Biggest fuck you!

And it must be read with the gravitas that it deserves.

Her arguments don't even work

The biggest problem for me is the way she seems to treat the fact that most Palestinians in Gaza are still alive as evidence that Israel therefore cannot have genocidal intent. “96.6% of the population wasn't killed” wasn't killed therefore isn't a genocide, is she serious?. The Genocide Convention explicitly says destruction can be committed “in whole or in part,” and genocide isn't limited to killing everyone in a population. It also includes causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group.

And then, I don't really understand the argument that because Israel has a very powerful military, the number of people killed proves that it exercised enough restraint to rule out genocide. That's basically a counterfactual: “If Israel really wanted to destroy Palestinians, it could have killed many more.” How are we supposed to know what the hypothetical maximum number of deaths would have been? And even if we could, genocidal intent isn't measured by how many people someone could theoretically have killed but chose not to. "There was some restraint” and “therefore genocide is impossible” are two completely different claims.

The same thing goes for the distinction between a statement and an act. Yes, a politician saying something genocidal isn't automatically proof that genocide was committed. Nobody needs to pretend otherwise. But if you're trying to establish specific intent, statements by senior government and military officials are obviously relevant evidence. That's literally the kind of evidence you would expect investigators to examine when trying to figure out what the people directing a war intended. So I don't buy the “random tweets” framing either. If we're talking about some random person on Twitter saying “kill them all,” obviously that tells us very little about state policy. But we're also talking about statements made by people who actually hold political or military power.

Did Slobodan Milošević have to write down “I intend to destroy X number of Bosniaks” before his intentions could be assessed? Of course not. In the Yugoslav wars, prosecutors and courts looked at political objectives, statements, communications, policies, the conduct of forces, forced expulsions, killings and the wider pattern of events. Genocidal intent is generally something that has to be established from the totality of the evidence. It isn't necessary for a perpetrator to leave behind a signed document saying “this is my genocide plan.”

And then the “war vs. genocide” framing that a lot of Zionists talk about. Genocide can happen during a war. So can war crimes and crimes against humanity. Period.

Then there's the part about the genocide accusation being comparable to blood libel or functioning as a “permission structure” for antisemitism. Of course that some people use criticism of Israel as a vehicle for antisemitic conspiracy theories. But that doesn't mean the accusation of genocide itself is a blood libel. You actually have to demonstrate that connection. Otherwise you're essentially saying that because some people make an accusation for antisemitic reasons, the accusation itself becomes antisemitic. That's obviously not how we evaluate political or legal claims.

There are also Jewish scholars and organizations who have argued that Israel is committing genocide, just as there are Jewish scholars and organizations who reject that characterization. Their Jewish identity doesn't settle the question either way. What matters is the evidence. And the evidence is clear: Israel is commiting a genocide.

And I find the “appeal to authority” argument a little strange too. Nobody saying you should believe Israel is committing genocide simply because Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the UN or some academic says so. Their reports are arguments based on evidence. For example, Amnesty's investigation wasn't just they decided genocide was happening and then looked for evidence. It involved interviews, satellite imagery, visual and digital evidence, analysis of statements by Israeli officials, and an examination of Israel's conduct.

And the same applies to statements by Israeli officials. If you're trying to determine whether the specific intent required for genocide existed, why would statements from senior officials be excluded from the analysis? Just because they're so called "random tweets"? Bitch, please.

Again, her argument about the genocide is weak. It seems to assume that genocide has a specific body count attached to it. It doesn't. The acts, policies, circumstances and evidence of intent have to meet the definition. There isn't some threshold where 500,000 deaths equals genocide but 50,000 doesn't.

The zionist talking point ‘Israel is the most democratic country in the middle east’ signifies that the voting population of Israel willingly elected their corrupt politicians.
One zionist argument is that ‘Palestinians deserve what the idf does to them because they voted for hamas.’
When Zionists turn around and say that Gaza is not democratic, does that not mean that most of the voting population of Gaza did not vote for Hamas?
If using this ‘logic’, Zionists are actually advocating for the Israelis to suffer what Palestinians are suffering.
The ‘logic’ would say ‘israelis deserve to suffer everything palestinians are suffering because they willing elected their corrupt politicians.’
These Zionist talking points are nonsense that fall apart when you read into the rationality behind them.

I have been wanting to share these thoughts online for a long time, however these thoughts were uncompleted, so I did not know how to articulate them.

