A collection of invaluable essays by yourself, the esteemed Steven Pinker, Susan Bardo, and Dave Rich, Daniel! The Great Genocide Blood Libel is flat out ridiculous and no based on any facts at all. Genocide is a concerted effort ordered from the top down by the government of a country. For example, the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, the Bosnian Genocide, the Armenian Genocide, the mass murder perpetrated by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rogue, and the genocide of the Maya Indians by the Guatemalan government in the 1980s. Israel's War in Gaza is in no way, shape or form genocide. There is ZERO evidence that the Israeli government and the IDF ever had any intention to wipe out the people of Gaza as a whole. Have there been war crimes by individual Israeli soldiers? Yes, and those should be prosecuted. But that's not the same as full-on genocide. It's absolutely shameful the Irish people who have long history of oppression themselves, would turn their back on the Jewish people by leading the charge of the international prosecution of Israel for genocide. Same with South Africa, for whom its Jewish population was disproportionately represented among whites in the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
These are all good (re)sources. But who will listen to logic and truthful exposition if, as you said yourself, logic is no longer in vogue? How exactly are we to proceed? Who subscribes to your (and perhaps my) list besides those who already agree?
I was told that our primary mission may not be to convince those who refuse to listen or have already made up their minds, but rather to support one another. Perhaps we should see that as our main task—and if, along the way, someone changes their mind, that would be a welcome byproduct rather than the goal.
I remain convinced that social media agitates but does not educate, precisely because it enables self-selection.
This evening I am attending a joint Israeli–Christian dinner. I’m hoping that being face to face will make it harder to hide behind the screens of hate and ignorance.
As for the ongoing discussion of genocide—if it’s still of value—add Thane Rosenbaum (see my interview with him that I posted on Substack).
We need to have a good slogan. The modern citizen listens to slogans: Globalise the Intifada. Get Brexit Done etc. We ALL must start using THE GREAT GENOCIDE BLOOD LIBEL in everything we write.
I never write to convince anyone. I write what I see as true. And to give voice to what I know others feel and perhaps feel alone in thinking. I never expect to change minds, but you never know when seeds will sprout or with whom.
One way I've been trying to debunk The Great Genocide Blood Libel is by also pointing out that the Anti-Israel Industrial Complex has been accusing Israel of "genocide" for decades.
I think the Soviets were accusing Israel of genocide by the early 1980s and then quickly following them came America's most famous Jewish Communist, Noam Chomsky, who constantly equates Jews with Nazis, referring to “Israeli concentration camps” and the “genocidal texts of the Bible,” and warning of a Zionist “final solution” that will annihilate the human race. (Chomsky did all this while at the same time denying the Cambodian genocide.)
In 2001 at the UN Conference against Racism, in Durban, South Africa, all the Jew haters gathered to call for this policy: "a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state . . . the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel . . . [and condemned] those states who are supporting, aiding and abetting the Israeli apartheid state and its perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide."
This is from the 2004 conference on “Resisting Israeli Apartheid,” held at the University of London, where it was declared in unison: “There is no valid comparison between South Africa and Israel; Israel is much worse. South Africa exploited its native population while Israel expelled and committed genocide against its native population.” These people are brazenly shameless in their desire to pour scorn and hatred on the Jewish state.
"...on October 19, 2023. Israel hadn’t yet invaded Gaza, but the mainstream media template for response to Hamas’ murderous October 7 attacks was already set. Sure enough, by 2024, mentions of “genocide” in The New York Times (1.43% of all articles) had eclipsed the paper’s earlier peak for “white supremacy” (1.41% in 2020) and, while not matching the peak for “racism/racist(s)" (7.2% in 2020), still reflected a similar pattern of conceptual escalation.
In The New York Times, for example, articles pairing Israel and genocide reached levels more than nine times higher than the peak for Rwanda and nearly six times greater than for Darfur. Similarly, in The Guardian, over 1% of all articles now reference both Israel and genocide—a frequency unmatched by any other pairing in recent decades."
