JoannaL

also form the Guardian: "A Jewish man who fell backwards and hit his head during an altercation" while the LATimes: "Kessler, of Thousand Oaks, was struck in the head, knocked backward and hit his head on the ground, deputies said." so just fell backwards or struck?

here an example what I mean with the vile 50:50 technique: "Hamas has blamed much of the violence on civilians – and atrocities including rape and torture – on “criminals” who followed its attackers. The Israel Defence Forces released an interview with a captured attacker who said the “mission was to kill … anyone we saw”. " so Hamas says it was criminals while the IDF says (in an interview with a captured attacker- insinuating that this is not reliable) it was Hamas. Whom to believe? this is a deeply sinister and evil way to muddle facts which are absolutly well known and documented.

thank you

ok, in good faith , I tried to read the article again (was difficult) . 1. Hamas is never described as terrorists 2. it is written praising the success and committment of Hamas ( A deadly cascade, a precise plan, 1000 % committed) 3. Hamas can explain lengthly their side : like killing only pet dogs, that "criminals" not them killed all the children , that it was a preemptive strike and this is seen as as much fact than the other side. So there is also the other side which says differnt but it is always a 50: 50 thing: this can be true or that can be true . so after reading this article the reader may think that it is not known exactly what happened , but surly the Hamas are very dedicated guys.

Sorry, I am really not feeling like visiting the Guardian article again. But just a thought: if you write an article about the Holocaust you wouldnt go about it praising the Nazi organisational skills and effectivness. Meanwhile I found in a German newspaper an article about an olderly jewish Californian, who died by pro-palistinian protesters. I couldn't find it in the Guardian, in bbc or cnn, but the LAtimes has it: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-11-06/man-dies-after-fight-at-protest-westlake-village-israel-hamas-war

I always liked the Guardian (often long and intelligent analyses of events) and have tolerated its pro-palestinian bias. But this new article is so vile, I almost lost my breakfast. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/07/secret-hamas-attack-orders-israel-gaza-7-october it is a very pro Hamas article about the attack october 7 ("a precise plan") . How can they write this!!! It is praising the organisatorial success of Hamas on that day, also it is always - seemingly to see both sides- citing some Hamas bullshit like: "Hamas equipped attackers with GoPro cameras to capture images of the attack. Some of the gruesome images recovered by Israeli investigators show sadistic mistreatment and murder. An official montage of such footage, released by Hamas, shows terrified people pleading for their lives and a pet dog being shot. " A pet dog (!!!) I am really done. This is so not ok, what are all these terrorist supporters thinking? are they still thinking? I cannot imagine reading the Guardian again.

I think we had the discussion yesterday... Obviously there is a legitimate protest which you could call pro-palestinians. For example there is (at least in Germany )"Pray for Gaza" which is actually something almost everyone can agree on. but a lot of these demostrations get overwhelmed by some "from the river to the sea" screamers. Which some (but not me ) still interpret as not being antisemitic. and then there are the lunatics which threaten Jews everywhere. Obviously not everyone who is anti-Israel does this but significantlly more people than before the 7th October. and these last group of people are getting more widespread. antisemitism is on the rise. One article of today (there are a lot of articles about this everywhere at the moment) : https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/01/opinions/dagestan-antisemitism-rise-israel-ghitis/index.html from the article: "This moment in history has created a perfect storm for antisemitism. The events of the past few weeks have burst the restraints on the far right — where antisemitism is often naked — and on the far and sometimes not-so-far left, where it comes clothed in lofty rhetoric of defending the underdog and contorted historical analysis. " and "The historian Simon Sebag Montefiore, dismantling the “decolonization narrative” that scholars use against Israel, noted bitterly, “I always wondered about the leftist intellectuals who supported Stalin, and those aristocratic sympathizers and peace activists who excused Hitler.” Now, he said, he sees the same pattern among Hamas apologists and atrocity deniers, who ignore overwhelming evidence of what Hamas is and what it did. "

But also yesterday a Hamas commander (and it seems also a lot of Hamas soldiers ) were in a refugee camp and using civilians as a human shield. That is also a war crime and cause for the bombing of said refugee camp. Have you been equally upset with Hamas?

No absolutly not. Get upset about war crimes! But it often sounds as if only Israel fails to abide to the rules of war when in fact I think they are honestly struggeling to do their best, and when also in fact no one ever achieved a clean war.

this was in response to a poster who denied that Israel is held to a higher standard, and who described examples of war crimes (some of which may be true and others are debatable) But if there has never been a war without war crimes then to expect it now means holding Israel to a higher standard then everyone else ever. this is why I ask about an example in history of such a war.

Yes, obviously, If the Hamas had attacked some military outpost, that could be seen as act of war and not terrorism. Even if they had attacked said military outpost and unfortunately killed some children nearby because their rocket malfunctioned that could be an act of war between Gaza and Israel and not terrorism. Sure. so what ? Are the Israeli more or less safe if you call it terrorism or war? About the standards in war : Please give me some example in history -any example- where the laws of war were thouroghly followed. It is great that there are standards and , I agree ,everyone should try to achieve them, but in reality war is, by its nature, always ugly and I doubt that you can give me an example of a clean war. Also war is fought between at least to parties. If one party use humans as a shield , they are as much committing a war crime.

