To think there are very few allies against Anti-Semitism?

I was lazy and asked Grok which organisations are explicity supportive of Israel during this conflict:

American Jewish Committee (AJC): The AJC has consistently defended Israel’s military actions as self-defense against Hamas, explicitly rejecting genocide claims as baseless. They argue Israel targets Hamas, not Palestinians as a group, and highlight Israel’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties. Their stance is rooted in international law, emphasizing Hamas’s actions, like the October 7 attack, as the catalyst.ajc.orgajc.org
World Jewish Congress (WJC): The WJC often backs Israel’s right to self-defense and has not supported genocide allegations. They focus on Israel’s security concerns and combating antisemitism globally, framing Israel’s actions as responses to existential threats like Hamas. They tend to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and emphasize diplomatic solutions.
StandWithUs: This nonprofit promotes Israel’s narrative, particularly in Western countries, and educates on Israel’s efforts to avoid civilian harm. They’ve rejected genocide accusations, arguing they misrepresent Israel’s targeted operations against Hamas and other groups. Their materials often cite Israel’s humanitarian aid efforts, like facilitating aid to Gaza, as evidence against such claims.
Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA): The JFNA supports Israel through fundraising and advocacy, focusing on its right to defend against terrorism. They’ve highlighted Israel’s aid facilitation (e.g., nearly two million tons of aid to Gaza) to counter narratives of deliberate civilian targeting, implicitly rejecting genocide claims.nytimes.com
Christians United for Israel (CUFI): This U.S.-based Christian organization strongly supports Israel’s military and political actions, viewing them as legitimate self-defense. They’ve dismissed genocide accusations as distortions, often citing Hamas’s tactics, like embedding in civilian areas, as the cause of civilian harm.

Genocide has a very specific legal definition. It’s not just about the scale of the killing or suffering, it’s about intent.

The perpetrators have to specifically intend to destroy a group, in whole or in part.
That’s a high bar to meet legally, and rightly so, because it carries enormous weight.

You can have war crimes or crimes against humanity without it being genocide.
So, when I look at the evidence, I’m trying to see whether it meets that threshold, not just morally (which is obvious: the situation is horrific), but in terms of what a court would need to convict someone of genocide.

This doesn’t mean the allegations aren’t serious.
On the contrary, they absolutely deserve full investigation, and if genocide has occurred, it should be prosecuted.
But jumping to that conclusion prematurely can undermine accountability rather than strengthen it, especially if the legal threshold isn’t clearly met and cases fall apart in court.

A list of major organisations are 'one side' because they have all come to the same conclusion?

So all these organisations have explicity stated that in their view, Israel is committing genocide, despite the fact that the ICJ court case is still ongoing and the outcome has not yet been ruled on?

MSF have been right there on the ground. What do you think their biases are?

That's why I said most of the organisations, not all. I have no idea as I don't follow them. I follow on an event by event basis, I don't check specific organisations to see what I should be thinking.

A list of major organisations are 'one side' because they have all come to the same conclusion? That's interesting. Can you give me a list of all of the NGOs and major human rights organisations that are 'the other side'. I would be interested in reading what they have to say.

MSF have been right there on the ground. What do you think their biases are?

What do you evidence do you believe you have that all of these organisations are missing?

I've never claimed I'm definitely right and they're definitely wrong. But there are major conflicting claims for just about every event in this war. Why would I blindly believe one side exclusively? Organisations have their biases, and most are no closer to being on the ground than we are.

I especially have no time for the horrible Amnesty with their betrayal of women.

Can I ask why you believe you know better than B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights‑Israel (PHR‑Israel), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF / Doctors Without Borders), Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Genocide Watch, the International Federation for Human Rights and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights?

What do you evidence do you believe you have that all of these organisations are missing?

Btw here's a good example of how propaganda spreads. Bernie Sanders, surely a highly credible source, posts an upsetting image of a severely malnourished child.

The problem is, that's not Gaza. It's Yemen in 2016. But how many people check? The emotional impact is the made, and people repeat it. It becomes accepted as "truth", and challenging it makes you heartless.

https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1949893130880192765

I’m relaying my lived experience as someone who has only known 1 grandparent, as the rest died in the genocide.

As @SpaceRaccoon says. We aren’t denying there is a tragic loss of many lives.

Please stop it with your nonsense. People on here taking about complex and nuanced. Sitting on their settees denying a genocide playing out in front of their eyes by the Israeli government agains the people of Palestine.