What people need to understand is that the charge of genocide has nothing to do with facts or reality and certainly has nothing to do with the welfare of the actual Palestinian people, who exist as props and symbols in the minds of Western liberals. Charging Israel with genocide is an attempt to transform Jews into Nazis and thereby morally delegitimize the Jewish state and the Jewish desire for self-determination. It's not enough that Jews be demonized and attacked, they must be humiliated and stripped of any claims to protected status or as victims, which is the great moral credential of our time.
I understand why the opponents of Israel have to concoct these hateful lies and slanders—it's the only possible way to save face and have any moral credibility after the barbaric assault of 10/7. Without this political form of psychological projection, they'd just be defending a brutal band of theocratic terrorists. The "genocide" charge is an evil lie that no honest person should repeat.
It was confused to see the name of my friend Susan Bordo associated with a photo of the new leader of Ireland. It took a minute for my brain to unravel that one.
I hope that we can all soon begin to say more than that “it isn’t genocide” but to instead say clearly what this war is: the Martyrcide of Gaza, deliberately premeditated by Hamas.
The following statement is materially incorrect as a matter of law: “it is the attempt to wipe another group off the face of the Earth and to substantially succeed in that effort.” Just wanted to flag this.
Hi Mark, the rights and wrongs of this conflict are complex. That there is no genocide, however, is blindingly obvious. Thise who use use that phrase are belittling the Holocaust, belittling Rwanda, belittling decency and belittling Truth. Never again will anyone respect the UN...or Ireland.
Does the death of around 2,000 individuals and the taking of 250 hostages justify the death of around 60,000, including women and children non-combatants, around 90% of the population has been displaced, somewhere between 60%-90% of buildings have been destroyed or damaged and 80%-90% of crops destroyed?
I take from your comment that you believe this is justified due the the existential threat Palestine and the surrounding Arab and Muslim states are to Israel.
I’m sorry but I looking from afar I cannot bear to see the death and devastation that has occurred in Palestine. There has to be another way.
I guess you believe there is no other way. It saddens me if that is true. Call me naive and a bleeding heart if you desire I will bear those labels in all humility.
"Genocide is a word with a clear meaning. In plain English, it is the attempt to wipe another group off the face of the Earth and to substantially succeed in that effort."
Yes, it's actually very clearly defined in article 2 of the genocide convention of 1948. You actually quote it later on in your article. Strangely enough, it clearly doesn't require "an attempt to wipe another group off the face of the Earth and to substantially succeed in that effort."
It quite explicitly only requires an intent to destroy *in part* a group, which includes such acts as "killing members of the group", "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", or "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
There is nothing in the definition that suggests a genocide must "substantially succeed" in the effort to "wipe another group off the face of the Earth". That would certainly be sufficient to be genocide, but it is not necessary. One could definitely make the argument that the genocide in Gaza isn't as bad as other genocides by certain metrics, but that wouldn't mean it isn't a genocide.
I find it silly to argue that the great number of people who believe the IDF is carrying out a genocide because of what data they have observed about intent and means are *lying* about it. Because at least in America, with stronger free speech laws than many countries governing libel, that is what "libel" is. It is a lie. It isn't merely false. It is when a person knowingly, or sometimes neglectfully, expresses something false that damages a person's reputation or exposes them to public hatred. That distinction is very important ethically. Because otherwise, people are not free to express their legitimate beliefs about very important political topics, such as whether a foreign country is carrying out a genocide, without the threat of lawfare libel accusations (often, ironically, *false* libel accusations, even *libelous* libel accusations).
Some people probably are lying about their belief in a genocide, especially in the neglectful category, where they haven't investigated the topic much and are simply regurgitating an idea that was expressed by a perceived trustful authority. But most people, and especially genocide scholars, journalists, etc probably believe Israel is carrying out a genocide and it is based on substantial investigation. Thus, it actually doesn't do the Zionist side a favor by accusing people of libel when it is quite easy to investigate the accusation and see whether the accused people are indeed maliciously expressing lies in bad faith or are assiduously making a case and even addressing their critics. It almost seems that Zionists have now given up even trying to persuade people of their case who aren't already Zionists themselves.
So much of what is written in your article has already been addressed by people who believe a genocide is occurring, and unless a person doesn't "read the other side", it will not be compelling.
