Zionists scramble for justification

Now that the world has recognised that Israel is committing genocide, Zionist apologists are desperate for some kind of weapon to use against the accusation, so they can be considered to be moral.

Yossi Klein Halevi, touting himself as a New York Times Best-Selling Author, has penned a open letter to everybody to give an ‘explanation’ of the blood libel that he presumes we are all guilty of.

It’s worth clarifying what ‘blood libel’ might be. Let’s look back on a little history, specifically New York, with which our author will be familiar. Let’s examine the ‘Jewish mafia’ sometimes referred to as the Yiddish Black Hand. Before you splutter ‘blood libel’ you might like to research the phenomenon. You’ll find a clear history.

Now, should I characterise these folk as just Jews going about their business, that would be inaccurate. Their business was gaining wealth by killing. So, a statement like “The Jewish mafia committed homicide” would be accurate. But, if you protest against the adjective ‘Jewish’ then you simply haven’t done enough research to note that the Jewish mafia were distinct from the Italian mafia.

Just as I don’t characterise all Italians as ‘mafiosi’, so I don’t cast all Jews of New York at the time as members of the Jewish mafia.

Now, it is possible to use a Jewish mafia caricature to symbolise being Jewish in New York in the mid-war period. That’s just ordinary racism and also antisemitic and probably an example of the ‘blood libel’ trope. But, simply because someone builds that caricature, this doesn’t mean that, should I make a statement about the reality of Jewish mafia homicide, that I either align or agree with the caricature.

Mind you, even though the Jewish mafia committed homicide, I do not necessarily condemn them without knowing the context. Judgement without context is simple prejudice.

So, when we say “Israel is committing genocide” we are stating that the state of Israeli is killing an ethnic group which it classifies as terrorists, which we have studied from many angles and know to be true. This is a true statement.

If it reflects on a group of Zionists who think that’s justified, I am not required to be sensitive to their apologetics, nor them. It is they who are self-identifying as belonging to the state of Israel. I don’t identify the state of Israel as “Jewish”. Jewish is what people in Australia do in synagogues and living their faith. I can tell the difference between that and the nationalist, militarist, colonialist and racist apartheid ethno-state. I frankly don’t care if a bunch of Zionists say otherwise. I don’t rely on them for objective analysis.

Nor am I obliged to ‘buy into’ any of the narratives about October 7, 2023 or the subsequent war. I can see no good reason to believe the IDF or its propaganda.

Here’s a breakdown of some of the nonsense that Halevi presents as arguments.

There is a vigorous debate within the Jewish community over aspects of how this war was fought, and that is a sign of moral health. So is our pain over every innocent life lost. But we must unite in repudiating the lie of genocide.

Interesting. Because many Germans were likewise pained about the Nazis. Take Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example. If you think that Germans were not struggling with the morality of the Third Reich, then I guess you haven’t read much history. A pacifist posture is not unique.

The unprecedented combat conditions of the war

Well, it’s not a war. It’s an uprising. But, I understand the confusion.

hundreds of kilometers of tunnels,

Well, according to the IDF.

thousands of boobytrapped homes

Once again, according to the IDF

the conflating of combatants with “journalists” and “human rights workers”

You mean like conflating combatants (every Israeli over 18) with hostages? If it’s a war, they’d be prisoners.

the ratio of civilian-to-terrorist casualties, considered low for asymmetrical urban warfare

Well, if everybody in Gaza is a terrorist, then this statistical jiggery-pokery is inevitable.

the absence of mass starvation despite repeated claims of imminent catastrophe

Since Halevi was there, on the spot, he’s in a good place to judge this better than hundreds of international doctors? There's a lot a hubris there.

the warnings given to civilians before attack

Don’t aim at civilians. And, yes, you acknowledge they were targetted.

All these factors were erased in the eagerness to indict Israel for genocide

They aren’t factors. They are unsubstantiated assertions.

A crucial difference between war as tragedy and war as genocide is intent. In this war, only one side intended to commit genocide, and that is Hamas.

Hamas never had the means to genocide. Only one side has the means to commit genocide and it isn’t Hamas, regardless of how much you despise them.

To accuse Israel of genocide, the massacre of October 7 has been systematically downplayed, while Israeli actions have been distorted and amplified.

Downplayed by whom? Distorted? When Israeli TV airs a tank soldier querying whether kibbuztniks in a kibbutz should be spared and is told, “Go ahead and shoot”. Fairly unambiguous. Israelis kill their own.

Israel went to war on October 8 not out of vengeance, as its detractors claim, but to break the Iranian-led siege of terror enclaves on its borders, and to restore its deterrence, without which it cannot survive in the long term in the Middle East.

How do you explain, then, which you can’t, the presence of resistance fighters in the 1970s (PLO) when Iran was ruled by the Shah and notionally (and actually) an ally?

Thousands of rockets and missiles were fired at Israel in the weeks following the massacre, while Hamas starved and tortured 250 Israelis, some of whom were murdered in captivity.

You forget that the Israelis were combatants and holding them is not a crime. Children, aged and foreign workers were all released in 2023.

The classic definition of genocide has been changed to apply only to the Gaza war – just as anti-Israel NGOs changed the definition of apartheid and colonialism to apply only to Israel.

Because each genocide is unique in operation but not in principle. The same applies to apartheid.

Already on October 8, as Israel was still fighting terrorists within its border communities and hadn’t yet begun burying its dead, anti-Zionists began raising the cry of “genocide.” In fact, Israel’s enemies have been accusing it of genocide for decades.

Yes. They have. And Israelis have as well. Probably because the genocidal intent hasn’t changed, only the form.

The accusation of genocide has become a pretext for excluding, attacking and even murdering Jews around the world. Its purpose is to delegitimize Jewish self-determination and to turn the only Jewish state into the world’s arch criminal and pariah. The bitter irony is that Israel, home to half the world’s Jews, is the only country to face a sustained war of attempted genocide – from its inception in 1948 until today.

Isn’t it interesting how nobody talked about genocide by Jews before 1948. I guess that suggests a causal relationship between the colonial project of Zionists and these accusations.

We note with astonishment but not surprise the overwhelming silence of Israel’s defamers in the face of the atrocities of Iran – perhaps 30,000 civilians murdered in two days, one of the great crimes of our time. Anti-Zionism is not the defender of conscience but its betrayer.

Since you have no idea what anti-Zionist actually think about Iran, this is dismissed as some kind of ‘omniscience complex’.

I could expand on how each of the assertions is inherently a logical fallacy, but I think readers can work that out for themselves. However, for those not wanting to expend the effort, here’s the summary.

‘Genocide’ is a legal category under the Genocide Convention. It is adjudicated by courts, not settled by moral revulsion

“Moral health” requires openness to legal scrutiny; not enforced unanimity.

Proportionality and conduct arguments are not settled by assertions.

Genocide law is about intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group, not tunnels.

The existence of genocidal intent by Hamas does not legally immunise Israel from scrutiny

If the definition of genocide has changed, identify the treaty amendment.

Genetic fallacy. “Some people used the term irresponsibly early on” therefore “The term is invalid now”

The misuse of a charge does not determine whether the charge is true.

Antisemitic exploitation of a claim does not resolve the legal merits of the claim.

“What about Iran?” is not a rebuttal.

Self-determination is not a legal or moral shield against war crimes or genocide claims.