I doubt you'll find anyone here who supports Netanyahu and his right wing following, but you will find many that support Israel as a State.

Point to just four posters who unambiguously expressed their support of Netanyahu's actions in Gaza.

One is not plenty. Two is not plenty. Three is not plenty. Four is plenty to those who can only count to three.

So the burden of proof is not that hard to meet.

And don't hide behind the DU terms of use. You don't have to name anyone, just link to one post from each of the four DUeres, without adding your comments. That's well within the DU rules.

BTW, I am extending this challenge to every single person who rec'd your post.

"Most Israelis dislike Netanyahu, but support the war in Gaza – an Israeli scholar explains what’s driving public opinion" - https://theconversation.com/most-israelis-dislike-netanyahu-but-support-the-war-in-gaza-an-israeli-scholar-explains-whats-driving-public-opinion-230046

"How 95% of Jewish Israelis Support a ‘Plausible’ Genocide" - https://religiondispatches.org/how-95-of-jewish-israelis-support-a-plausible-genocide/

"82% of Israelis Support Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza, Poll Finds" - https://countercurrents.org/2025/05/82-of-israelis-support-ethnic-cleansing-in-gaza-poll-finds/

"Nearly half of Israelis support army killing Palestinians in Gaza, poll finds - An overwhelming number of Israelis...back the forced transfer of Palestinians from Gaza and Israel" - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majority-israelis-support-expulsion-palestinians-gaza-poll

"Poll: 82% of Israelis Back Gaza Expulsion, Nearly Half Support Biblical Massacres" - https://www.palestinechronicle.com/poll-82-of-israelis-back-gaza-expulsion-nearly-half-support-biblical-massacres/


I have no personal knowledge of the situation; and I'm also aware that there is opposition within Israel to Netanyahu's actions. I also do not believe in collective guilt (but that applies both ways – to Palestinians being massacred for the sins of Hamas as well as to Israelis culpability vel non for the sins of Netanyahu).

The post I replied to was titled "There's been plenty of support for his actions in Gaza on DU"

You get three more tries, just so I can say you've had "plenty" of opportunities to reply with a valid response.

On edit: My apologies for the snark. I just checked, and you didn't rec Post #16. So you don't qualify for the challenge. But I appreciate your participation.

but on re-reading, it's not clear to me that the OP was meant to be limited to things posted by DU'er's.

I read it more as in the vein of "never say die" – it's not a claim that everyone hearing that advice has actually been saying "let's die"; it's just advice to people in general that that's not the best route.

And your post would have been a legitimate, if debatable, response to the OP.

However, the poster I replied to and challenged, made it specifically about DU:
"There's been plenty of support for his actions in Gaza on DU (nt)"

He was commenting on DUers, allegedly plenty of them, supporting Netanyahu's actions in Gaza. This is what triggered me: there is no truth to his allegations. And as you can see, neither the poster nor the DUers who recommended his post are up to my challenge.

I rest my case.

I sent you mail.

You got my response to your mail. Now meet my challenge.

which explicitly forbid us to "negatively call-out" other DUers. Your "challenge" would just serve to get posts hidden. Beating your chest and saying "look at my mighty challenge, which none dare meet!!!" is absolutely ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time.

Besides, your email to me didn't come close to meeting my challenge. So no reference to DU rules would apply in any event.

You just can't do it, no matter the excuses. So be honest with yourself and delete your post in which you insulted "plenty" of DUers without calling them out by name.

We're talking about critics of Israel without specifying Netanyahu and the right wing.
There are many Jewish people in Israel and around the world who despise Netanyahu and his followers.

or are they saying "Israel?"

You can't deny that there has been a rise in antisemitism in the US.

Far too often anyone who criticizes what's going on in Gaza - obviously the result of Israel's elected rightwing government's policies, led by Bibi Netenyahu - is branded an anti-Semite.

Do you think it proper that posters here be accused of being complicit in Trump's regime?
Or, do people specify, Trumper's, MAGAts, Republicans, etc.

Maybe people in Europe and Canada are blaming "Americans" - how does that make you feel?

DU says "Russia invaded Ukraine".

It's best to avoid discussing Israel's actions in Gaza.

I don't agree with Israel's elected right wing government's policies, led by Netanyahu.

Now, let's see if anyone calls me an antisemite.