For example:
"If Israel were deliberately targeting civilians, why did it give evacuation orders? Why did it provide a safe zone for the innocent by the South Western coast? Why did it drop leaflets and sent text messages pleading for the civilians to evacuate?"
An easy explanation for these acts is for the purpose of giving the illusion of not deliberately targeting civilians. If a military wanted to conceal its crimes, this is exactly something it would do. Just like it would bury non combative ambulances, and deny it did until video evidence proves the military was lying (Israel did this). Just like it would tell its soldiers an arbitrary line determines whether to shoot unarmed civilians, even when they come to pick up bodies, but not tell the civilians(Israel did this) -- and yet still say things like you just did : that they were *sometimes* dropping leaflets. they wouldn't tell the public about that arbitrary line, but a soldier might spill the beans on a hidden camera(an IDF soldier did this), or whistle blowers could talk about similar practices (IDF soldiers have done this).
My greater point being though not that Israel is carrying out a genocide, which I think it is, but that there are completely rational reasons why people think it is and to suggest a person is maliciously slandering Jews in general in the form of "blood libel" is an absurdity. There was a time when screaming "antisemitism" whenever Israel did something heinous and people criticized it was an effective strategy to control the public debate, but that isn't the case anymore. In fact, it is probably harming the Zionist cause more than it is helping. So please, continue writing this hysterical irrational slop. It provides great evidence of how out of touch with political reality many Zionists have become. More American voters than not now believe that Israel is carrying out / has carried out a genocide, which includes a majority of Democrats and a plurality of independents.
That you can point to a handful of incidents resulting in a relative handful of deaths proves, at worst, that Israel (and/or a handful of soldiers), has committed war crimes. Certainly not something to be bragged about, but not genocide. If, as you say, Israel is losing the propaganda/popularity war after killing fewer than 40,000 civilians (according to even the UN), and they really have genocidal aims, then they would and could have taken out the entire population of Gaza in a few days, international opinion be damned. You’ve basically proven that however Jews try to defend themselves or Israel, whether militarily or in the arena of “public debate,” we will still be seen as the problem. In light of the last few thousand years of world history—not to mention the point of the original post—I don’t believe we needed you to point that out.
You seemed to have missed the entire point of my comment, which I even made explicit at the end. I was not making an argument for why Israel is carrying out a genocide, I was making an argument why it isn't necessarily "bad faith" or "libel" when people accuse Israel of genocide.
"That you can point to a handful of incidents resulting in a relative handful of deaths proves, at worst, that Israel (and/or a handful of soldiers), has committed war crimes. "
No, the point of me bringing up those cases was in direct response to the contention that Israel wasn't targeting civilians. The IDF gives direct orders to fire on civilians if they cross arbitrary lines civilians aren't aware of. The IDF does not prosecute its soldiers when they confess to war crimes. The IDF does not discipline soldiers when they sing about wiping out the seed of Amalek and chanting that there are no uninvolved civilians. This is evidence of intent. There is plenty more as well, but I am not going to write a book in this comment section arguing for why I believe Israel is carrying out a genocide. I have though written a book that includes a chapter on that, and you are welcome to read it.
"If, as you say, Israel is losing the propaganda/popularity war after killing fewer than 40,000 civilians (according to even the UN), and they really have genocidal aims, then they would and could have taken out the entire population of Gaza in a few days, international opinion be damned. "
Israel isn't totally suicidal yet, so it won't ignore international opinion entirely, and especially American opinion entirely. The Republican Party is still substantially supportive of Israel, and the American public, even if increasingly disapproving of Israel still doesn't necessarily view Israel as a top political priority, but if Israel were to become exceptionally more belligerent with its genocide, then that would likely change. Right now, the U.S. congress still believes it can keep giving away American tax money to Israel and not lose their seats because other things are more important to voters; but if Israel were to "take out the entire population of Gaza in a few days" congress could not do that. Add to that, the fact that there are nuclear powers like Pakistan, that if Israel were to go full-psycho they could feel threatened enough to use a nuke on Israel.
If Israel wasn't being watched by the international eye, Israel would have done to Gazans what it supposedly was commanded to do in the Torah to the people of Canaan: killed them all; rather than just killing lots, maiming lots more, and torturing all.
