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

[Longingdreamer]

This month, I have had experienced Anti-Semitism twice. Both times I was with my children.

Both times, my children were distressed, and no one around did anything to protect us or raise the alarm. When we asked for help, we were dismissed. We were in very busy public spaces both times: a tube platform, then a high street.

I reported the first episode to the police. I'm not even sure if it's worth reporting the second episode. Sadly it feels so mainstream, and the authorities are not supportive when I report it either.

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.

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

On the contrary, they absolutely deserve full investigation, and if genocide has occurred, it should be prosecuted.

I very much agree with this. As I mentioned, I feel like a "latest atrocity" will hit the news cycle, then a few days later a more nuanced version will become apparent, or contradictory facts, but the emotional impact has been in the initial reporting.

I think it's actually necessary for a genuinely neutral body to hear evidence of what actually occured in this conflict.

Another thing that deeply puzzles me, is that it must be as apparent to any of these organisations as it is to me, that the war would end if Hamas handed back the remaining hostages, or their remains, and ceded power.
So why do they not bring their considerable influece to bear there? It seems both the quickest way to end the conflict, and the one most beneficial for the long-term stability of Gaza.

Maybe read up on some of the organisations a bit more, and you might conclude that their reports are worth listening to.

That's an interesting list of 5. I will look into these organisations, I have never heard of any of them before.

I took a quick look into your number 5 out of interest. They operate on the belief that Israel is part of a biblical prophecy, their base belief is that Israel must exist as a sovereign nation in the land for Jesus to return.

They sound very sensible indeed.

I'm looking forward to having the time to read into the other 4 later.

‘I don't think there is a genocide’ - okay well, the aid agencies on the ground, the UN, and most independent agencies are saying it IS genocide. War Crimes are being reported by whistleblowers inside the IDF, and there is now an entirely manmade - Israeli made - famine.
.
Israel may never come back from this, they’re joining other brutal regimes as world pariahs.

There’s now concern in Israel about the toll this is taking on their soldiers. Perhaps that’s what will stop this massacre, not moral reasons at all but the fact that Israelis will have enough of their children being sent to Gaza and coming back with lifelong PTSD from what they’re doing there. Not dissimilar to the Vietnam War - less concern about the innocent civilians being slaughtered than the conscripts sent to slaughter them.

Errrr. There has always been concern and anguish in Israel about the toll this will take on their soldiers. Is that not allowed?
There is concern about all victims of this horrible war.

I have limited sympathy for any military opening fire on civilians, crushing them in vehicles, bombing hospitals, denying food aid, killing children etc. I wouldn’t say I’m alone in that sentiment.
At this point it really doesn’t matter why a halt comes to this genocide, so long as it comes.

I feel like this thread is proving the ops point.

If I, as a black woman, posted that I had been on receiving end of racism and people responded by listing out atrocities carried out by black leaders in other countries as a deflection / justification for the attack it would be clear racism.

This is the same thing.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent you’re not a person who can entertain any kind of nuance or consideration of any other POV on this, so I’m not going bother any more.

100%

Thank you, that is exactly what I am feeling.

All of this is clearly justification and/or deflection, as you say.

I am talking about Anti-Semitism in the UK.

Let us know how you get on with the police, OP. The tube has excellent CCTV, with sound.

Can I just ask why you assume activist organisations automatically know better than military experts, governments like the United States, or people with access to classified intelligence?

The level of debate here is honestly embarrassing - like watching Year 10s argue in a classroom.

Forming an opinion means weighing up evidence, not just parroting the loudest NGO that happens to confirm your existing bias.

Groups like Amnesty have a political slant. They select the facts that suit their narrative and conveniently ignore the ones that don’t. They are campaigners.

So when you say, “I believe Amnesty over X,” all you're doing is telling us whose opinion you prefer, not proving anything as objectively true.

Amnesty think women sometimes have a penis. Do you think women sometimes have a penis? Do you take it as fact because that's the political view of an activist organisation, or do you make your own judgements?

Facts are objective - they can be checked. If you doubt one, go and verify it. That's how grown-up reasoning works.

Opinions, on the other hand, are subjective. The only ones worth listening to are those formed by people who’ve looked at all the facts - not just the ones that support their agenda - and who aren’t driven by bias. That’s precisely why judges get removed from cases where they can’t be impartial.

Organisations like B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, MSF, Genocide Watch, and others often share views I may agree with - and just as often, views I strongly don’t. Their opinions are not sacred texts!!! They're political actors with priorities and blind spots like anyone else.

So if you want to have an actual debate, have your opinion and provide reasoning as to why you have it. Don’t just wave someone else’s around like it’s a trump card.

There's about 5 genocides that experts agree on, the rest are hotly debated.

Historians tend to look at long-term patterns of intent, ideology, and documented policies. They’re more likely to call something genocide even if there’s no formal court ruling, based on historical evidence of exterminationist goals.

Legal scholars are far stricter. They want concrete evidence of specific intent to destroy a group as such, not just mass killing or displacement. Without a court ruling, many won’t call it genocide. That’s why the bar is so high at the International Criminal Court or the ICJ.

Human rights organisations tend to use the word politically, often to make moral statements or push international action. They often call something genocide without meeting legal standards.

South Africa filed a case at the ICJ in December 2023 accusing Israel of genocide. The whole thing clearly politically motivated. Since its creation in 2006, the UNHRC has passed over 100 resolutions condemning Israel - more than the rest of the world combined.

It becomes sadly difficult to take any of these organisations seriously when they use institutions of justice to basically pick on the country they want wiped off earth.

100% this

They have told me no audio. There is a lot of CCTV however, but I have little faith in any action: unfortunately Anti-Semitism doesn't seem to be taken seriously. I'm still waiting to hear.

Not read the entire thread but let me guess the gist of many comments.

The fun game of good Jew/bad Jew
It wasn't because you're Jewish, it's because Londoners are unfriendly/everyone is horrible/maybe you don't look Jewish (enough)
I'm not anti-Semitic but Gaza
Jews play victim
Jews scream antisemitism whenever Israel is criticised
Zionism blah blah

What have I missed out?