(((noalee)))

Professionally trained artisan of words, believer in liberal democracy, MIT & Reichman University graduate. Musician. Born in Israel, raised in NYC. Proud Jew🌈

[(((noalee))) @noaleee]

Someone I used to be friends with "challenged" me to think about "who benefits" from me believing that Islamist fundamentalists are a threat to my safety as a Jew in Israel, or to Jews and other minority groups around the world

[Tal Hartuv @TalHartuv]

Hi Zack, I'm a British-born Israeli who was stabbed 18 times by a Palestinian terrorist. Another chopped up my friend in front of my eyes. One got out in the hostage deal. They were paid a salary for years by the UK gov.
Could you tweet: "all of this is a horrific crime. He should be held to account."
Thanks

[Alex Gandler @AlexGandler]

I met Ben once. We were seated at the same dinner table.

At first, we did not recognise each other. Neither of us had any idea we would end up at the same table.

I asked him where I knew him from. He replied, “Ben, from Ben & Jerry’s.”

I smiled and said, “Nice to meet you. I’m Alex, Deputy Consul General of Israel to the Southeastern United States.”

This was at the height of the Ben & Jerry’s Israel controversy. I decided not to raise politics, out of respect for our gracious host. But I was also biding my time, because I suspected he would not be able to resist bringing it up.

About an hour into dinner, he came over to talk.

I saw it as an opportunity to understand where he was coming from, to explain a few things, and to keep the conversation as civil as possible. And to be fair, it was civil. He was pleasant, curious, and polite.

But quite quickly, I also realised he was completely ignorant about Israel.

He had never visited the country or the region. He had basic facts wrong, not only about the narrative, but about the foundations of the conflict itself: the makeup of the countries involved, the history, and the deeply rooted reasons each side sees the conflict the way it does.

For him, it was simple: there are people who appear oppressed, so someone must be the oppressor.

I do not blame Ben personally. He is a businessman who sells ice cream. Why should he be expected to understand Israel, the Middle East, or geopolitics?

The real problem is with those who treat him as an authority.

The media gives him a pedestal to speak about issues he clearly does not understand. And that is the absurdity of it all: taking an ice cream salesman and presenting him as a voice of moral clarity on one of the most complex conflicts in the world.

[Carlos Abadi @NewSamawal]

Israel just published a detailed dossier on UN bias in Gaza. Most people won't read it. Here's what's in it:
🔹 OCHA undercounted aid trucks entering Gaza by nearly 10,000 vs. Israel's own records
🔹 UNRWA staff participated in Oct. 7 — the UN called it "a few bad apples" and opened no serious investigation
🔹 The IPC famine report relied on an undisclosed dataset with measurements that exceeded anything in medical literature
🔹 UN Women ignored Israeli victims entirely
🔹 The Secretary-General blacklisted the IDF while staying silent on Hamas
This isn't Israel crying bias. It's a documented, agency-by-agency breakdown.
Read it yourself: https://t.co/QFnaukXbat

[Drew Pavlou 🇦🇺🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼 @DrewPavlou]

When Palestinian jihadists tried to behead Thai migrant workers on October 7 they were just trying to free all of humanity guys.

[annanimiddy @annanimiddy]

You will never hear any other minorities talk this way about their safety. When anti-Asian racism happens, imagine a Chinese American saying "my safety is bound up with that of Tibetans and Uyghurs." It's transparently stupid and disgraceful. Brad is justifying antisemitism. This is what a spineless weasel looks like. Don't be like Brad. Protect your dignity.

[Not a Good Jewish Girl✡️ @estherzelda0514]

I was an American Jew in the diaspora that did not want to tie myself to Israel. I was only tangentially aware of it, and in pure young adult fashion, rebelliously annoyed to be reminded of it by the Jews around me. I talked about Israel not at all. If you had asked me, I was opposed to it.

That changed with Operation Cast Lead. I had no idea what it was called at the time. I was checked out completely. I was starting my PhD, and had no idea that there was anything happening in Israel. If it was mentioned, I just kind of glazed over and forgot about it. I was American, what did I care?