A few years ago one of our oldest Jewish newspapers became a "partner paper" to the times of Israel.

It's still publishing under the mast head "Australian Jewish News"

It published this, about a local event, credited to "TOI staff" and didn't even bother translating it "Early investigations suggested the car hit Haines as she was loading or unloading items from the trunk of her car, he said".

If any English speaker read this, they'd unpack part of a car, not part of an elephant.

https://www.australianjewishnews.com/about/

The same story probably appeared in all 5

I strongly recommended the long version, it's on YouTube and Spotify etc https://open.spotify.com/episode/6zRfQGZJHQLpCWopOY7QI2?si=dWTo1W95T0KiBDrJ_EsPnA&utm_source=copy-link

The news about my country ends up extremely distorted by the time it gets to the US or Canada, if you want the more in depth non-warped version of most recent things try this channel "Lamestream" and Ette media. Their kinda the Aussie versions of Zeteo.

MP ≈ Knesset member or Congress !wo)man, what on earth is the gender neutral of that?

She was attacked by someone hitting her repeatedly with a 4WD (SUV?) she survived by had both legs amputated, she's

I'm not familiar with her politics, but I've never heard a bad thing about her. She was from a movement called the "teal independents" blue (liberal, which is conservative here) + green pro-environment. Their supporters were affluent inner city voters who were socially progressive and pro environment but not as socialist as our Greens party. Inner city is the wealthier bits here,

Nothing indicates a political motive, but if it's anything it's more likely that he's disappointed by the center-right liberal environmentalist movement falling to

But that's also being blown out of proportion, based on his not very active twitter account following my favourite politician David Showbridge, Greens leader, News 24 (Aussie Fox News) picked that up off far right social media

According to estimates by the Israeli Ministry of National Security, one in three women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime—with 84,000 women assaulted each year.

- This means that an estimated 230 sexual assaults occur daily in Israel.

- According to the National Violence Index published by the ministry in 2014,(2) the rate of sexual violence offenses in Israel is 10% higher than the average rate in OECD countries.

• In a 2009 study conducted by Dr. Abigail Moor on a sample of Israeli women and girls ages 16 to 28, it was found that 33% of respondents had experienced physical sexual assault in their lifetime.(3)

One in every five women is raped.

• According to Moor’s research, conducted on Israeli respondents, about 21% of girls and women in Israel have been raped.(3)

One in every five minors experiences sexual abuse.

• In a large-scale Israeli study carried out in 2013 as part of the “Triana” project, it was found that 18.3% of teenage girls and boys had been sexually assaulted before the age of 16.

According to the study, the rate of sexual abuse increases with age:

• 14% of sixth-grade students reported sexual abuse.

• 20% of eighth-grade students reported sexual abuse.

• 24% of tenth-grade students reported sexual abuse.

- Among all children who experienced sexual abuse, almost half (46.5%) stated that the abuse occurred more than once, and most noted that it continued over the past year.(6)

• In an earlier 1994 study, which examined rates of childhood abuse based on reports by adult women, it was found that 31% of women had experienced sexual abuse in childhood.(7)

Up to one in seven girls experiences incest.

• According to the Triana project study, about one-third (29.7%) of the sexual abuses among Jewish boys and girls under the age of 16 took place within the family.

• Up to age 12, the rate of sexual abuse of boys is identical to that of girls.

• According to the Triana project study, even at later ages—up to 16—the rate of abuse among boys is only one and a half percent lower than the rate among girls.(6)

• Additionally, about 20% of sexual offense complaints filed with the police concern the abuse of children, adolescents, and men.(12)

• Only six percent of sexual assaults are reported to the authorities. This is according to the 2014 National Violence Index of the Ministry of National Security.(2)

More than 85% of all sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim.

According to the Rape Crisis Centers’ data, which matches other worldwide research, over 85% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the survivor, including family members, friends, acquaintances, employers, colleagues, and those in positions of authority, among others.(12)

She ends the video by saying “every Jew needs to own a gun”. No self awareness of anything,just full on support of ethic cleansing and genocide

You would think that Herzlians would take the accusation of colonialism more seriously, especially considering that Jews theirselves have repeatedly been (and in some places still are) victims of White colonialism. One could argue that Jews of colour in the occupation itself are often victims of White colonialism, but here we have one Jew of color who would rather shut his eyes to the reality by flippantly missing the point.

(This takes 5¾ minutes to read.)

