The blog is commentary

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.

As stated by others, @dazeddwarf engages (intentionally or unintentionally) in "turn out your pockets" antisemitism, in which the (intentional or unintentional) antisemite makes demands on Jews that they prove that they are not carrying around some evil intent, and then when a Jew does empty their metaphorical pockets and the specific evil intent is nowhere to be seen, the antisemite accuses the Jew of harboring some other evil motivation.

This is what @dazeddwarf did when they changed the accusation from "genocide" to "ethnic cleansing." These are different terms with different meanings. It is like accusing someone of murdering their neighbor with an axe and then eating them, and when they prove that they have not done that, saying, "okay but prove you never gave them carbon monoxide poisoning."

Upon receiving new information about the veracity of genocide accusations, someone operating in good faith (that is, engaging in a conversation in order to understand a situation, rather than to defeat a perceived opponent) might say, "oh, interesting, this information about genocide is new to me and I would like to consider it more before responding. Perhaps I was wrong. I wonder if the term ethnic cleansing might apply, but I shouldn't jump to conclusions. I must look into this more deeply before making the accusation."

The Jean-Paul Sartre quote screenshotted by @athingofvikings bears repeating:

Okay, sure, let's have it out. I imagine I'll pretty much piss off everyone with this.

First: the only confidence I have in my understanding of the political situation of the Middle East is that I have no fucking understanding whatsoever of the political situation in the Middle East. Sure, I've read plenty. I have friends of many many stripes. But I'm not a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, folks: I know enough to know how much I don't know, and how much I know is tons.

Second, you say that person is a "zionist." There are three things I find pretty annoying about this as a defense attorney. One is that the term is not defined, and the other is that there is a complete lack of evidence. The third is the implicit assumption that being a "zionist" is enough to wholeheartedly condemn anyone.

Let's tackle these one by one. And, once again, I am neither a scholar of Jewish history nor Middle Eastern history nor anything except American criminal law.

First: definition. There are many possible meanings of zionist that I see people use. One potential meaning of "zionist" seems to be "is Jewish, but fails to disavow Israel as fast and loud as I personally want them to." Sometimes the meaning of "zionist" is just "is Jewish." Sometimes it's "a Jewish person who wishes for a return to a very distant ancestral homeland." Sometimes it's "wholehearted supporter of Israel's war crimes." A lot of pointless arguing, it seems to me, is centered around someone saying they are zionist, i.e., they would like Jewish people to someday have a nice homeland where they don't feel like a strange political chunk in another country, and another person hears that they are zionist, i.e. they enjoy wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Second: No evidence. Self-explanatory. You are an anon. I don't know why I'm supposed to trust your word. I read police reports for a living and I am supposed to be able to trust them, and let me tell you how many lies they contain.

Third: the assumption of condemnation. I literally defend the human rights of sex criminals in court. I defend murderers. What we are talking about, right now, at best, is a human person expressing an opinion, however potentially damaging and offensive (depending on definition of zionism and truth of accusation). Do you think I'm gonna say that Jewish people who express an opinion are inhuman and deserve segregation from the rest of us?

Do you think I'm ever going to stop reaching out my hand to people who use violence? Do you think I'm ever going to lose the hope that someday they will lose the fear that makes them resort to violence?

Finally, now that I've spent some time listing my problems with your case, so what.

Let's use an example closer to home. I'm an American, and I do in fact believe that America is a nation and will continue to be so, and that tearing down all government to give it back to indigenous people (something that is, to be clear, to my understanding, not comparable with any kind of political situation in Israel) is not possible as things stand. And yet nobody's here interrogating me about Donald Trump and his bombing of Iran or whether I support ICE's jackbooted thuggery.

A little further from home? If I met a Russian person, my first ask would not be "Tell me in detail your thoughts on Ukraine and Putin."

And in those two examples, I myself and this hypothetical Russian person are actually members of the country in question that is doing the thing. A Jewish person who is not Israeli isn't even that.