But the people around me in academia? They knew. They cared. They saw my posts on Facebook spending time with a cousin who lived there; a trip to Tel Aviv five years ago.

This was all it took.

I was asked by other students about Israel, where I stood on it, what I thought. These questions carried an air of accusation that puzzled me. When I said I do not know, and I do not care, the questions became more pointed, more hostile. Was I a Zionist?

What is a Zionist, I asked.

I did not know. I heard the term only in circumstances of it being in the title of Jewish organizations mentioned in temple conversations. I wasn't there for that, though, I wanted a second helping of kugel and the ladies gossiping at the post-services buffet were in the way.

My ignorance and nearly complete disinterest in Israel did not matter. I was tied to Israel whether I liked it or not. My dark eyes, tan skin, long dark curly hair, Mediterranean features, my Jewish husband who wore a kippah to fancy occasions... inquiring minds needed to know, was a good Jew or a bad Jew?

It was a game, and I did not know the rules. Tails they win, heads I lose. I quickly learned that unless I verbally prostrated myself and proclaimed the most violent of antisemitic terrorists had a point, I had to answer for Israel. Even if I did that, I would still have to answer for Israel.

Israel did not make me a Zionist. My Judaism did not make me a Zionist. Antizionists, who have always been antisemitic, always been hostile, made me a Zionist. Because I was not allowed to be anything but that, not if I wanted to have any respect for myself.

[Christian JB @christianjbdev]

David Frum on Kristof’s NYT piece.

https://t.co/k4bAAiRyXj

[Yaacov Behrman @ChabadLubavitch]

I have largely remained silent in public since January 1 because I believe criticism should be constructive and focused. But this post about the Nakba is deeply disturbing, not only because of its one sided and dishonest characterization of history, but also because it attempts to delegitimize Israel as a state even before 1967.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that the “settlements”, which began after 1967 following Israel’s victory in a war against neighboring states, are the root cause of the conflict, condemn them relentlessly, and justify marches through Jewish neighborhoods in New York over so called “illegal” land sales in the West Bank, while simultaneously condemning the very founding of the State of Israel itself through a one sided narrative built on distortion and falsehoods.

It is also worth noting that while thousands of Arabs lived within Israel between 1948 and 1967, Jews were expelled from areas captured by invading Arab armies from neighboring countries. Those expelled included Jews whose families had legally owned and purchased land for hundreds of years.

Take, for example, the Tzemach synagogue in Jerusalem. In 1847, more than a hundred years earlier, followers of Chabad Lubavitch established and purchased the synagogue in Jerusalem’s Old City. During the 1948 war, the Old City fell under Jordanian control. The Jewish population was expelled, and Jews were denied access to Jerusalem, including the Tzemach Tzedek synagogue.

I really do not want to get too deep into the history because that is not my main point here. There can be disagreements and different perspectives about what happened and to whom, but the focus should be on achieving a long term peace in Israel and the region.

The tweet’s one sided narrative deepens division instead of advancing peace, coexistence, and understanding, and it should never have been posted by the mayor of New York City.

[Douglas Murray @DouglasKMurray]

The New York Times feeds anti-Jew hatred with a horrific lie. @nypost https://t.co/BIsuMG34aS

[Batya Ungar-Sargon @bungarsargon]

I'm sorry but "Jews trained dogs to rape prisoners" is an IQ test and a lot of you are failing

[Aizenberg @Aizenberg55]

Now we know @nytimes & @NickKristof knew precisely the timing of the release of a new major report on Hamas' sexual violence on 10/7. They declined to publish a story about it and then they preempted its release with the fake "dog rape" and Hamas front Euro-Med trash. Shameful.

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

One final point worth making: The timing for Kristof's oped was to get ahead of this new report on Hamas.

In other words, he wasn't trying to reveal sexual crimes, but to cover for them.

And it worked. It always does.

https://t.co/w0zK1JAxjV

The UN secretary general is soon going to decide which countries should be on a UN blacklist for sexual violence.