Inevitably, when one starts criticizing what "Israel" is doing in Gaza using terms like "genocide" and "ethnic cleasing," someone will come along with accusations of antisemitism.

But the day is young. I'll check back periodically.

It's very difficult to separate the two.
Israel is a Jewish nation.
However all Israelis do not support its current administration.
Neither do all Jews.

of anti-semitism that has been demanded and pushed which goes very far in equating criticism of policy of the government of Israel with anti-semitism. There is also a very strong and deliberate effort by forces in Israel and around the world to conflate every single action of the government with being Jewish.

Both views are incredibly ignorant. Netanyahu isn't doing what he is doing because he is a Jew. He is doing it because he is a hateful human being in an elected office who has demonstrated himself to be corrupt and is acting in all manner possible to thwart accountability for himself and his wife. Jews may support him or not but if he were Catholic he would still be the horrible person he is and would be doing the things he's doing.

To conflate all of the actions of some of the horrible people in that government to being Jewish feeds a horrible stereotype and should not be done. Horrible people do horrible things because they are horrible people not because they are Jews. Once anybody insists on tying the entirety of Israel to being Jewish you can't readily expect to turn it off and on. But the "new definition" goes far to make that tie and it is used as a cudgel to beat back criticism of things the Israeli government is doing that are not because they are Jews but because they are horrible people.

People also tend to want to conflate Palestinians with being pro-Hamas or pro-Hezbollah etc. Horrible people do horrible things not because they are Palestinian but rather because they are horrible people. People also look at this conflict over land/resources as Jews versus Arabs. That is also improper because it leaves out the Christians and others in both Israel and the Occupied Territories. It is as faulty as those in the US of the rabid right wing who insist that the US is a Christian nation. It is not. That faith may dominate but their are many others and as a nation our founding document is structured to specifically give equality in standing of all faiths. The US falls short of that commitment very often but despite the reality of it the fact remains of the stated commitment and it is up to us to uphold it and fight for it in court and public opinion in the larger discussion in society.

Excellent post.

Agree with all, except this:

"People also look at this conflict over land/resources as Jews versus Arabs. That is also improper because it leaves out the Christians and others in both Israel and the Occupied Territories."

In fact the majority of Christians (a very small minority) there are Arabs. They call themselves Palestinians. So being Palestinian is not exclusive to Muslims.

Just as there are Jews in Israel - the Mizrahi - who consider themselves Arabs, and are, by ethnicity.

So I think a better way of describing the conflict is Zionist Jews (remember that not all Jews are Zionists, though a large majority are, much less so in the diaspora but still a majority) vs Palestinians.

Or, Zionist Israelis vs Palestinians. We can't say just Israelis vs Palestinians because of Israel's 20% or so Palestinian population. Who btw call themselves Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The big issue when it comes to anti-semitism is the fact that Israel was founded for the purpose of establishing an exclusively Jewish state. So any bad actions of Israel are linked in people's minds with the Jewish identity. Which is wrong but is also amplified by Israel's insistence that any criticism of itself is anti-semitic.

This is partly why some Jewish groups insist that their religion/ethnicity should never be conflated with the state of Israel.

anything other than faith. So my point in mentioning it is that the considerations in the conflict are typically stated as Arabs and Jews when the considerations of all people should be the rule without regard to ethnicity, faith etc. and you sum up this point quite well about the paradox of the situation of founding a state and calling it a Jewish state and then trying to decry people as antisemitic who are critical of the conduct of the state when that conduct has nothing to do with with being Jewish but rather just being horrible conduct.

How do you solve that?

This is why the "new definition" of anti-semitism is insane and dangerous. Of course that's why Israel pushed for it. Probably sealed the fate of Palestinians. And now their supporters in the U.S. who are hounded, criminalized, jailed and deported with the aid of that definition by the Trump Admin.

and others like yourself can do is analyze, describe, recite history etc. I don't see anything stopping Netanyahu from his plans in the Occupied Territories and beyond. But the folly of Netanyahu and those like him is to believe this will end the violence and reprisals. I think he and others sell that notion also to others. The notion that a leadership can create 10's of thousands of orphans and wipe away not only their parents but their siblings, aunts, uncles and grandparents and that out of that huge number there won't be some who will grow and strike back is sheer folly.