"You’ve basically proven that however Jews try to defend themselves or Israel, whether militarily or in the arena of “public debate,” we will still be seen as the problem. "
Plundering the U.S. treasury to carry out a genocide for territorial fantasies is going to be seen as a problem to lots of Americans, and Jews who try to defend that will lose the debate.
"In light of the last few thousand years of world history—not to mention the point of the original post—I don’t believe we needed you to point that out."
The way Jews have been treated by various non-Jewish political factions in the "last few thousand years of world history" is not relevant to my opinion about what Israel is doing today. If you think what is motivating my opinion about Israel today is the same thing motivating every other opinion about Israel in the last few thousand years, you hold a superstitious belief about what has motivated the various conflicts Jews have had with non-Jews. It is a powerful reinforcement that helps keep lots of people as members of the cult, but it is irrational.
The original article contains a fuller definition of the genocide convention definition:
"A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”; "
The "as such" part is critical. The allies (theoretically) fought to essentially defeat the military of the Nazis, not just any Nazi party member, which would include most German citizens. The allies were not deliberately targeting just any German citizen simply because they were perceived to be Nazis. If they were, that could be conceived as genocidal(if Nazis are considered a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group). Targeting people because they are perceived to be members of a designated group is a key element of determining intent under the genocide convention definition of genocide.
From the UN's website that discusses the definition:
"The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”"
A collection of invaluable essays by yourself, the esteemed Steven Pinker, Susan Bardo, and Dave Rich, Daniel! The Great Genocide Blood Libel is flat out ridiculous and no based on any facts at all. Genocide is a concerted effort ordered from the top down by the government of a country. For example, the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, the Bosnian Genocide, the Armenian Genocide, the mass murder perpetrated by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rogue, and the genocide of the Maya Indians by the Guatemalan government in the 1980s. Israel's War in Gaza is in no way, shape or form genocide. There is ZERO evidence that the Israeli government and the IDF ever had any intention to wipe out the people of Gaza as a whole. Have there been war crimes by individual Israeli soldiers? Yes, and those should be prosecuted. But that's not the same as full-on genocide. It's absolutely shameful the Irish people who have long history of oppression themselves, would turn their back on the Jewish people by leading the charge of the international prosecution of Israel for genocide. Same with South Africa, for whom its Jewish population was disproportionately represented among whites in the Anti-Apartheid Movement.
Thanks Noah for being a consistent fighter against The Great Genocide Blood Libel.
These are all good (re)sources. But who will listen to logic and truthful exposition if, as you said yourself, logic is no longer in vogue? How exactly are we to proceed? Who subscribes to your (and perhaps my) list besides those who already agree?
I was told that our primary mission may not be to convince those who refuse to listen or have already made up their minds, but rather to support one another. Perhaps we should see that as our main task—and if, along the way, someone changes their mind, that would be a welcome byproduct rather than the goal.
I remain convinced that social media agitates but does not educate, precisely because it enables self-selection.
This evening I am attending a joint Israeli–Christian dinner. I’m hoping that being face to face will make it harder to hide behind the screens of hate and ignorance.
As for the ongoing discussion of genocide—if it’s still of value—add Thane Rosenbaum (see my interview with him that I posted on Substack).
We need to have a good slogan. The modern citizen listens to slogans: Globalise the Intifada. Get Brexit Done etc. We ALL must start using THE GREAT GENOCIDE BLOOD LIBEL in everything we write.
That is actually a great idea - do the subliminal messaging. Consistently and broadly.
A bit like ‘Delenda est Carthago’ ?
I never write to convince anyone. I write what I see as true. And to give voice to what I know others feel and perhaps feel alone in thinking. I never expect to change minds, but you never know when seeds will sprout or with whom.
One way I've been trying to debunk The Great Genocide Blood Libel is by also pointing out that the Anti-Israel Industrial Complex has been accusing Israel of "genocide" for decades.
I think the Soviets were accusing Israel of genocide by the early 1980s and then quickly following them came America's most famous Jewish Communist, Noam Chomsky, who constantly equates Jews with Nazis, referring to “Israeli concentration camps” and the “genocidal texts of the Bible,” and warning of a Zionist “final solution” that will annihilate the human race. (Chomsky did all this while at the same time denying the Cambodian genocide.)