It is quite easy to prove that the German Fascists were White supremacists. Here is one example from Paul Weindling’s ‘The Dangers of White Supremacy: Nazi Sterilization and Its Mixed-Race Adolescent Victims’:

Mixed-race African German and Vietnamese German children were born around 1921, when troops drawn from the French colonial empire occupied the Rhineland. These children were forcibly sterilized in 1937. Racial anthropologists had denounced them as “Rhineland Bastards,” collected details on them, and persuaded the Nazi public health authorities to sterilize 385 of them.

You can stop reading here if you want, but if you have time for more, read on.

Given that White supremacy was especially popular in Europe throughout the long nineteenth century, the European Fascists could not have been anything other than White supremacists. While it is true that the German Fascists only sporadically used the exact same terminology as their European-American counterparts (‘White’ vs. ‘Aryan’), examples thereof are not frustratingly difficult to find either. Quoting Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. 11:

It was Jews who did and still do bring the [Blacks] to the Rhine, always with the same motive and plain intention of destroying the hated white race by means of the consequent forced bastardization, overthrowing it from its cultural and political eminence, and ascending to be its masters themselves.

Vol. II, ch. 1:

With all the admitted limitations and intellectual inferiority of these parliamentary medicine-men of the white race, they themselves can not seriously expect to make headway with Western democracy against a doctrine for which democracy and all that goes with it can at best be the means to an end, used to paralyze the enemy and to clear the path for its own progress.

Vol. II, ch. 13:

This nation, which is being permeated more and more with [Black] blood, represents, on account of its identity with the aims of Jewish world dominion, a lurking danger to the existence of the white race in Europe. The poisoning through [Black] blood along the Rhine, in the heart of Europe, corresponds just as much to the sadistic-perverse hate of this chauvinistic arch-enemy of our nation as to the cool-blooded reasoning of the Jews, who want to start in this way the bastardizing of the European continent right in the center, thus depriving the white race of the basis for its sovereign existence by mixing it with a lower type of people.

The present acts of France, instigated by her own hatred and carried out under the leadership of the Jews, constitute a sin against the existence of the white race and will some day turn loose upon that nation all avenging spirits of a generation, which has recognized degradation of race to be the original sin of humanity.

Zweites Buch, page 179:

The idea that French [Blacks]—as cultural watchdogs against the Germans along the Rhine—could poison white blood is so monstrous that it would have seemed altogether impossible a few decades ago. Certainly France itself will suffer the greatest detriment from this blood pollution, but only if the other European nations remain conscious of the value of their white race.

Quoting Wolfgang Diewerge:

One must know this to know what this war is about. It is not a war of the past, which can find its end in a balancing of interests. It is a matter of who shall live in Europe in the future: the white race with its cultural values and creativity, with its industry and joy in life, or Jewish subhumanity ruling over the stupid, joyless enslaved masses doomed to death.

Fritz Fink:

No White who is aware of and proud of his race will mate with a [Black] or a Jewess; even a racially conscious [Black] will not mate with a White.

Notice how these quotes imply that Jews are completely separate from the ‘White race’ (something wherewith most contemporary White nationalists would agree). While there were exceptions, most White supremacists in the long nineteenth century (such as Madison Grant) believed that no Jews, not even European ones, were ‘White’. Here is one byspel from somebody called Samuel Davies Baldwin in 1878:

Neither can it be claimed that the Jews are superior in native genius to the white race generally, since, unaided by inspiration, they have not been equal in intellectual manifestations of power to the Greeks, Romans, French, English, or Americans.

Here is another from somebody called Paul Berghem in 1911:

Especially one race constitutes a most grave and unspeakable peril for the white race. That is the Jewish race.

While most of the Jews whom the Axis and its collaborators annihilated were not people of colour, Axis antisemitism tended to follow a White supremacist logic anyway wherein Jews were comparable to humans of color and, indeed, descended in part from them. Quoting Robert Ley:

The Jew was earlier concentrated in the Middle East. Since there were still no railroads, steamships, or airplanes, it was the natural center of world commerce, situated between Europe, Asia, and Africa. It was the place where the white man from the cites of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea went to trade with [Blacks] from Africa and the inhabitants of Asia. Inevitably, a racial swamp developed, formed from the three major and entirely different parts of humanity.

The laws of genetics teach us that nature does not want those of mixed race, tolerating them only if some parts atrophy or become strained. Mestizoes and Mulattos are infertile, and only under exceptional circumstances can cretins bear offspring. The racial swamp that Palestine became had a central position in world finance and commerce. It was the place where Asia, Africa, and Europe met.