Listen. I think there's a lot to be unpacked about how the insularity of Jewish culture and the separateness of it from the countries where it lives is both in the interest of continuing the Jewish ethnicity and in the interest of the people who want Jewish people exterminated, and how the double-pull of those two interests maintain a tension that otherwise might dissipate. I think there's something real to be analyzed about how modern anti-semitism isn't a recurrence of medieval anti-semitism but a different thing, a sign of fascist thinking.

I think there is a horrific tragedy for everyone involved that the group who was decimated beyond belief in the blackest events in human history now has a very loud and visible nation channeling their survival into rage and violence.

I think that there are lots of Arab nations around Israel that would gladly see every person in it subject to that same rage and violence, and I'm not down with that shit either.

I think the history of who colonized who and when and what pogroms did what and how violence and why are all too fucking complicated to untangle.

I think the only way truly forward for Israel and Palestine is some kind of truth and reconciliation type thing and that Israel as it stands is too scared to see all their atrocities come to light.

I was raised atheist with college professor parents, so you can bet Jewish people in academia were part of my life from an early age. I don't understand antisemitism literally at all. It's completely incomprehensible to me. I also think Arab culture is gorgeous and studied Arabic in college. I don't discount the idea that I have subconscious biases; I've done my best to unpick them, but it's lifelong work.

The whole goddamn clusterfuck is a great example of why violence begets violence begets violence. I reject the idea that One Final Ass-Kicking on anyone's part will solve any one of these problems. The only thing that ends violence is not choosing violence. And that can't happen until enough people in and out of power want the violence to stop. There. Not here. There. It can't be imposed from outside. It has to come from within.

And that's a decision -- I must add -- that I seriously could not have less to do with. White Americans should not be making any of the related decisions.

Here endeth the essay, with one final note.

And not just in the past few years—I mean ever. This has been a movement for DECADES.

Bc I genuinely believe that the reason there hasn’t been anything accomplished, that has actually moved the needle, despite this being a massive and long lasting movement with celebrity and political supporters, is because the movement is focused on only a few things: appearances and popularity and the disenfranchisement (to put it lightly) of Jews (in Israel and abroad).

There are relatively simple things this movement could have accomplished many many years ago that would have placed the Palestinians in an amazing position to have had their own state by now if not be close to it.

Instead the movement has focused on the destruction of Israel and hatred against “Zionists” (regurgitation of Soviet Union propaganda down to the word) and appearing politically woke to the masses rather than actually DOING SOMETHING.

And no, electing mamdani and other DSA freaks who hate the “west” and openly support terrorist orgs is not doing anything for the actual Palestinian people who are suffering.

I love the way Jewish astrology looks at the month of Adar. The sign is the fish, and it’s the only month in the zodiac that is always talked about in the plural. I was thinking about that duality while I was drawing this, especially the idea that there’s always two sides to our joy, internal and external.

Because fish live entirely under the water, there’s this beautiful tradition that they’re the only sign completely immune to the evil eye. They’re protected by the very thing that keeps them hidden from the rest of the world. It’s a perfect reminder for this month that our luck and our miracles don’t always have to be loud or visible to be real. Sometimes the most beautiful growth is taking shape in the deep where no one else can see it.

Our luck is at its healthiest and most resilient during Adar. It’s the month where we’re encouraged to intentionally increase our joy, which feels like the perfect excuse to just lean into the flow and trust the process.

Shabbat Shalom and Chodesh Tov 🐟🧿🩵

The Talmud is not. It doesn't matter what translation you read, you have to sit down and focus. You have to digest it. You have to read arguments between different people. You need to engage with the text.

For a lot of people, they want a single quote that can prove or disprove a point. "The Bible is against homosexuality because of Leviticus!" But if you read the Talmud, suddenly there's discussion about what the phrase "lay with a man as with a woman" means. Is it any sexual contact? Is it only anal? There's discussion on how you prove, in a court of law, that two men were laying with each other. What's the burden of proof? How many witnesses do they need? And how do you stone someone?