In 2001 at the UN Conference against Racism, in Durban, South Africa, all the Jew haters gathered to call for this policy: "a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state . . . the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation and training) between all states and Israel . . . [and condemned] those states who are supporting, aiding and abetting the Israeli apartheid state and its perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide."
This is from the 2004 conference on “Resisting Israeli Apartheid,” held at the University of London, where it was declared in unison: “There is no valid comparison between South Africa and Israel; Israel is much worse. South Africa exploited its native population while Israel expelled and committed genocide against its native population.” These people are brazenly shameless in their desire to pour scorn and hatred on the Jewish state.
Zach Goldberg is also a great resource:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/media-manufactured-genocide-gaza
"...on October 19, 2023. Israel hadn’t yet invaded Gaza, but the mainstream media template for response to Hamas’ murderous October 7 attacks was already set. Sure enough, by 2024, mentions of “genocide” in The New York Times (1.43% of all articles) had eclipsed the paper’s earlier peak for “white supremacy” (1.41% in 2020) and, while not matching the peak for “racism/racist(s)" (7.2% in 2020), still reflected a similar pattern of conceptual escalation.
In The New York Times, for example, articles pairing Israel and genocide reached levels more than nine times higher than the peak for Rwanda and nearly six times greater than for Darfur. Similarly, in The Guardian, over 1% of all articles now reference both Israel and genocide—a frequency unmatched by any other pairing in recent decades."
What people need to understand is that the charge of genocide has nothing to do with facts or reality and certainly has nothing to do with the welfare of the actual Palestinian people, who exist as props and symbols in the minds of Western liberals. Charging Israel with genocide is an attempt to transform Jews into Nazis and thereby morally delegitimize the Jewish state and the Jewish desire for self-determination. It's not enough that Jews be demonized and attacked, they must be humiliated and stripped of any claims to protected status or as victims, which is the great moral credential of our time.
I understand why the opponents of Israel have to concoct these hateful lies and slanders—it's the only possible way to save face and have any moral credibility after the barbaric assault of 10/7. Without this political form of psychological projection, they'd just be defending a brutal band of theocratic terrorists. The "genocide" charge is an evil lie that no honest person should repeat.
It was confused to see the name of my friend Susan Bordo associated with a photo of the new leader of Ireland. It took a minute for my brain to unravel that one.
Me too!!!
THE GREAT GENOCIDE BLOOD LIBEL is great!
THE GREAT APARTHEID LIBEL
THE RED-GREEN ALLIANCE CONSPIRACY
(Here belongs Mr. Jeffrey Peoples)
TODAY JEWS, TOMORROW YOU!
IF YOU ARE NOT SCARED OF MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, YOU SHOULD BE!
SHALL WE EMBRACE SHARIA LAW?
VOTE FOR SOCIALIST DAR al-ISLAM!
KILL JEWS, F-UCK 72 VIRGINS!
We should find more, and post them on all social media.
With little text, one clear visual.
I hope that we can all soon begin to say more than that “it isn’t genocide” but to instead say clearly what this war is: the Martyrcide of Gaza, deliberately premeditated by Hamas.
https://open.substack.com/pub/thegoldenpill/p/the-martyrcide-of-gaza?r=31tulb&utm_medium=ios
And then, they are collectively “shocked” and “deeply concerned.”
The following statement is materially incorrect as a matter of law: “it is the attempt to wipe another group off the face of the Earth and to substantially succeed in that effort.” Just wanted to flag this.
I agree that Israel has not engaged in genocide but, having said that, I do not believe Israel has adhered to the doctrine of a Just War.
Hi Mark, the rights and wrongs of this conflict are complex. That there is no genocide, however, is blindingly obvious. Thise who use use that phrase are belittling the Holocaust, belittling Rwanda, belittling decency and belittling Truth. Never again will anyone respect the UN...or Ireland.
Does the death of around 2,000 individuals and the taking of 250 hostages justify the death of around 60,000, including women and children non-combatants, around 90% of the population has been displaced, somewhere between 60%-90% of buildings have been destroyed or damaged and 80%-90% of crops destroyed?