Enclosed are examples of antisemitism in the IHRA definition of antisemitism you are probably referring to:

"new definition" but also the House bill passed last year. Although the Senate didn't pass it the push under Crumb the 1st and the rabid right in this country is to include an expanded view of criticism of Israeli government policy. As Nadler in the Senate mentioned about the bill sent to them by the House:

“Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said during a hearing Tuesday. “By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.” Nadler is referencing TitleVI which is our main Civil Rights Act from 1964.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-bill-to-expand-definition-of-antisemitism-amid-growing-campus-protests-over-gaza-war

That expanded view is very much used in the US now by the rabid right in power with well known examples of people being questioned, detained, confined etc. for political speech that was not pro-Hamas but rather was highly critical of policy by Likud leaders.

Rep. Torres from New York disagrees with the concern of Nadler and others:

"Fellow New York Democrat Rep. Ritchie Torres, one of the 15 Democratic cosponsors of the bill, told NPR he finds that argument unconvincing.

"There's a false narrative that the definition censors criticism of the Israeli government. I consider it complete nonsense," Torres said in an interview with NPR.

"If you can figure out how to critique the policies and practices of the Israeli government without calling for the destruction of Israel itself, then no reasonable person would ever accuse you of antisemitism," he added."

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/02/1247374244/house-passes-bill-aimed-to-combat-antisemitism-amid-college-unrest

That last sentence is precisely the nub of this because the current rabid right wing leadership in both Israel and the US have taken steps toward that end of making critique of policy or critique of Zionism as being for the destruction of Israel. Whether by restrictions on the press in Israel for example or actions regarding political speech here in the US there are moves that, despite the bill not passing here, have gone into effect here in the US that goes beyond the IHRA document. That is the "new definition" I'm talking about.

Specifically about the IHRA I would note 2 items from their web site and make the point you asked about which one goes far in allowing people to equate criticism of policy with antisemitism and the other refutes it at the same time. First is this:

"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

The second is this:

"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

Both are in this link: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Now my point with regard to those two statements is that I agree completely that some instances or comparisons of policy or actions would be abhorrent. But by the reasoning stated by IHRA themselves if the person making a comparison also makes those allegations against policy or conduct of other countries then it "cannot be regarded as antisemitic." I would simply point to the idea that in the US many people want to make any such talk to be forbidden speech and indeed if you go through US Customs/CBP etc. and they see your phone would have on it messages making these allegations against policy/actions of the Israeli government it would not matter to them that you also have similar messages about Myanmar, Yemen, Sudan, El Salvador etc. You are likely to have a rough time. I am not equating the situation in those countries with the Israel/Gaza issue I am merely saying if someone makes the comparison of more than just Israel then by the statement of the IHRA then neither the comparison nor the person making it should be considered antisemitic on that basis. A person could still be very antisemitic for other beliefs, actions or statements but not on that one.

With one possible exception: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." I see no reason to except this item as a clearly antisemitic sentiment, regardless of the subsequent item you noted. That item, "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.", is universal, and is not a mitigation of the previous item you brought up. Sadly, criticism of Israel is overwhelmingly dissimilar to that leveled against other countries. In the rare instances where this criticism is even-handed, it is, indeed, not antisemitic.

Notwithstanding this last point, I understand that it is the actions and policies which go beyond the IHRA definition that concern you. As a Jew, I am equally concerned about these actions: not only do they weaponize the subject of antisemitism as a political tool, they devalue and trivialize the entire notion of Jew hatred. And I am by far not the only one holding this view. I have to note, though, that antisemitism is far older than the Trump and the Netanyahu administrations, and the core culture of antisemitism remains and thrives regardless of these two administrations' efforts to weaponize it. The entrenched bigots, in turn, often take advantage of the abhorrent actions of these two aforementioned administrations to shield overtly antisemitic sentiments as mere criticism of the two. It works the same both ways.

