough percentage estimate would be greatly appreciated.
But at a glance- it seems like I am in fact proposing something like his Decisive Plan.
I suppose the main difference is I am dreaming that it comes about through peace and with world support- especially Arab support.
I don't want it to be forced through violence. Unfortunately, it may be inevitable... I can't even get people on hacker news to retract their erroneous accusations of genocide. What hope is there for a peaceful "180 degree" turn?
I keep wanting to believe the world is not full of anti-semites, it's just an issue of misunderstanding, and I keep finding I am wrong... in that context, something like the decisive plan may need to be forced through war eventually. God I hope it doesn't come to that.
Re: stats, I don't have that info.. if I had to guess, I would say that a plan like this is hugely unpopular in Israel- but I would also guess that it's like that because it implies a lot of suffering in today's climate, and it would be much more accepted if the Palestinians wanted it too.
If things do come to that -- it definitely won't be an inevitability, but a conscious choice on the part of those responsible.
It is not only unrealistic, but also an outdated 19th century view of geopolitics, with a history full of racism, genocide and other horrors.
That's literally the opposite of colonialism.
(by "weak" I just mean the opposite of prolific.. not sure what the right word would be there, i.e. Judaism has super strong ties to Israel- agricultural laws of orlah and shemittah, recorded purchase and significance of Hebron, daily prayer for over 2000 years to rebuild Jerusalem. No other religion has anywhere near this strong of a connection to the land).
The colony in Palestine took off, due to the British preference of solidifying european control over Ottoman region, and the convenient façade of the historical claim.
People lived there before this are descendents of those who lived there in the past. Many stayed even after the expulsion by Romans, many returned. Some, obviously would have changed their faith, but none of that gives the European descendents any more right over it. We can all colonise Ethiopia if we were to go on like this.
I am not interested in debating Ethiopia, I know nothing about it, and wouldn't presume to take a strong position on a subject I know so little about.
"Usurpers" in that context was specifically about religious claim, where Islam has both a far weaker and far later claim than Judaism
And then a few more, for good measure.
The only legitimate heirs to the region are the Bronze Age Canaanites. The only legitimate religious claim is held by the followers of El and Asherah.
All others are usurpers and latecomers.
"someone who's probably just a dishonest emotional 'fast talker'"
(false: I'm very honest, pretty chill, and speak at a pretty normal pace due to my Texan upbringing)
"bi-polar"
(false, never been diagnosed with that)
There's more of course.. but, do you really need me to list every instance where you crossed that line?
> translation
in addition to the other poster's comment pointing out that the charter literally calls for fighting/killing all the Jews in other passages, what _exactly_ do you think their charter means by "invalidating [Israel's existence]". In what world is that not mutually exclusive with Israel existing??
Btw- while there is much debate even among religious Jews about the line between the modern state of Israel and the Jewish religion, there is no debate that they are intimately tied at the core. There are hundreds of commendments relating to the land of Israel, e.g. agricultural laws that do not apply in America or Guam or wherever.
The most prolific commentator (Rashi) points out that the Torah begins with the creation of the world precisely because it needs to establish the Jewish connection to the land of Israel, as both are designated by God to be intertwined in legislature later on in the Torah.
Not saying anyone has to believe this, but, ultimately, one can't _really_ be anti-Zionist without being anti-Jewish, it's just an excuse for politically correct hatred in today's climate.
The religious Jewish identity cannot exist without the land of Israel (hence why it's been in Jewish prayers 3 times a day and after every meal with bread ever since the Roman exile).
Again, because people tend to misunderstand when I point this out- I am not saying the world has to believe this. I am just pointing out the intellectual dishonesty when people say anti-Zionism doesn't imply anti-Jewish. It's just not true when fleshed out fully, and, in my anecdotal experience, when someone claims they are "just" anti-Zionist, they truly do harbor deep hatred for the Jewish people too, irregardless of Israel.
a) Raids in the West Bank are numerous and increasing, including a few in December where the IDF seized a bunch of money from exchange shops[1] (I don’t know why they did that), and a very big one in March where they killed a 16 year old child[2].
b) Palestinians in Gaza is a group (or peoples), and as such subject to Genocide on their own. One does not need to target every Palestinians for it to count as genocide. Bosniaks in Srebrenica was a group which was targeted during the Bosnian Genocide. The Srbska army did not need to target every Muslim Bosniak for it to constitute genocide.
1: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/28/unparalleled-israe...
2: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-carries-out...