"Feminism" Is a pretty broad spectrum of thought. At it's base, feminism simply is the belief that people should have access to the same opportunities and rights regardless of their sex or gender. That's really broad!

There are some feminists who go super radical with it and turn that into "Men are evil creatures who need to be destroyed". There are some feminists who get super transphobic with it and turn it into "women are Biological Adult Human Females and trans people are monsters". There are some people who reject it as "feminism is not needed because women already have all the rights they could ever want" (imo these people are stupid). There are some people who reject it because "feminism is too controversial we need something new".

But generally speaking, the vast majority of feminists kind of... Just don't want people to be harassed, assaulted, and murdered for their sex or gender. The vast majority of feminists are against the pervasive, systemic violence against women (and people perceived as women) and all the other shit that comes with it. The vast majority of feminists just want people targeted by the patriarchy to be able to live their damn lives without fear.

And that's pretty much what Zionism is. Some folks are extremists with radical and often violent ideals. But if you were to suggests that TERFs and radfems are somehow the majority of feminists and that all feminists hate men on this hellsite, I have a feeling you would get some pushback. Because that's incorrect. If you were to go FURTHER and suggest that, actually, those guys who got REALLY upset about women demanding to be treated like equals who now call themselves incels and MRAs and whatever are ACTUALLY the ones who have the REAL definition of feminism, and they're right- feminism means that all men are evil and awful and feminsist hate men and want all women to be lesbians and they want to destroy society and kill all men and they're all just ugly lonely man-haters... You would REALLY get some pushback because not only is that fucking incorrect, that is allowing people who HATE women and queer people and everyone feminism stands for to define what the movement means. And you would get pushback because everyone fucking knows that being anti-feminist isn't about feminism as a movement or ideology. It's about hating women.

And yet somehow. Y'all are totally fine with allowing people who hate Jews to define Zionist. You are totally fine with using examples of the absolute worst of us to point and say "All those (((zios))) are nasty dirty baby killers". You are totally fine with regurgitating antisemitic tropes that have been used over and over and over again against Jews for centuries. And you SOMEHOW buy into the idea that "I'm not antisemitic, I just hate Zionists!" is believable.

Zionism is a broad spectrum of ideology. The word Zionism, at it's base. Is the belief that Jews have a right to self-determination in our indigenous homeland. Full stop. There are so many different ways one can be a Zionist- do you think that a peaceful two state solution is a good idea? Congrats! You're a Zionist (brought up because I specifically see people insisting this isn't Zionist a lot).

Synagogue attacks are at a modern high

Jewish politician's homes are being fire bombed for being Jewish

Jews are being gunned down at festivals even in countries with strict gun laws

Jews can't even take the subway in major cities without risking being harassed

But we can't tell how bad antisemitism is because of zionism? Come off it.

when, actually:

- anyone is allowed in any public bomb shelter

- the train stations are bomb shelters

Opposing this, aka antizionism, is direct support for the politically poisoned dick-measuring contest known as arab colonialism. Opposition to Jewish landback, to Jewish safety, to Jewish practice, and to Jewish life. We know what happened for most of history when Jews did not have an independent country, with our own defense force, our own laws, and our own independence.

Pure and simple. It is not Jewish supremacy. It is not informative or indicative of support (or lack thereof) for any given statement or action of the Israeli government. That is a seperate idea entirely. It is not inherently violent. It is not racism, or bigotry. It is not opposition to anyone else's existence, because it predates everyone else. It is not even a negotiable political debate. It is a Jewish philosophy, the foundation of our whole existence in practice. And it does not involve anyone but Jews, just like the rest of Judaism.

some of the most powerful global institutions on an economic and social level are the dominant religious powers that have denuded the narrative of the jewish religion.

they have regularly denied us being its makers when it was convenient in order to depose us our positions of influence and security.