I must object, however, to lumping Zionism together with the policies of the current government in Israel. Overwhelmingly, I find critiques of Zionism extremely ill- informed. Concurrently, the context in which those ignorant references to Zionism are communicated and promoted makes these references indistinguishable from and synonymous with "Jews". This confluence of references makes the resulting narrative unabashedly antisemitic.

the IHRA however I still think their caveat about a criteria of leveled at more than one country still holds. I mentioned Zionism in the fashion I did because of it being an item that should be able to receive discussion and critique not for whether it is good or bad/right or wrong. I have no disagreement that some people will conflate things that shouldn't be or that much of the discussion about things in the world. My major concern, like always, is the idea of governments restricting the things that can be discussed or how they are discussed. The US has a long history of racism, antisemitism etc. and of repression of debate and discussion despite our 1st Amendment. The Red Scare would be an example where instead of a full and open discussion of all of the aspects of Communism the people in the US were purposely intimidated and repressed. The government became afraid of it's own people having a discussion of what this was, whether it adhered to Marx etc. or not, what were the possible ramifications for us etc. We should have been able to have that without the heavy repression and propaganda.

Unfortunately when it comes to the Middle East the vast majority of Americans get their idea of what things are from a narrow view/range of sources rather than a wide view/varied sources. No matter if it is about Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. I feel it is one of the main reasons we have such a large percentage of young people who are susceptible to the people like Joe Rogan, RFK Jr. etc. similar in fashion to the people who only watch Fox News all day and night or only listen to hate radio.

Such people are not open minded about learning or having discussions and they don't want to be. Part of what they want is to have someone reinforce their insulated view and allow them to be more and more hardened into their shell and mindset. I'm sure you would agree with me that closed minds are a worldwide problem and it has gotten worse I think and not better in some areas of discussion.

my role here on DU is that of an advocate rather than a critical observer. The reason for me choosing this role is fairly well encapsulated in your post: the abundance of closed-minded people (of all ages, IMO) on DU and the extent of their willful ignorance. My focus is on Israel because the views expressed here whenever the subject of Israel/Palestine comes up trigger appalling responses that border on, and cross the border into, overt antisemitism. And that is insulting to me personally. The vast majority of these DUers don't notice their antisemitism - the trend that disturbs me the most. This is not by any means unique to DU - it is the consequence of decades long fairly well documented misinformation campaign waged way beyond the Middle East that has now normalized antisemitism to the point where we see people defending murderers of random Jews and hostage takers. An entirely intolerable situation, which, without sufficient pushback, will only get worse. I push back.

Some of my pushback has to do with comments on the war in Gaza and Israel in general that are full of extreme and often irrational prejudices. Being a Jew, my antisemitism detector is rather fine tuned. Likewise, I am not averse to rational assessment of events. I can tell between a critical remark and an antisemitic remark with a great deal of precision, and in the past decade or so, way before the Gaza war, I have seen a disturbing increase of the latter and a sharp decline in the former. This is why I consider inclusion of unequal treatment of Israel vs the rest of the world in the IHRA definition of antisemitism, as well as the caveat of criticizing Israel on the terms equal to other countries not being antisemitic, well justified.

I rarely see Zionism being critiqued on intellectual grounds. This likely has to do with the immense diversity within the movement we call Zionism which requires a great deal of intellectual effort to navigate and understand, and there are few people among the critics of Zionism willing to expend the time and the energy necessary to understand the subject of their criticism they nevertheless imagine to be qualified to comment on. There is religious Zionism (curiously countered by the religious anti-Zionism of some ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects) which is closely related to a much smaller offshoot of settler Zionism, and evangelical Zionism, which are legitimately worthy of harsh criticism. On the other end of the spectrum, there is liberal Zionism and cultural Zionism which are secular and inclusive of all minorities, including Palestinians, within the identity of the State of Israel. The intellectual laziness of uninformed critics of Zionism doesn't permit any such distinctions - to them "Zionist", along with the nebulous "Zionist sympathizers" denotes one generic expression of disdain towards a uniform mass of people which for all practical purposes is indistinguishable from "Jews". And nothing other than outright declaration of hatred for the Jews can be more antisemitic than this.

Zionism having various "flavors". I agree that most people do not take the time and the same is true for Christianity, pacifism etc. and so many other things in our world. I also appreciate your statement about being an advocate and I feel that your advocacy can spur people to further study, to think more deeply or to advocate for their view. I think that is all good.

I try to be the critical observer and give historical background to various topics for the purpose of stimulating discussion and having people give me even more things to investigate and consider. The DU is one of the most civil platforms for doing so and members have fed my intellectual curiosity far beyond what I can ever repay. It is a testament to Earl G and Skinner and I am happy that many years ago Bartcop brought me here.