I take from your comment that you believe this is justified due the the existential threat Palestine and the surrounding Arab and Muslim states are to Israel.
I’m sorry but I looking from afar I cannot bear to see the death and devastation that has occurred in Palestine. There has to be another way.
I guess you believe there is no other way. It saddens me if that is true. Call me naive and a bleeding heart if you desire I will bear those labels in all humility.
"Genocide is a word with a clear meaning. In plain English, it is the attempt to wipe another group off the face of the Earth and to substantially succeed in that effort."
Yes, it's actually very clearly defined in article 2 of the genocide convention of 1948. You actually quote it later on in your article. Strangely enough, it clearly doesn't require "an attempt to wipe another group off the face of the Earth and to substantially succeed in that effort."
It quite explicitly only requires an intent to destroy *in part* a group, which includes such acts as "killing members of the group", "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group", or "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
There is nothing in the definition that suggests a genocide must "substantially succeed" in the effort to "wipe another group off the face of the Earth". That would certainly be sufficient to be genocide, but it is not necessary. One could definitely make the argument that the genocide in Gaza isn't as bad as other genocides by certain metrics, but that wouldn't mean it isn't a genocide.
I find it silly to argue that the great number of people who believe the IDF is carrying out a genocide because of what data they have observed about intent and means are *lying* about it. Because at least in America, with stronger free speech laws than many countries governing libel, that is what "libel" is. It is a lie. It isn't merely false. It is when a person knowingly, or sometimes neglectfully, expresses something false that damages a person's reputation or exposes them to public hatred. That distinction is very important ethically. Because otherwise, people are not free to express their legitimate beliefs about very important political topics, such as whether a foreign country is carrying out a genocide, without the threat of lawfare libel accusations (often, ironically, *false* libel accusations, even *libelous* libel accusations).
Some people probably are lying about their belief in a genocide, especially in the neglectful category, where they haven't investigated the topic much and are simply regurgitating an idea that was expressed by a perceived trustful authority. But most people, and especially genocide scholars, journalists, etc probably believe Israel is carrying out a genocide and it is based on substantial investigation. Thus, it actually doesn't do the Zionist side a favor by accusing people of libel when it is quite easy to investigate the accusation and see whether the accused people are indeed maliciously expressing lies in bad faith or are assiduously making a case and even addressing their critics. It almost seems that Zionists have now given up even trying to persuade people of their case who aren't already Zionists themselves.
So much of what is written in your article has already been addressed by people who believe a genocide is occurring, and unless a person doesn't "read the other side", it will not be compelling.
For example:
"If Israel were deliberately targeting civilians, why did it give evacuation orders? Why did it provide a safe zone for the innocent by the South Western coast? Why did it drop leaflets and sent text messages pleading for the civilians to evacuate?"
An easy explanation for these acts is for the purpose of giving the illusion of not deliberately targeting civilians. If a military wanted to conceal its crimes, this is exactly something it would do. Just like it would bury non combative ambulances, and deny it did until video evidence proves the military was lying (Israel did this). Just like it would tell its soldiers an arbitrary line determines whether to shoot unarmed civilians, even when they come to pick up bodies, but not tell the civilians(Israel did this) -- and yet still say things like you just did : that they were *sometimes* dropping leaflets. they wouldn't tell the public about that arbitrary line, but a soldier might spill the beans on a hidden camera(an IDF soldier did this), or whistle blowers could talk about similar practices (IDF soldiers have done this).
My greater point being though not that Israel is carrying out a genocide, which I think it is, but that there are completely rational reasons why people think it is and to suggest a person is maliciously slandering Jews in general in the form of "blood libel" is an absurdity. There was a time when screaming "antisemitism" whenever Israel did something heinous and people criticized it was an effective strategy to control the public debate, but that isn't the case anymore. In fact, it is probably harming the Zionist cause more than it is helping. So please, continue writing this hysterical irrational slop. It provides great evidence of how out of touch with political reality many Zionists have become. More American voters than not now believe that Israel is carrying out / has carried out a genocide, which includes a majority of Democrats and a plurality of independents.