Kristof is campaigning to get Israel on the list, while getting Hamas's crimes off the public agenda.

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

A lot of subscribers have asked what I made of the Nick Kristof oped.

So much has already been said. What more is there to say?

My first thought was everyone else's. Horrifying. Testimonies of pain and torture. We know that the Israeli Prisons Service is notoriously incompetent. There have been cases of Hamas prisoners abusing each other, and even famous cases of them abusing female Israeli guards. We know, too, that all prison systems struggle with the problem: New York prisons face 2,000 claims against them. So abuse of prisoners isn't merely possible, it's guaranteed. October 7 and the ensuing war sent thousands of detainees into the prisons. And in the early months, drafted into the system undertrained reservist guards. Guards who had seen Hamas's videos gleefully documenting their crimes.

I expected, therefore, a hard-hitting story of real abuse, something Israeli leaders must take notice of.

And then I came across the first obvious lie. And then the second. And then an odd claim -- maybe possible, but how exactly? -- and then another just like it. And a famed Hamas propagandist laundered as a reliable source. And then another.

Why, if there is no doubt that abuse occurred -- and there is no doubt -- was there so much obvious propaganda in Kristof's oped?

I won't pretend the lies weren't a relief. They were. It's agony to read about Israeli criminality, and the lies let me cast doubt on the whole narrative. There's an obvious propaganda campaign at work here.

But as claim followed claim, it became hard not to wonder: Despite the propaganda, what part is nevertheless true? How bad has it gotten?

So here's what we know, or at least what I think I know.

This is a campaign that seeks our destruction. Kristof quotes people who celebrated October 7 and want Israel destroyed, and will lie to achieve that goal. We know how the lies in this story made their way into it, where they came from and what purpose they serve.

Even so, I'm not willing to conclude there's no truth at all in there, just because there are lies.

Dogs did not rape anyone. The people who invented that particular inanity claimed it without evidence, knowing that no one, certainly not self-appointed moral arbiters like Nick Kristof, would ever bother checking the provenance of the claim.

Because they never, ever do. Because why would they?

So the claim spreads through the millions-strong activist network without investigation, exciting and mobilizing -- not because anyone understands how it might be possible but for the sheer thrill of it.

And it's cited by Kristof as a reliable report.

A recent report by a Norwegian NGO, also referenced, claimed "systemic sexual violence" in the West Bank by citing just 16 cases across three years in a geographic region containing as many as three million Palestinians and over half a million Israelis. And some of the examples scarcely cleared the bar for harassment.

But the NGO in question knew for a fact that no journalist would look too deeply into any of it. And indeed, no journalist did.

Because they never, ever do. Because why would they?

Friends, a paper trail is being created. Just like they created a paper trail on mass starvation in Gaza -- mass starvation first claimed in early 2024, and then claimed again and again by NGOs, the UN, everybody. Some were nuanced warnings of a "possibility," some declared it had arrived. The headlines from both were largely the same. And then, in thundering silence, the mass starvation claim just faded away, never having materialized -- while billions of ordinary people around the world who don't follow too closely remain convinced that countless Gazans died of starvation.

So they moved on. A Lancet letter claiming hundreds of thousands of deaths spread like wildfire, mostly because (a) nobody actually read or understood what it claimed and (b) nobody cared enough to check if it was remotely plausible. Then, just in case anyone forgot Lancet, came the claim by UN rapporteurs of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children -- 380,000 infants under five allegedly died, more than the entire population of infants in Gaza. Stupid, right? But it was repeated again and again by activists and protestors.

No one checks, no costs are exacted for the never-ending barrage of fakery. Because why would they?

A wild religious frenzy has taken hold. Hatred of Israel is now definitional to the left, and to parts of the right. Greta Thunberg has forgotten all about climate change. An enemy of humanity has been identified just in time to unleash all the pent-up religious rage that this troubled secular age won't allow against anyone else.

And by complete and utter coincidence, that enemy you're suddenly allowed to hate is vaguely associated with the Jews.

Yes, alas, it really is that simple.

