One of the most effective propaganda tricks in anti-Israel rhetoric is the strategic use of the word Zionist.

Notice the linguistic sleight of hand.

Israelis become Zionists. Jews who believe Israel has a right to exist become Zionists. Everything they don't like become Zionists. Suddenly, genocidal opposition to an actual country and its people can be packaged as opposition to an abstract enemy.

Meanwhile, Palestinians are consistently described as a distinct nation with an unquestionable national identity.

Here is the interesting historical irony: modern Palestinian nationalism developed the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods, within a broader Arab world whose borders were entirely shaped by European imperial powers and famously Sykes and Picot.

But why should Palestinian nationalism be treated as an unquestionable expression of national self-determination while the ancient nationalism of the ancient Jewish people dismissed as an objectionable ideology?

There is an enormous difference between criticizing Israeli government policies and advocating the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.

Yet the deliberate substitution of Zionist for Israeli can obscure that distinction makes the destruction of Israel turn into some sort of political question that is up for debate in polite conversation.

A demand that would otherwise sound murderous and extreme becomes much more palatable when framed as simply being "antizionist" as opposed to anti-Israel or antisemitic.

When someone is playing with the vocabulary, it shouldn't prevent us from examining what someone is actually advocating.

Whether Israel’s actions in Gaza are justified is a separate discussion. Even if every allegation against Israel, including genocide and apartheid, were true, none would justify hatred toward Jews abroad. Nobody should be held collectively responsible for a government’s actions because of their ethnicity, religion, or nationality. When anti-Zionist protesters target Jewish communities, harass Jewish students, or demand that Jews answer for Israel’s actions, they are engaging in collective blame. A movement that claims to stand for justice and human rights undermines those principles whenever it tolerates and excuses antisemitism within itself.

The anti-Zionist movement’s treatment of Jews abroad exposes a glaring double standard. Ethnic Russians whose families have lived abroad for generations are not blamed and harassed for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. North Koreans who escaped their country are not blamed for its dictatorship. Chinese and Iranian diaspora communities are not held responsible for their ancestral governments. Americans as a people are not collectively responsible for Donald Trump’s actions. The same principle must apply to Jews, yet hostility toward Israel is repeatedly used to justify harassing Jewish communities and attacking Jewish institutions. Supporting anti-Zionism or Palestinians does not give anyone a license to target Jews.

Since October 7, Jews around the world have faced a wave of violence: the Bondi Beach Hanukkah massacre, the Manchester synagogue attack on Yom Kippur, the murders outside Washington’s Capital Jewish Museum, the Boulder hostage-walk firebombing, the kidnapping and murder of Rabbi Zvi Kogan, the attacks on Israeli football fans in Amsterdam, the burning of Melbourne’s Adass Israel Synagogue, the mob hunting for Jewish passengers at Dagestan’s airport, and the attempted firebombing of a Berlin synagogue. These attacks expose the reality of treating Jews everywhere as targets for anger at Israel. Whatever anyone thinks of Israel’s policies, a movement that excuses attacks on Jews in the name of opposing Israel betrays the very principles of justice and human rights it claims to defend.

Indians have a history of fighting radical Islamism, and unfortunately it is exactly the same strategy that Pakistan has countlessly used on us, that Hamas is using against Israel.

Step 1 - Terror groups launch the first attack (Oct 7 and Kashmir Shooting)
Step 2 - Pakistan claims to be victim of terrorism and denies all claim of terror attack
Step 3 - India/Israel poises to retaliate as a response to Pakistani/Hamas shootings
Step 4 - Terrorists blend in with civilians and push the narrative "Look at the other side, they are killing innocents" while actively still attacking India/Israel
Step 5 - Manipulate media to push the message that civilians are being attacked and that they are the victims

It's almost a formula they keep using because it works. 2 days after the Kashmir shooting, people/mostly muslims were siding with Pakistanis because 1) they were also muslims and 2) the evil other is bombing children and women

I cannot see why Free Palestine is such a huge movement, it just means radical islam has been successful at manipulating opinions. It's scary because they have Mecca/Madina, they are now working to take Jerusalem (the most sacred land for Christ), and they have tried many times to take over sacred lands in India as well.

This is a spiritual war and people have their eyes closed. Celebrities are brainwashed and I feel like im the only gen alpha with a brain here. People keep using big words like genocide when Israel has been announcing the locations of the bombings, gave time for people to evacuate, provided assistance as food. And who even elected Hamas? Palestinians. Did they know Hamas had a history of oppression? Yes.

So i am at a lost here. I keep reading about the war and I have no idea who support for Palestine has grown so much but not just that, just sheer hatred towards Isreal is crazy to me. They don't even mention Hamas anymore, it's just hatred towards Israel. And even more, i strongly hate how people condone others for not aligning themselves with Free Palestine. Like bro, give me time to educate myself. I need to read and gather information before I put forward my opinion.