It can be difficult sometimes regarding these discussions on topics that have deep emotions however I have found over the years that the mods do a mostly excellent job of trying to keep the Forums from devolving away from reasonable discussion. I also want you to know that I understand that you may get people responding to you in ways that I would not but I generally don't see these posts. I don't "follow" various commenters but rather just take the conversations as they come.

I haven't seen that. I regularly criticize Netanyahu and his government's policies, but I don't think I've ever been accused of antisemitism.

What I do see routinely on DU are truly antisemitic posts that don't get removed by juries.

then they aren't actually antisemitic, and it's your judgement that is at odds with typical DUers. And it's bad judgement like that which can lead to criticism of Israel's actions also being called "antisemitic". For instance, when Amnesty International said what Israel was doing in Gaza is genocide, that was called antisemitic, on DU.

There's a truism that gets posted all the time on DU that "any criticism of Israel gets called antisemitic."

It shuts down dialogue and is used as a fallacy to imply that there is no antisemitism of any kind, that all such accusations are false.

In fact, it's not true. I have posts on this very thread criticizing Netanyahu and his government and nobody has yet called me an antisemite.

But the falsehood will be repeated because it's useful cover for people to pick on Jews.

No citizen of the U.S. has a leg to stand on when accusing other nations. Our behavior has been disgraceful from the beginning. It doesn't assuage my guilt one bit to punch down on Jewish people.

Just saying "I criticize him and his government" (and that's all you've said in this thread) is so bland, it's not worth saying. At least say something specific, such as "Israel killing 50,000 people is abhorrent". I'd hope you'd agree with that. As I said, there was a specific accusation of antisemitism for Amnesty saying Israel is committing genocide. It's not a "falsehood".

But I don't understand what the "bullying" is. Bullying is surely aimed at a person. Are you saying that expressing an opinion about all of DU is "bullying"?

I repeated the exact words of a poster who made the accusation.

Come on, it's easy. A two month blockade of food, for instance. That was awful. Now they're doing the "minimum" to avoid famine.

My purpose in this thread was to point out the game playing. I think I've achieved that.

If all you're here for is to accuse DUers of "playing games" when they criticize Israel, I'm glad you're stopping that.

The 'regular' criticism of Netanyahu and the Israeli government must be done in special invisible font. I have, however, seen them insisting that there are DUers who support Hamas and when told by another DUer that they hadn't seen those posts, was told:

'It's not necessary to prove it. There are thousands of posts on DU every day - nobody could possibly see them all. When posters say 'I never saw a post like that so it doesn't exist!' they're being ridiculous.

There are plenty of pro-Hamas things said on DU and elsewhere. We all know it.'

I won't link to that post, so as to not potentially violate the TOS, but I will say that I recc'd your post further upthread after a 'challenge' was issued to you and anyone reccing yr post. I've seen outright support of the invasion of Gaza, more than one DUer say that the Palestinians brought it on themselves and they have little to no sympathy for them, been at the receiving end of accusations of antisemitism because I support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Apart from the piss weak search engine that DU has, I have no need or desire to 'prove' what I've seen and experienced to someone who's likely to argue that it's not what was said at all. Everyone has different perceptions of what they read, based on their biases.

most Israelis remember their friends and neighbors being slaughtered in their homes. Remember babies getting sliced apart and stuffed into ovens. Remember gang rapes and executions at a music festival. Remember watching hundreds to thousands flooding the streets in Gaza celebrating's, parading with the captives and bodies they brought back.

to pretend the things I said didn't happen.

Eye-witness, first-hand, accounts detail everything I said happening.

You shouldn't rely on Al Jazeera as your source for information on this.

From what I understand, two infants were killed that day -- one shot directly, and one shot shortly before delivery and who died after birth. The oven report and "baby beheadings" were seen as propaganda fairly quickly, but it's entirely possible I've missed a follow-up.

First responders and soldiers who found them. There are pictures of cribs and small beds soaked in blood. There are pictures of corpses and bloodied car seats and baby clothes. I won't like to these, but you can find them very easily with basic google searches.

So as I say, if you have a citation that establishes otherwise, I’d be interested.

gee.....I wonder by who.

The person making the positive claim, in this case babies in ovens, has the burden of proof.
To ask for proof that it is not true is unreasonable.