But also, dear friends -- bear with me -- it isn't.

All the above is true. They're fucking liars and bigots. They marched in their millions, again and again and again, for weeks and months and years -- marches completely unprecedented in their size, regularity and duration in all the history of the West, in all the history of war, larger by orders of magnitude than all other marches for all other conflicts and wars and suffering combined, even those caused by their own governments. And no serious person pretends that anything similar could ever have coalesced or will ever coalesce again unless Israel is involved.

"But we fund you," shouts the American activist to explain this mind-numbing selectivity. Then why did one-third of the city of Amsterdam march? Or millions of Spaniards, Brazilians and Indonesians? It was unprecedented and it was everywhere.

And Kristof has joined the new religion. Not by being concerned about abuse, but by not caring one whit whether he's trafficking in truths or lies. Only the Jews will ask to distinguish between the two. He just needs to throw it all on the page, and his membership in the glorious crusade is assured.

Alas, the Jews are correct about the nature of this moment. Some things are so big and fundamental, so assumed and widespread, that they become hard to see. Fish don't notice the water. Activists who can only ever march against Jews are convinced they are merely righteous people enraged by war, without ever pausing to wonder why the only war that ever enraged them or ever made its way to their phones was one particular war, and not larger and deadlier wars also conducted with Western weapons and money.

And so the Jew is made fearful once more. Throughout Christendom and Islam, he is being returned to his proper place in the social hierarchies of old, complete with anxious conversos and ideological purity tests.

And yet, still, despite it all, their lies aren't the end of the story. Their lies are a separate story. A campaign of lies that constitutes a return to the mean for the Jewish condition in the West. A campaign meant to justify brutality against us, not to end war or suffering.

And despite all of it, dear Jews, there really is abuse.

It's nowhere near as much as the psychotic claims of these fantasists. Not by orders of magnitude. If it was, they wouldn't need to lie so much.

But it's there nonetheless. Many dozens of cases at least, probably in the low hundreds by now, most of them without any sexual aspect, but still wanton violence. Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the army gave a few estimates to the courts a couple of times over the past three years. There have been many indictments filed against soldiers, serious ones. I know something about a handful of those cases. I know that the problem is real.

It's there, it's real, and it doesn't seem to be stopping. And if it isn't stopped with an iron will and uncompromising hand, it will continue to fester and grow.

And it must be said: neither Ben Gvir nor Netanyahu are interested in fixing it. Nobody at the top cares about the rights of prisoners.

Let me be clear: For the first time in my life, I support a death penalty. No one who crossed over the border to massacre and kidnap on October 7 should be left alive; they came to kidnap children precisely because they sought the release of mass murderers kept alive in our prisons. Hamas, as always, in its totalizing brutality, forces the choice: If their murderers live, our children may die. I choose our children. And those who came for our children cannot be deterred, reformed or deradicalized. They murder their own to clear a path to murdering ours. And so I believe they must die. We must try, convict and destroy them.

And even I, radicalized in this narrow, specific way, say we cannot collapse into torture or abuse. That's not justice. It isn't even vengeance. It is participation in Hamas's way of war.

Nor do our leaders seem to care about the simple breakdown of discipline that these abuses represent, the kind of breakdown we saw again and again with the incidents of looting in Gaza and in the early cases of prisoner abuse that came to light.

No, dogs aren't being trained to systematically rape prisoners, you nattering halfwits. And no, Hamas propaganda operatives are not reliable sources on the question of Israeli crimes. The vast, vast majority of soldiers are honorable men who walked into fire so our families may live. The whole world may turn on them; I will stand with them, grateful for their sacrifice. And Kristof, a willing purveyor of propaganda happily feigning that he can't see the water and thrilling to a moral crusade engineered by would-be genocidaires he pretends not to understand -- is no messenger of moral reckoning.

But friends, so fucking what. Let the narcissistic guttersnipes strut their moral emotions before the world, let the UN publish endless reports that don't hold up to basic scrutiny, let the NGOs dream their rabid, sick dreams that no journalist ever fact-checks -- yes, they're lying. But so fucking what.