Sorry I still don't get it: you mean people become antisemitic because other people accuse other people of antisemism when the actually are only critising Israels politics? Have you any proof that this is a source for antisemitism, are there studies?

Great that at your campus all is well but antisemitic incidents are on the rise in the US and especially on campuses. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-10-29/antisemitism-college-campus-israel-hamas-palestine from the article. "A Columbia professor called the Hamas massacre “awesome” and a “stunning victory.” A Yale professor tweeted, “It’s been such an extraordinary day!” while calling Israel a “murderous, genocidal settler state.” A Chicago art professor posted a note reading, “Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement…. May they all rot in hell.” A UC Davis professor tweeted, “Zionist journalists … have houses w addresses, kids in school,” adding “they can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more.” There are, sadly, countless other examples."

Context is a very complicated concept. It is terrible that innocent people die. but I do not understand the strong distinction between Hamas and civilians on this board.It sometimes sounds as if they are not connected. I am German. My mother was three year old when the allied forced bombed Hamburg again and again. In one night (28.7. 1943) more than 30.000 people - most of them civilians- died. My mother was three - and so definitly no Nazi, when she had to run for shelter night after night with her mother, who was pregnant again and had always elected socialdemocrats before the dictatorship and was also no nazi.. My mother dreams of this bombing all of her life , still today. Of the bombs , of the screams, of the fire. But still even if this was very bad, was it wrong to fight the Nazis? No obviously not, they had to be removed and the Germans themselves were not strong enough to do it, so they had to be defeated in war. and in war civilians die. Today we teach our children in school and I do believe this to be right: The people are responsible for their government. the Germans were responsible for the nazis and their deeds. in the same way the people of Gaza are responsible for the Hamas. And if they are not strong enough to remove them themselves, someone else must do it. Also about the nonsensical comparisons a while back: the Nazis were antisemitc fascists: they had a dictatorship and and wanted to kill jews out of racist reasons. The Israeli have a democray and do not want to kill anyone ( but some very ugly part of their society do do some land grab) Gaza is dictatorial ruled, and the Hamas states openly that it wants to kill all Jews: so obviously if you really want to call someone Nazi, its the Hamas.

Yes, thank you, actually I agree, chanting "from the river to the sea " is hate speech not genocide. but I was responding to a post , that by UN-law Conspiracy to commit genocide constitutes liablity.

If this is true then all of Hamas and all "from the river to the sea" supporters would also already be liable, wouldn't they?

I am not calling all of Hamas animals, but the ones who attacked and tortured and murdered (slowly over hours) little children while their parents had to watch, burned babies and raped women multiple times ( in case of the hostages are still doing it) , yes I think they are animals.

The Israeli were attacked by Hamas and now the defend themselves and attack Hamas (which governs Gaza) back. This is what is happening. I think this is the response every governemnt in the world would give after such an attack. And it would be seen as rational and measured. there are reports of war crimes and if true (and by some it is far from clear if true like the hospital attack which may have been a Hamas propaganda scam -or not ) then this needs to be condemned. But overall - regarding the Israeli were attacked first (and in the most bloody and heinous way by unfeeling animals, NOT by valiant freedom fighters), they get to much critisims (to use a very neutral word) by far.

Well, no; the right is a generally speaking certainly also problematic, but these recent antisemitic attacs are a reaction of the recent situation Israel-Hamas and the right is not as invested in this as the left and arabic minorities in Europe.

here one article about the rise in antisemitism https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/oct/20/a-lot-of-pain-europes-jews-fear-rising-antisemitism-after-hamas-attack from the article: "Seeing the hostilities against Jewish people elsewhere in Europe, Pavoncello said: “It feels as if we’re going back in time. People say it’s not antisemitism but anti-Zionism. But at the end of the day, this is the outcome.”

No. lets do some hairsplitting: words have power and it does matter if it is ok to say Israel is committing genocide. This grows hate and then hate crimes. Around the world antisemitic crimes exploded over the last week. We should not use a language which incite this. IMO If someone really thinks he needs to use a word like genocide , then there must be proof.

I do think only part of the left sees it this way, and it is also untrue. Because only approx 30 % Isrealis are of European descent and because there is no jewish European motherland, of which Israel is a colony. On the contrary, also in Europe the Jews were always a persecuted minority.

Someone said something about the conflict between "white" and "brown" people a while back and I want to mention that more than 60 % of the Jews in Israel are of Mizrahi descent (from the middle east, central asia and north africa). which means in this conflict there are "brown" people against "brown" people and therefore all arguments in this direction do not do justice to the complexity of the problem.

This! Perhaps we should take everything which comes out of the Gaza goverment (like the health ministry) , as unconfirmed as long as there are no other sources. Actually the Gaza government IS the Hamas, and they certainly profited from the unconfirmed accusations. Now Biden cannot meet the other arabic leaders. Also news like that incite hate and hate crimes. Last night there was an attack on the Berlin synagogue and I am sure these tensions and hate crimes and demostrations which slip into violence are now seen everywhere in the world. It is Jews (who are not even Israeli) which pay the price. Also, at least in Germany, this heats tension and prejudice against the arabic community who is seen again as violent and antisemitic.

German newspapers say the Israeli do not open the blockade because of weapons smuggling