Tell me where i am wrong but from what I can see, this is clearly radical Islam play and people are feeding into the victimization trap and they're all benefiting enormously from it. Especially the left in the US which would be killed and butchered by the very people they're supporting.

Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide requires the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

The common argument I see from advocates of categorizing the Gaza war as genocide is that Israel intended to destroy Gaza’s population, satisfying the “in part” aspect of the Genocide Convention. Since Gaza’s population is almost exclusively Palestinian, they argue that the extensive destruction and high civilian casualties indicate that genocide occurred.

However, these arguments could be equally applied to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That same argument could be made that the US intended to destroy Japan’s population in part, satisfying the “in part” aspect of the Genocide Convention. Since Hiroshima’s and Nagasaki’s populations were almost exclusively Japanese, it could be argued that the extensive destruction and high civilian casualties indicate that genocide occurred.

Nevertheless, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are never classified or even argued to be a genocide. The United States' stated objectives were to force Japan's surrender and bring World War II to an end, rather than to destroy the Japanese people as a national or ethnic group. Although the bombings killed enormous numbers of Japanese civilians, that alone does not establish the specific intent required for genocide. This remains true even though the bombings deliberately and almost exclusively targeted populated cities, with the knowledge that enormous numbers of civilians would be killed.

The same applies to Gaza. Israel's stated objectives were to free the hostages, eliminate of Hamas’s military and governance capabilities, and remove the terrorist threat from the Gaza Strip, rather than to destroy the Gazan or Palestinian people as a national or ethnic group. Although the bombings killed enormous numbers of civilians, that alone does not establish the specific intent required for genocide. It is also important to recognize that Israel had a clear military rationale for targeting Hamas in Gaza. There was no directly comparable military adversary in Hiroshima or Nagasaki in the way Hamas operates within Gaza.

A common rebuttal from critics of Israel is that the United States succeeded in securing Japan’s surrender, while Israel has continued fighting Hamas in Gaza. However, whether a military operation achieves its stated objectives does not determine whether it constitutes genocide. The United States’ success does not establish the absence of genocidal intent, just as Israel’s failure to achieve all its objectives would not establish its presence. In both cases, the question is whether there was a specific intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part. Neither meets that standard.

Another common rebuttal from critics of Israel is that genocides have involved as few as 8,000 deaths, as in Srebrenica. However, that comparison alone does not even indicate that the Gaza war constitutes genocide. If anything, the casualty statistics only invite closer comparisons with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The comparatively low death toll and percentage of Gaza’s population killed, combined with Hamas’s deliberate efforts to maximize civilian casualties, undermine the argument that the war in Gaza constitutes genocide. There is extensive evidence that Hamas’s tunnel network stretches across much of Gaza and that it conducts military operations from densely populated civilian areas. Hamas launched the October 7 attack that started this war and has deliberately endangered Palestinian civilians, while Israel’s officially stated objectives have been to free the hostages, dismantle Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, and eliminate the terrorist threat from the Gaza Strip. Taken together, these facts support the argument that Israel is fighting to defeat Hamas, rather than to destroy the Palestinian people in an act of genocide.

I have yet to hear a single convincing argument that Israel acted with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, Palestinians during their war in Gaza. The strongest alternative argument I have encountered concerns domicide, the destruction of homes, which does not, by itself, establish genocide. Even that accusation warrants scrutiny given Gaza’s population density and Hamas’s use of civilian areas for military operations. In my view, critics who insist on the genocide label without adequately establishing evidence of the required intent weaken their own credibility and turn a serious legal accusation into a tool for demonizing Israel. Meaningful scrutiny of Israel should focus on specific actions and substantiated allegations, with conclusions grounded in evidence rather than the most inflammatory terminology available.

Israel is right about this war. Here's the whole case.

Almost every argument against Israel in this war works by leaving something out. I'm going to put the missing pieces back, with sources. But first, what I'm not denying.

What I'm not denying

This war has been a catastrophe for Gaza's civilians. The UN commission counts more than 20,000 children killed [10], and people in Gaza have gone hungry. Whatever you believe about who's responsible, that is horrifying, and anyone who shrugs at it has lost something human. Israel hasn't been perfect either. Settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has risen and it's wrong [18], soldiers who commit abuses should be prosecuted, and this government's settlement push is fair to criticize. Defending Israel's war against Hamas doesn't mean defending every decision or every person. It means looking at the full picture of who started this, how it's being fought, and who could have ended it.

Part 1: Who said no to peace

In 1947 the UN voted to split the British Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jewish leadership accepted. The Arab side refused, and when Israel declared independence in May 1948, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon invaded [1]. The pattern didn't end there. In 2008 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas a Palestinian state. Years later Abbas said on Israeli TV: "I rejected it out of hand" [2]. Palestinians have been offered a state alongside Israel more than once. Their leaders said no, and the war went on.