We still, for ourselves -- because fuck them -- must see that it isn't all fake. The problem is real. It's far smaller than they claim, but real nonetheless. And when discipline and morality break down, it can only get worse. We either crack down now or we watch it fester and grow.

And our own Ben Gvirs are stubbornly refusing to fix what is actually broken, the real thing in the real world.

And so we are caught in a strange sort of vise, the same vise we find ourselves in with the genocide lie: A vast propaganda machine that seeks to destroy us -- countless activists too high on their own self-regard to see the irony of raging against a "genocide" while calling for the erasure of a people -- all while our own incompetent, venal, self-absorbed political class insist in their mindless chatter on confirming every claim of our enemies for sheer, bald egomania.

I'm sick of it all. I know you're all sick of it too.

And that, in a nutshell, is what I think about this.

Just because they're lying, just because a vast perfidious campaign has overwhelmed global elites in a bid to clear the way for our removal, just because they're still, after two millennia, building their visions of redemption on The Evil Jew -- doesn't mean there isn't also, separately, a problem on the ground.

So what do we do now?

Simple. We see it, we acknowledge it's happening, we bring our rage to our inept leaders until they bend to our will and act to stop the breakdown...

And we soldier on.

We soldier on because the enemy really is coming to murder us. Because Hamas must still go if Gaza is ever to rise to a new day. Because Hezbollah will yet destroy Lebanon on the altar of destroying us. Because the ayatollahs built their whole damn religion on the extermination of our children.

We fix the broken things within us as if the pogromists and their simpering Kristofs don't exist. We owe no answers to the propagandists who seek to clear a path to our deaths. But we do owe answers to ourselves.

Let the screaming mob rage and churn like so much sea-foam. Despite that raging mob, despite the enemy who still seeks our destruction, and yes, despite feckless incompetents like Ben Gvir, our minister of prisons, who claim to lead us -- we remain the strongest, freest Jews who ever lived, more capable and committed than our self-destructive enemies ever imagined. And the task is still before us, yet to be completed, the sacred duty given to our generation to ensure our children don't have to face the genocidaires who now surround us. We do not waver, we do not stumble. We soldier on.

Because fuck them all.

[Daniel Bral @DanielBral]

What is so telling about this stance is that a politician can be a literal white supremacist, yet still be offered salvation so long as they meet a single criteria: hating Israel—which is what this is really about, references to Trump and Epstein notwithstanding.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Le libéralisme, c'est la puanteur extrême ? Très bien. Faisons une démonstration que même un enfant de 8 ans peut comprendre. Et à la fin, on verra qui pue.

Étape 1. En 1800, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Famine, mortalité infantile à 40%, espérance de vie de 30 ans. C'était la norme depuis 10 000 ans. La condition humaine, c'était ça : vivre vite, mourir tôt, enterrer ses enfants.

Étape 2. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9% de l'humanité vit dans l'extrême pauvreté. L'espérance de vie mondiale est passée à 73 ans. La mortalité infantile est sous 4%. C'est la révolution la plus massive de l'histoire humaine. Aucune autre période n'arrive à la cheville de ces deux derniers siècles.

Étape 3. Question simple. Qu'est-ce qui a changé entre 1800 et aujourd'hui ? Une seule chose. L'apparition d'économies fondées sur la propriété privée, le libre-échange, et la liberté entrepreneuriale. C'est-à-dire le libéralisme. Tout le reste (vaccins, électricité, agriculture moderne, antibiotiques) en est la conséquence directe.

Étape 4. Le test grandeur nature de l'histoire. Allemagne de l'Est vs Allemagne de l'Ouest. Même peuple, même langue, même culture, séparés en 1945. Quarante ans plus tard, un Allemand de l'Ouest était trois fois plus riche, vivait plus longtemps, et était libre. Les Allemands de l'Est essayaient de fuir en escaladant un mur, pas l'inverse.

