Cos peaches and mangoes make everything better

The European Union already forced Apple to abandon its proprietary charging port and adopt USB-C across its entire iPhone lineup. It just did something bigger. A new EU mandate requires every smartphone sold in Europe including Apple devices to feature a battery that can be replaced by the user without specialist tools, without voiding a warranty, and without sending the device to a manufacturer approved service center. Batteries must maintain a minimum capacity threshold after a set number of charge cycles and replacement parts must remain available for up to ten years after a model goes on sale.

The consumer electronics industry built its current business model around batteries that degrade, cannot be replaced at home, and create a natural upgrade cycle every two to three years. The EU just legislated that model out of existence in the world's largest regulatory market.

Apple, Samsung, and every other manufacturer now faces a choice between redesigning their devices for the European market or accepting that their current hardware architecture is no longer legally sellable there.

Fetishization of Jews (Sounds contradictory, isn't)

Obsessed with supercessionism

Blame Jews for their life not working out the way they wanted it to and also every social ill that occurs to them really

Enjoy and justify cutting Jews out of public life (Bar tokens you'll turn on later)

Enjoy and justify lighting Jews on fire

Enjoy shooting Jews outside Jewish buildings (And inside too but hey)

Failure to realize that with the Jews dead the regime needs new enemies to justify its existence... and has also been going after said other enemies the whole time.

If Israel was intending to commit genocide...

Then why isn't everyone in Gaza already dead?

They have the means, the ability, and the tools to do so.

The only answers that Jew-haters can come up to explain how 98% of the population of Gaza was still alive after two years of intense urban warfare--when the fighting in Mariopol, Ukraine, had a higher death toll despite taking less time--tend to fall into one of three categories:

Incompetence--the IDF intends to kill them all, but just somehow is too stupid to manage it.

Conspiratorial--the IDF intends to kill them all, but is being sneaky about it, in order to distract... somehow. Which is just "Untrustworthy Jews" in a different package.

Abject denial--"La la, la, The Jews are trying to kill them all! Hitler was right! I can't hear you and your evidence and details! I know in my heart that the Genocide is Real, just like how my parents know that Jesus is their Lord and Savior!"

And given that the "genocide scholars" in this case include a woman who has claimed a higher death toll and that the Israelis eat Palestinians and feed the leftovers to dogs, and a "genocide scholar group" that has no requirements for joining, and thus has "Emperor Palpatine" as a listed member... and several NGOs and states admitted that they would have to alter the definition of "genocide" to make what happened in Gaza count...

Yeah, there was a "broad consensus" in Nazi Germany that Jews were subhuman creatures that needed to be exterminated for the safety of the human race. Doesn't make it right.

Furthermore, in answer to the question...

No, it's how the Right and the Left have shaken hands and agreed that Jews Are The Problem And There Is One (Final) Solution that is acceptable. Going back to the original post, when a Leftist African-American politician was promoting a Jew-hating propaganda piece created by the KKK that claimed that Jews were responsible for 9/11.

i'm not gonna argue genocidal intent, since that would require convincing you that there was intent which is clearly impossible, but we can talk about ethnic cleansing:

"The UN Commission of Experts described (United Nations) ethnic cleansing as "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas," and stated that the coercive practices used can include "murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention... forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population... wanton destruction of property."

so forcible displacement is part of the UN definition of ethnic cleansing

"Nearly all of Gaza's current population of 2.1 million people has been displaced, lacking access to sufficient shelter, food, life-saving medical services, clean water, education and livelihoods."

"More than 60% of the population had lost their homes... Gaza's economy has contracted by 84%... 'The scale and extent of deprivation across living conditions, livelihoods/income, food security, gender equality, and social inclusion, have pushed back human development in the Gaza Strip by 77 years,'" the assessment said.

"Over 371,888 housing units have been destroyed or damaged, more than 50% of hospitals are non-functional, nearly all schools destroyed or damaged, and the economy has contracted by 84% in Gaza."

"Approximately 81% of all structures in the Gaza Strip are damaged... An estimated 320,622 housing units have been damaged." -- based on publicly available satellite imagery

it's not "sneaky" to not just literally nuke the strip and kill every single person inside. you can ethnically cleanse a group of people by destroying all their housing, their education, their economy, access to food, their healthcare, etc., and generally make the place unlivable. this has historically been an ethnic cleansing tactic, such as in the case of the holodomor in ukraine, and i would not say this is unique to israel or jews

So, to summarize:

You came onto a post talking about the Jewish experience with how chummy Leftists and Neo-Nazis have become over the last several years when it comes to hating Jews--to the point that Leftists are now endorsing Marjorie Taylor "Jewish Space Lasers" Greene--and basically went, "Well, have you considered that the consensus is that Jews are actually the bad guys and are doing what the Nazis did to them?"

And when I pushed back on that, pointing out the bias of the sources and how the situation does not show a genocide, you basically went, "Nuh uh" and shifted the topic, refused to engage with the discussion of antisemitism, and accused me of projecting antisemitism onto you, when you are engaging in antisemitism.

I owe you and your entire Jew-hating movement nothing until you police your own. At a fucking minimum, kick out the people who call Jews "inbred" (Piker), cannibals (Albanese), and the like... instead of, yanno, elevating them to be speakers of the movement. Until then, all I see is an old quote from Sartre:

"We know how difficult things would be, if today in every city during the bomb attacks, the burdens of war and the privations, we still had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and instigators... We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who would kill us."

This claim is based on a misrepresentation of a resolution put out by the organization IAGS. The problem with using this resolution as evidence of “consensus” in the field of Genocide scholarship is

IAGS has been somewhat controversial within the field for a while. While it is still the largest body of its kind, a lot of scholars do not take the org all that seriously for a number of reasons, one of which is emphasizing statements (such as this) over actual peer-reviewed research

Only 129 of its estimated 500 members even voted on the resolution

Membership is not limited to genocide scholars; being interdisciplinary isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but the fact anyone with a credit card can join, and a lack of transparency by IAGS, means we can’t know how many (if any) of the members who voted are even in Genocide Studies, and that the IAGS’s statements cannot be taken as the authoritative voice of Genocide Scholarship

After this resolution, more than 500 scholars & experts in the field (i.e., a larger amount than IAGS even has members) signed an open letter condemning the resolution & demanding IAGS retract it

And here's the thing: I think that there is an argument to be made that what happened in Gaza was a genocide, at least by the UN's standards. And I think that's because the UN's standards are very broad, and if we accept Gaza as a genocide we also accept a lot of other things. I wrote a whole thing on why there's about as strong a case for the bombing of Dresden being a genocide, and went through the criteria one by one here. For more, see John Spencer, an urban warfare expert, discussing why Gaza is not a genocide.

There is also far from a universal consensus. Noted scholars such as Menachem Rosensaft, Israel Charny, republished by the nonprofit Genocide Watch, Benny Morris (not a genocide scholar, but a New Historian, an Israeli historian skeptical of the traditional pro-Israeli narratives). Indeed, the ICC's decision was simply saying that it is possible to commit genocide against Palestinians and South Africa's claim was not ipso facto spurious (as, e.g., a claim that Israel was committing genocide against redheads would be), many military experts, over 500 scholars, et cetera et cetera.

#hello again martin and bosco!! sending you boys round for another go :)