https://sadat.umd.edu/sites/sadat.umd.edu/files/August%20Poll%20082525%20FINAL.pdf
That you can point to a handful of incidents resulting in a relative handful of deaths proves, at worst, that Israel (and/or a handful of soldiers), has committed war crimes. Certainly not something to be bragged about, but not genocide. If, as you say, Israel is losing the propaganda/popularity war after killing fewer than 40,000 civilians (according to even the UN), and they really have genocidal aims, then they would and could have taken out the entire population of Gaza in a few days, international opinion be damned. You’ve basically proven that however Jews try to defend themselves or Israel, whether militarily or in the arena of “public debate,” we will still be seen as the problem. In light of the last few thousand years of world history—not to mention the point of the original post—I don’t believe we needed you to point that out.
You seemed to have missed the entire point of my comment, which I even made explicit at the end. I was not making an argument for why Israel is carrying out a genocide, I was making an argument why it isn't necessarily "bad faith" or "libel" when people accuse Israel of genocide.
"That you can point to a handful of incidents resulting in a relative handful of deaths proves, at worst, that Israel (and/or a handful of soldiers), has committed war crimes. "
No, the point of me bringing up those cases was in direct response to the contention that Israel wasn't targeting civilians. The IDF gives direct orders to fire on civilians if they cross arbitrary lines civilians aren't aware of. The IDF does not prosecute its soldiers when they confess to war crimes. The IDF does not discipline soldiers when they sing about wiping out the seed of Amalek and chanting that there are no uninvolved civilians. This is evidence of intent. There is plenty more as well, but I am not going to write a book in this comment section arguing for why I believe Israel is carrying out a genocide. I have though written a book that includes a chapter on that, and you are welcome to read it.
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/the-children-of-amalek
"If, as you say, Israel is losing the propaganda/popularity war after killing fewer than 40,000 civilians (according to even the UN), and they really have genocidal aims, then they would and could have taken out the entire population of Gaza in a few days, international opinion be damned. "
Israel isn't totally suicidal yet, so it won't ignore international opinion entirely, and especially American opinion entirely. The Republican Party is still substantially supportive of Israel, and the American public, even if increasingly disapproving of Israel still doesn't necessarily view Israel as a top political priority, but if Israel were to become exceptionally more belligerent with its genocide, then that would likely change. Right now, the U.S. congress still believes it can keep giving away American tax money to Israel and not lose their seats because other things are more important to voters; but if Israel were to "take out the entire population of Gaza in a few days" congress could not do that. Add to that, the fact that there are nuclear powers like Pakistan, that if Israel were to go full-psycho they could feel threatened enough to use a nuke on Israel.
If Israel wasn't being watched by the international eye, Israel would have done to Gazans what it supposedly was commanded to do in the Torah to the people of Canaan: killed them all; rather than just killing lots, maiming lots more, and torturing all.
"You’ve basically proven that however Jews try to defend themselves or Israel, whether militarily or in the arena of “public debate,” we will still be seen as the problem. "
Plundering the U.S. treasury to carry out a genocide for territorial fantasies is going to be seen as a problem to lots of Americans, and Jews who try to defend that will lose the debate.
"In light of the last few thousand years of world history—not to mention the point of the original post—I don’t believe we needed you to point that out."
The way Jews have been treated by various non-Jewish political factions in the "last few thousand years of world history" is not relevant to my opinion about what Israel is doing today. If you think what is motivating my opinion about Israel today is the same thing motivating every other opinion about Israel in the last few thousand years, you hold a superstitious belief about what has motivated the various conflicts Jews have had with non-Jews. It is a powerful reinforcement that helps keep lots of people as members of the cult, but it is irrational.
The original article contains a fuller definition of the genocide convention definition:
"A mental element: the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”; "
The "as such" part is critical. The allies (theoretically) fought to essentially defeat the military of the Nazis, not just any Nazi party member, which would include most German citizens. The allies were not deliberately targeting just any German citizen simply because they were perceived to be Nazis. If they were, that could be conceived as genocidal(if Nazis are considered a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group). Targeting people because they are perceived to be members of a designated group is a key element of determining intent under the genocide convention definition of genocide.
From the UN's website that discusses the definition:
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
"The intent is the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element.
Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted - not randomly – because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.”"
🐖💨💨💨