Étape 5. Corée du Nord vs Corée du Sud. Même peuple, même langue, même culture, séparés en 1953. Aujourd'hui, le Sud-Coréen est quarante fois plus riche que le Nord-Coréen. Le Nord est une famine permanente. Le Sud produit Samsung, Hyundai, K-pop, et a sorti son peuple de la misère en deux générations.

Étape 6. Hong Kong vs Chine maoïste. Même peuple, même langue, même culture. Hong Kong a appliqué le libéralisme dans sa version la plus pure pendant 40 ans. Résultat : passé du niveau de l'Afrique sub-saharienne à l'un des PIB par habitant les plus élevés au monde. Pendant que la Chine maoïste tuait 45 millions de ses propres citoyens dans le Grand Bond en avant.

Étape 7. Et quand la Chine a libéralisé partiellement son économie après 1978, elle a sorti 800 millions de personnes de la pauvreté en 40 ans. Plus que toutes les politiques d'aide au développement de l'histoire combinées. La libéralisation a fait, à elle seule, ce que des trillions d'aide internationale n'ont jamais réussi à faire.

Étape 8. Le palmarès des pays les plus libéraux du monde aujourd'hui (Suisse, Singapour, Danemark, Estonie, Pays-Bas, Irlande) : moins de pauvreté qu'ailleurs, plus de mobilité sociale qu'ailleurs, services publics mieux financés qu'ailleurs, et des inégalités plus faibles qu'en France. La France, championne du monde de la dépense publique à 57%, a une mobilité sociale plus faible que les États-Unis. Méditer cinq minutes.

Étape 9. Les pays qui ont rejeté le libéralisme : URSS, Cuba, Venezuela, Corée du Nord, Cambodge des Khmers rouges, Chine maoïste, Zimbabwe de Mugabe. Bilan total : autour de 100 millions de morts au 20ème siècle, des famines à répétition, des effondrements économiques, et de la pauvreté de masse. Sans aucune exception.

Étape 10. Conclusion. Le libéralisme n'est pas une "idéologie". C'est juste le constat empirique, vérifié sur 200 ans et sur des centaines de pays, que la liberté économique produit de la prospérité, et que la coercition étatique produit de la misère. Ce n'est pas une opinion. C'est une régularité scientifique aussi solide que la gravité.

La phrase de Franck Delahaye sur "le Parisien qui marche sur un type mort dans la rue" est révélatrice. Elle révèle que pour les anti-libéraux, la richesse est forcément le résultat d'une violence. Ils ne peuvent littéralement pas concevoir qu'on puisse devenir riche en créant de la valeur pour les autres. Pour eux, toute richesse est volée par définition. C'est une vision théologique du monde, pas une analyse économique.

Or c'est exactement l'inverse. Le libéralisme est le seul système qui force la création de richesse à passer par le service rendu aux autres. Personne n'est obligé d'acheter votre produit. Personne n'est obligé de travailler pour vous. Vous ne devenez riche qu'en convainquant des millions de gens, librement, que ce que vous offrez vaut plus que ce qu'ils donnent en échange. C'est le système le plus profondément moral jamais inventé. Toutes les autres formes d'enrichissement (rente, captation politique, corruption, héritage de privilèges) sont des trahisons du libéralisme, pas son essence.

Donc, non, le libéralisme n'est pas la puanteur extrême. La puanteur extrême, c'est la pauvreté de masse maintenue par la planification étatique. C'est les enfants vénézuéliens qui mangent dans les poubelles. C'est les fosses communes nord-coréennes. C'est les famines soviétiques. C'est la France qui s'enfonce avec 113% de dette pendant que ses jeunes partent à Londres, Dubaï ou Lisbonne.

Maintenant que tu as vu ça, je te conseille un premier livre. La Route de la Servitude, de Friedrich Hayek, 1944. Court, accessible, écrit pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale par un homme qui voyait revenir en démocratie les mêmes mécanismes qu'il avait vus monter en Allemagne. Lis-le. Ça va te faire sortir de tes idées préconçues plus vite que dix ans de débat sur Twitter.

Et ensuite on en reparle.