I don't think there is a genocide. That doesn't mean I'm denying that many civilians have died, and they are presently suffering. But do I think Israel has the intention of wiping out all Palestinians? No. I don't think the motivation is there.

Please stop it with your nonsense. People on here taking about complex and nuanced. Sitting on their settees denying a genocide playing out in front of their eyes by the Israeli government agains the people of Palestine. Babies and children orphaned, mutated and starved. I am only glad that our grandfathers (some came home, some didn’t) did not question their obligation to fight the Nazis when they were carrying out genocide against the Jews else there would have been even more deaths. My grandfather did not come home and my husbands grandfather who was in a stalag for the whole war as a POW never recovered mentally or physically.

I wasn’t referring to you specifically there @nomas - I see how it read like that.

There is definitely hyperbole on both sides. We agree there.

My observation is similar to what @SpaceRaccoon just described.

I've not shouted at anyone and I think there is hyperbole on both sides. I do think it's a shame OP's thread has become about Israel/Palestine. I might be wrong but I don't think that's what she wanted. She might be better off asking for asking at the outset that all talk is to be about the UK only.

.

I thought similarly but if you click on the image shared it expands and you can more

Ah, I see what you mean. I'd disagree with that poster then, as of course every critisism of Israel isn't antisemitism. Hell, Andrew Fox, who I follow on X, is currently being pretty scathing about how the IDF have handled aid distribution, for instance. I'm I'm sure there is plenty of completely valid critisism that could be leveled at Netanyahu etc.

As I said, it's more the bad faith interpretations - the bloodthisty baby killers stuff, the assumption that Israel seeks to kill as many civilians as possible on purpose, or seeks to kill babies.

I thought similarly @SpaceRaccoon but if you click on the image shared it expands and you can see more and what I think @nomas is talking about.

Ofcourse there will be inconsistencies, what I say is not absolute. But my experience from the past few years of discussion is generally (emphasis on the generally, as in not all the time) what I described in my last post.
I can only tell you my experience and opinion, and you can only shout yours back.

That would be convenient for you but it’s not true. The thread is littered with people saying any criticism of Israel is not legitimate. Example attached.

Why are you quoting yourself like you're some sort of authority?
Also you've not actually responded to the post you've quoted, just had some sort of conversation with yourself.

That would be convenient for you but it’s not true. The thread is littered with people saying any criticism of Israel is not legitimate. Example attached.

One thing that really stands out in this thread, and seems to be a consistent pattern, is the contrast in how people approach discussion.
Those who are more neutral, and here at least, who lean toward the Israeli/Jewish perspective (since it feels like today’s discourse forces us to “pick a side”), tend to express themselves with more openness, thoughtfulness, and a willingness to engage without resorting to dogma.
In contrast, there are others who respond with aggression and repetition (in this thread’s case, often those arguing against the initial OP and questioning ‘anti semitism’) relying heavily on slogans and emotionally charged language, without much room for reflection or nuanced dialogue.

And there we have it.

‘According to Israel’ fairly sure that anything that comes after those words is going to be utter and complete bullshit regardless of the context.

If it’s difficult to sit with the uncertainty, it’s uncomfortable, and not knowing for sure can be deeply unsettling. But it’s really important to question everything and check your bias.

This is such a good point. I find I'm sometimes almost pushed into sounding like I'm hardline on believing everything eg Israel says, but it's not that I believe everything they say as gospel either, I'm just countering the other point of view that is presented with great certainty.

What I have seen is that there is vast amounts of aid piled up and clearly there's been a distribution error. And that error might well be with the Israelis, although they say it's the UN.
What I do think though is that people are ascribing malice to a logistical mess.

I’ve said it before, time and time again.
I don’t take any single source of information as absolute truth.
However, the fact is there’s a lot of debate around whether this claim is accurate.
Much of it seems to stem from a story about one doctor having a few cans of baby formula confiscated at the border.
That said, the full truth is often hard to pin down in situations like this. There certainly seems to be a deficit in baby formula, especially specialised for pre term babies.

If it’s difficult to sit with the uncertainty, it’s uncomfortable, and not knowing for sure can be deeply unsettling. But it’s really important to question everything and check your bias.

Of course it only targets Hamas. That's why they've restricted the entry of formula milk right? It's well known that terrorists survive and thrive on Aptimal.

According to Israel, the aid is there and there's been a distrubution fuck-up. It's a political choice, beyond that, who you want to believe.