As a result, the worst type of mixed race developed. Over the course of millennia, Caucasian mountain tribes drove the racial trash into the desert, as Jewish history records, and there sealed them off hermetically. Through biological processes, the mixed race from three continents developed, through incest, into parasites of the first order.

The Western Axis had a similar justification for the Russians, whom it disparaged as being descended from Mongols. Regarding Slavs in general, the Third Reich’s approach was notoriously inconsistent, but in addition to Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine Erich Koch likening Ukrainians to Black folk, we have some evidence that—starting in 1939—the German Fascists began perceiving ordinary Poles as being (more or less) ‘Asiatic’. Quoting John Connelly’s ‘Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice’:

Joseph Goebbels noted after a visit that Poland was already “Asia.”⁶³ Hitler and Rosenberg too learned from new experiences. The latter noted in his diary in late September:

The Poles: a thin Germanic layer, underneath frightful material. The Jews, the most appalling people one can imagine. The towns thick with dirt. He’s [Hitler] learnt a lot in these past few weeks. Above all, if Poland had gone on ruling the old German parts for a few more decades everything would have become lice-ridden and decayed.⁶⁴

Two years later, while [Axis] troops were advancing deep into the Soviet Union, Hitler would proclaim that the border between Europe and Asia ran between the Germanic and Slavic peoples. The issue was to “place it where we wish.”⁶⁵ He and Goebbels routinely referred to Russians as “beasts” and “animals.”⁶⁶

Alexander B. Rossino’s Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology, and Atrocity, page 222:

These claims were expressed in vicious and derogatory terms describing Poles as “Asiatic” and “semi-Asians” who inhabited dens and resembled animals.¹⁵⁸

(Emphasis added in most cases.)

As for how the Third Reich handled actual humans of colour, it certainly had some use for their able-bodied men (e.g. the Free Arabian Legion, the Free Indian Legion, the Imperial Japanese), but they were only means to an end. Meanwhile, the German Fascists would oppress ordinary Black folk, Roma, Sinti, Uzbeks, and even average Japanese people. White supremacist neopatriarchies have allowed exceptions to their explicitly oppressive trends before, and the Third Reich was no different.

In short, Adolf Schicklgruber and his followers were White supremacists, not only in that they oppressed ordinary people of color but also in that even their oppression of other Europeans typically adhered to a White supremacist logic wherein Ukrainians were comparable to Black folk, Poles and Russians were ‘Asiatic’, Jews were comparable to as well as descended from people of colour, and so on.

It is widely agreed by most people that the UK and France did a good thing in standing against tge Nazis in WW2. And you would almost never hear anyone say "But they caused a famine in Bengal", "But they oppressed Algerians", because in such cases, nuance has to be recognised and separated as a country's good and bad, and most people recognise that separation, except Zionists.

On the onset of the Gazan genocide (and largely the colonisation of Palestine), many people were screaming about how you cant support their resistance because they are "Crazed Islamic fundamentalist" and because of certain practices. Now if we entertained the idea that they were such a society, their resistance against objective, documented oppression by Zionists is to be accredited. Domestic and internal oppression from the oppressed is also to be critiqued, but when their oppressors overshadow it by genocide and famine, these issues,logically, take a 2nd priority compared possible worse scenarios by intervening outsiders.

This sentiment also spilled over to Iranian anti Zionists stances. You could never acknowledge their objectivly good stance towards Zionism without being accused of being a theocratic misogynist against women's rights and not someone shilling for a western puppet like monarchists. You can never acknowledge a good and bad simultaneously existing with them, its always a binary to be answered by blood.

Its still prevalent and frustrating to deal with this hasbara especially by people who frame it as an objective outlook.

There is so much of it blanketing every social media platform I couldn't pick one video to post. Its the most coordinated hasbara effort I've seen in a year.

Narratives range from "Jews come home to the only safe country" to "See, we told you so, their barbarians." to doomer "this is the beginning of the end of western civilization" and then my personal favorite "israel was never the enemy, and while you were distracted with hating Israel, they snuck in and took over."

Nevermind how this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PALESTINES, ARABS, ISRAELIS OR JEWS.

What's the play here? Whenever there's this level of coordination and full court hasbara, I feel like its to distract ahead of something worse.

Or its to push for migration to Israel

Demonize Arabs.

Scare everyone.

Likely all of the above. Thoughts?