[Kamel Amin Thaabet @K_AminThaabet]

What fresh hell is this? New Yorkers have zero positive responsibility as to any political matter, let alone a foreign one, let alone this one that has been so distorted and propagandized. NYC is a free city, not a totalitarian enclave where the government mandates mobilization.

[Claire @Claire_V0ltaire]

Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack was a deliberate, large-scale massacre with genocidal intent and invasion, not spontaneous but meticulously planned, and resulted in the brutal murders of about 1,200 people (mostly civilians, including children and foreigners), involved documented atrocities like mass rape, mutilation, burning people alive, and taking ~250 hostages. Hamas and Palestinian civilians participated, with fighters overrunning communities and a music festival.

Israeli airstrikes began on October 7 (within hours) and intensified on October 8, as Israel was still fighting militants inside its territory, clearing out terrorists, and responding to an ongoing threat.

Calling Israel’s immediate response on October 8 “genocide”, celebrating October 7, and vile mads protests globally ignores the sequence and legal intent required for that term.

[Jonah Platt @JonahPlatt]

When folks on the left urge Jews to focus on 'the real antisemitism', not only are Jewish concerns immediately dismissed, but a non-Jewish person asserts themselves as more of an authority on what counts as hate against Jews than actual engaged Jews are.

That's bigotry, baby.

[Simone Rodan-Benzaquen @srodan]

There is a claim that keeps circulating, presented as sophisticated analysis: antisemitic violence is caused by Israel’s actions. If Israel behaved differently, Jewish communities around the world would somehow be safer. This argument is not analysis. It is a moral inversion. And it collapses the moment you apply it consistently.
When China imprisons Uyghurs, does anyone warn Muslim communities in Paris to expect attacks? When Russia invaded Ukraine, did anyone tell Russian restaurants to brace for violence? No. Never. The causal chain between a government’s actions and violence against a diaspora is only ever constructed for Jews. Every other minority is extended the basic moral courtesy of being treated as individuals rather than proxies.
Now look at what the data actually shows. The SPCJ, which tracks antisemitic incidents in France in coordination with the Interior Ministry, has documented a consistent and damning pattern: it is antisemitic violence that inspires more antisemitic violence, not Israeli policy. After Mohamed Merah murdered Jewish children at point-blank range at the Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse in 2012, antisemitic acts surged by 200%. There was no Gaza operation. No Israeli military action. The massacre of Jews in France produced more attacks on Jews in France.
The same logic held after the Hypercacher attack in January 2015: antisemitic acts increased by nearly 300%. Massacres of Jews do not shock antisemites into restraint. They embolden them. They signal impunity. They normalize hatred. And everyone in a position of responsibility knows it.
Which brings us to October 7. From the day of the Hamas attack, antisemitic acts in France increased by over 1,000%. A daily average of approximately 25 antisemitic acts was recorded in the 30 days that followed, reaching nearly 40 on some days. In the three months after the attack, the number of antisemitic acts equaled those recorded over the previous three years combined.
And here is another detail that makes the “Israel causes antisemitism” argument impossible to sustain: the spike began on October 7 itself, the very day of the attack. Israel had not yet responded. Not a single soldier had entered Gaza. Interior Minister Darmanin sent an urgent message to prefects that same day asking them to immediately reinforce protection of Jewish community sites. Synagogues. Schools. Community centers. By October 10, 10,000 police officers had been deployed to protect 500 Jewish sites across the country.
Before any Israeli response existed, the French government already knew that Jewish communities needed protecting. Not because of what Israel was about to do. Because of what had just been done to Jews.
Antisemitic violence has one cause. Antisemitism.

[Jonathan Eric Lewis @LewisJonathanE]

I would never define myself as a "genocide scholar," but I have taught university-level classes on the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the Rwandan genocide, and have published professionally on the topic

And I can say that Elliot is 100 percent correct

The elements of the crime of genocide are not remotely there with Gaza

The genocide accusation against Israel isn't a thoughtful scholarly assessment

It's propaganda meant to legitimize violence against Jews

That's why the accusation existed in antizionist circles well before October 7