The horrific claims of baby killing reminds me of the Iraq war. A Kuwaiti woman testified before congress that Iraqi troops were throwing premature babies out of incubators.
It was later revealed that the claims were false and developed by a PR firm.
Why make these claims when the invasion itself was enough to get the UN involved.

These claims about 10/7 seem to just gild the lily of that horror as well. The US would have come to the aid of Israel anyway.
If the claims are false they don't reflect well on the people making them.

But my suspicion is that no amount of proof is going to be enough

The reports and the pictures are out there if you want to see them

Last edited Sun May 25, 2025, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The burden of proof is on you.

I can be convinced by evidence.

A web search for babies in ovens shows more hits against the claim than for.
On edit absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But there ya go.

Scroll down

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahus-office-releases-horrifying-images-of-infants-murdered-by-hamas/

But your link doesn't have proof of ovens or beheading.

This article outlines your problem.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-772181
The first public statement is on 10/28 at a conference in Las Vegas. It is second hand testimony at best.
Unraveling the thread leads to more second hand testimony.
Even the one expert testimony is second hand.
While there were many burned bodies, the only evidence of ovens is hearsay.
BTW your article doesn't mention ovens.
Let me add that this article doesn't say there were no babies murdered in ovens, just that the evidence is weak.

This is more of the same.
https://www.sochfactcheck.com/media-consensus-reveals-no-evidence-of-israeli-baby-burned-in-oven-by-hamas/
Part of your article quotes Joe Biden as indicating he had seen pictures of beheaded babies. The next day the Biden administration back away from what he had said.

A charred baby and eye-witnessed who said they found him in an oven.

You aren't even discussing this in good faith. You don't want to believe it, so you won't. I don't care.

Is there an eye witness account of finding a baby in an oven. Not even a second hand witness.

The closest you get is a person seeing a burned baby and claiming its injuries looked suspicious and that same person claiming an expert told him, when asked, that the injuries looked suspicious.

There are thousands of points of hard evidence for the atrocities committed on 10/7. So far no hard evidence for babies in ovens.

the revenge for that satisfy them? Killing innocent Palestinian children is murder by Israel’s military. They can refuse to do that but seem happy to oblige Nuttyahoo’s genocide

Or put in ovens.

The Times of Israel listed the names of all who died that day. They named one baby who was killed on parents lap.Another was I believe a baby still in a mom’s uterus.
Not even sure Hamas did it as Israeli helicopters bombed the cars and might have bombed the house the baby was in according to some reports.

Times of Israel
“ Partial data by Hebrew media covering the civilians — killed by thousands of invading terrorists and by some of the thousands of rockets fired that day at Israeli cities — reveals that they include two infants, 12 other children under the age of 10, 36 civilians aged 10-19, and 25 elderly people over the age of 80, accounting for 75 of the 764 civilians.”. Even 2 infants is sad but now Israel has killed thousands of Gaza infants.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/14-kids-under-10-25-people-over-80-up-to-date-breakdown-of-oct-7-victims-we-know-about/

Palestine published the names of over 710 newborn Gaza baby names a few months ago. Remember when Israel bombed the hospital with the newborns hooked up to monitors & left the babies to die.

And baby != newborn.

And the Israeli people have supported it. Netanyahu is simply the culmination of all the hate and violence. Much like Trump is the culmination of our push towards an oligarchy. Americans for the past hundred years have supported this, Trump is simply the latest, and after all of these decades, he might very well succeed.

of the history of Israel.
I don't want to get into it here.
I'll look for a source for you if you can't find one.

Remember, at the inception of Israel, Jews from the Islamic states in the Middle East, were expelled, their land and homes confiscated. Yemen, Morocco ...

A quick search brought me this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world

It is Hamas' mission to eradicate the State of Israel and KILL all Jews.

The newbie also thinks it's good to invade President Biden's privacy and supports Comer investigating it.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20340252

n/t

This one did not say such a thing and has been here for nearly a year.

when they did not (at least not at the link you provided).



the poster from your link is a completely different person:



yet your post misleadingly frames indusurb as attacking Biden (using the framing 'the newbie also thinks'):




The post from Mossfern you replied to with that was talking to indusurb, not the poster from your link, yet you attempted to conflate the two posters.

