You are using genocide differently than the State Department. You are saying “genocide” to mean “lots of people die”. That’s not what it means. The State Department is using it in the legal definition under the Genocide Convention. They are saying that they can’t prove every element of the crime. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Just means that they can’t prove it.

That’s why the State Department concluded China’s actions “only” amounted to Crimes Against Humanity.

Genocide is a LEGAL term with a specific legal meaning. You are comparing apples and oranges the way you are blithely throwing the term around.

I was merely responding to your point that people didn’t know history before October 7. We’re not going to agree on anything if you think murderous mobs aren’t militants.

I don’t think Arabs are all the same and neither does Hamas. That’s why they kidnap Bedouin civilians and take them hostage too. That’s why they shoot at Druze IDF soldiers.

The Hebron massacre was terrible, I agree with you. And I know that Arabs also sheltered Jews in 1929. But we can’t ignore facts: Old Yishuv Jews were killed for things they had nothing to do with. They were not marching at the Wailing Wall. They were simply soft targets for Arab militants. Militants do not distinguish between good and bad. They reduce to ethnic identity — on both sides.

I also know that Deir Yassin was terrible. That the Hadassah Hospital massacre was terrible. That the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre was terrible. That Entebbe was terrible.

But I’m fucking sick of the left-tankie-Hamas alliance on social media that overlooks the reality of the conflict. They simply spout off about Israeli “apartheid” and “genocide” without any 1) reference to legal definitions of those terms or 2) historical knowledge.

But there is a reality we cannot ignore: Hamas will never accept Jews west of the Jordan River, period. That’s what they showed on October 7. It’s not about the occupation. It’s not about the Green Line. It’s not about the settlements in the West Bank. It’s about killing Jews and those who collaborate with Jews. It’s about establishing an Islamic theocracy from the river to the sea and killing Jews who remain.

For too long the left tried to contextualize and explain away Hamas’ brutal hate. We need to accept what they say is what they believe. We need to believe what they wrote in their first charter.

Oh… Really? You mean like back to 1980 when Palestinian terrorists took newborns and toddlers hostage at Kibbutz Misgav Am? Or in 1929 when Arab policemen murdered women and children of the “Old Yishuv” in Hebron because Jews (not the ones the Arabs were killing, mind you — but let’s ignore that inconvenient fact) were checks notes buying land from Arab sellers? Or what about in 1948 when the neighboring Arab countries sent their troops to war in violation of UN resolutions bearing symbols showing a knife through a Star of David? …wikimedia.org/…/File:Kaukji-armored-car-1948.jpg

Also, from your comment I realize you must be new to this conflict. On “your side” it’s passé to refer to “75 years of Israeli terrorism”. The pro move is to refer to “141 years of Zionist terrorism”.

…says someone too young to remember Hamas strapping bombs to human beings to blow up a Sbarro.

Hamas are terrorists. Always have been. Always will be.

The actual problem was that Ariel Sharon, who dismantled the settlements in Gaza and had begun to do the same in the West Bank, had a stroke. He was comatose and never recovered. Subsequent PMs have either lacked political capital to stop building (Olmert), or have actively encouraged it (Netanyahu).

Newspaper is not the source. Channel 12 is. Look at the original tweet. Channel 12 has nothing to do with JPost.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keshet_Media_Group

But keep up the mental gymnastics to defend Hamas and the corrupt UNRWA.

This is actual reporting. It was reported by Almog Boker on Channel 13 in Israel. Or is “actual reporting” some kind of new Hamas dog-whistle meaning Jews can’t be trusted?

That’s not an answer to my question: what evidence would satisfy you?

The testimony of a survivor is not an “opinion piece built on assumptions.” Would you say that a rape survivor’s account is an “opinion piece built on assumptions” if reported in the press?

This was the prior source thejc.com/…/hamas-armed-wing-announces-death-of-y…