Also, if anyone's looking for a decent history of the conflict, I wouldn't tell them they need to read a Wiki page. I'd start them off with 'The Iron Wall' by Avi Shlaim. I'd also recommend 'One Palestine, Complete' by Tom Segev, and 'The Palestinian People' by Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal.

I recommend people read The Hundred Years' War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi. I saw a pic of President Biden carrying the book himself. If it was fake - I don't know - it was a powerful image and a comforting thought.

Open a history book, read it, and then get back to us.

Interesting article related to Israel’s conquest of Gaza in 1956:

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2021-11-04/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/account-from-56-describes-slaughter-and-rape-by-idf-troops-in-gaza-is-it-true/0000017f-eef4-da6f-a77f-fefee9740000

https://archive.is/1qrcT

Egypt didn’t control Gaza at that time.

Certainly, the story of Israel’s impact on Gaza didn’t start in 1967.

When Egypt seized the Suez Canal from the British company that owned it in late 1956, French, British, and Israeli forces invaded Egypt to get it back. What part of Egypt did they invade? Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula.

Gaza was back in Egyptian control by March 1957, and it remained in Egyptian hands until 1967 when Egypt, Jordan, and Syria stupidly started another war with Israel.

Like I said, open a history book and read it.

None of the proposals discussed came to fruition because the Israeli occupation was short-lived when the crisis was resolved.

After that, Gaza was back in Egyptian hands.

. . . when Isreal gifted the Sinai to Egypt Gaza was potentially part of the offer. I wonder why Egypt didn't want it.

that are pushing this? e.g., Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit, Noam, and National Unity

than just single out Netanyahu...

Netanyahu is their "leader" .

Again there is a history of Ultra Orthodox in the US mounting campaigns to settle in Israel, specifically the West Bank. Especially from Brooklyn.

Authoritarianism and refusing to see oneself in the "other" (Levinas) is a feature of right-wing religious sects - irrespective of the
people or the particular core belief set. Personally all fundamentalism be it Jewish, Christian or Muslim is profoundly disgusting to me. Cowards all, just begging for the shackles, whether of the mind or body.

the "social system" in the surrounding Islamic nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Saudi_Arabia

Criticism of all repressive policies in the area would help.
Why single out Israel?

But to be fair the post is about Israel.

all religions are accepted to be practiced - there are Arab and Muslim member of the Knesset.
OK?
Only about Israel.

I'd love to have a discussion with someone who doesn't have black and white thinking.
Neither side in the Palestine/Israel conflict is without merit or without blame.
The UN is complicit.

As you know, the history of the area is complex

Why expect people to talk about other countries?

I don't think one can talk about Israel without context of the area.
My post above was only about Israel.

"Criticism of all repressive policies in the area would help.
Why single out Israel?"

so when something happens in Israel, people should not talk about Gaza.

Or conversely, if something happens in Gaza one should not talk about Israel -except, of course if what happens in Gaza is something that Israel did.

Your request is kind of restrictive.
There's a lot of whataboutism that goes on.

I wonder why you picked out my post.
I was merely saying that those policies are not exclusive to Israel.

If there is information that bears on the conversation that would include one or more countries then it makes sense to talk about those countries. But if your like "trump sucks" and then someone said sure but look at Cuba's policies someone might wonder where that came from.

But I get your drift.

Better analogy US and Canada

"Cuba is classified as a North American country."
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/is-cuba-part-of-north-america.html

There are many Israelis who are against Netanyahu.
Witness demonstrations in Israel against him:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=demonstrations+against+Netanyahu+in+Israel#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:fe121f3a,vid:h4vwIM1zE4U,st:0

Doesn't negate the fact he won an election.
Like Trump.
And of course I realize that not all Israelis support Netanyahu. Too many do, though.

The progressive and left wing in Israel needs to get its political act together.
It's a very difficult situation.

Somehow people need to understand the modern state of Israel is not the same as the Israel in Torah.
Religious Jews need to realize that the promised land of Israel in scripture cannot be until the coming of Moshiah. Therefore the "religious" are going against scripture when they use the bible to justify their actions. The realistic attitude is that Jewish people, because of our history, need a safe haven. There's a reason for the motto "never again."

Right now, as an American, I prefer to focus on ridding our nation of fascists in our government.