Part 2: Israel already tried leaving Gaza

In 2005 Israel pulled every soldier and every settler out of Gaza and dismantled all 21 settlements there [3]. Gaza had its chance to become whatever its people wanted. In 2006 Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election. In 2007 it seized Gaza by force from its Palestinian rivals, and Human Rights Watch documented its forces shooting captured Fatah members in the legs [4]. Palestinians haven't voted in a legislative election since 2006, and this month the next one was postponed again, to September 2027 [5]. What came out of Gaza after Israel left wasn't a state. It was years of rocket fire, and then October 7.

Part 3: What Hamas is, and what it wants

On October 7, 2023, Hamas led an attack that killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and dragged 251 hostages into Gaza [6]. That wasn't a break from its ideology; it was the ideology in action. Hamas's 1988 founding charter opens with the line "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it" [7]. Weeks after the massacre, Hamas political bureau member Ghazi Hamad told Lebanese TV, "we will do it twice and three times," calling October 7 "just the first time" [8]. Among the hostages were Ariel Bibas, four years old, and his brother Kfir, ten months old. Israel's military said forensic findings showed they were murdered in captivity "with their bare hands"; Hamas claimed an airstrike [9]. Even the UN commission most critical of Israel concluded that Hamas and other armed groups committed war crimes and crimes against humanity [10].

Part 4: How Hamas fights, and why children die

This is the part people don't think about. Hamas built a vast tunnel network under Gaza, and when asked why civilians couldn't shelter in it, senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk said the tunnels were to protect Hamas from airstrikes, and that protecting civilians "is the responsibility of the UN" [20]. Hamas kept its fighters, weapons and command posts where the civilians were. The Pentagon said Hamas ran a "command and control node" from al-Shifa, Gaza's largest hospital, with weapons stored there [11]. When the IDF rescued four hostages in Nuseirat in June 2024, they were being held in apartments in the middle of a crowded refugee camp [12]. The UN itself fired nine UNRWA employees after its investigators found they "may have been involved" in October 7 [13]. And in messages reported by the Wall Street Journal, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar called the deaths of Gaza's civilians "necessary sacrifices" [14].

Put that together and the picture is clear. Hamas gave itself the shelter and left the children above ground. It put its war machine in homes, schools and hospitals, then counted on the dead to turn the world against Israel. Every child killed in Gaza is a tragedy, and a huge share of the blame for those deaths falls on the group that deliberately fought from among them.

Part 5: "Genocide" and "targeting children"

The genocide charge leans on the International Court of Justice, but the court never ruled that genocide was happening, or even that South Africa's claim of genocide was plausible. Its president at the time, Joan Donoghue, publicly corrected that misreading on the BBC [15]. The latest UN commission report says Israel deliberately targeted children, but read it closely. It reaches its findings on "reasonable grounds", far below the proof any court requires. Israel answered none of its 13 requests, so it never saw what a single strike was aimed at. And it admits it hasn't investigated how Palestinian armed groups use children [10]. Its casualty figures come largely from Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry, which doesn't distinguish between civilians and combatants [16]. None of that makes 20,000 dead children less of a tragedy. But a war fought inside dense cities, against an enemy that hides among children, produces terrible numbers without anyone setting out to kill children. Calling it genocide means ignoring everything above.

Part 6: The hunger

The hunger in Gaza is real, but look at who could have stopped it. For two years Hamas could have ended the war at any moment by freeing the hostages and laying down its arms. It chose not to. When aid did come in, Israel's aid coordination body said the contents of 600 trucks were sitting on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom crossing, waiting for the UN to collect them [21]. And Hamas's top political leaders weren't the ones going hungry: they ran the war from Doha, Qatar, where Israel struck them in September 2025 [22]. A group that builds shelter only for itself, leaves civilians to the UN and runs its war from a Gulf capital doesn't get to blame everyone else for the suffering it set in motion.

Part 7: "Apartheid"

Around a fifth of Israel's citizens are Arab. They vote, they sit in the Knesset, and in 2021 an Arab party, Ra'am, joined Israel's governing coalition for the first time [17]. Name another apartheid state where the supposedly oppressed group helps form the government.

Part 8: Settlements

Settlements are the strongest card critics hold, and I won't pretend they're nothing. But they still don't prove what's claimed. Israel disputes that settlements are illegal. Its position is that the West Bank is disputed territory where Jews have lived for thousands of years, not land seized from a recognized sovereign state [18]. You can oppose the current government's settlement push, and plenty of Israelis do. It comes from a coalition that polls say is likely to lose the October 27 election [18]. That's what accountability looks like: Israelis can vote their government out. Palestinians under Hamas can't.

Part 9: The referee isn't neutral

The UN Human Rights Council has ten permanent agenda items. Nine are general. One, Item 7, is dedicated to Israel, and no other country has a standing item of its own. In 2007 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself criticized the decision to single Israel out this way [19]. A body built like that has earned scrutiny, not blind trust.

Bottom line

Israel accepted partition; its neighbors invaded. Israel left Gaza; Hamas turned it into a launchpad. Hamas murdered 1,200 people, promised to do it again, hid under hospitals and homes, kept the tunnels for itself, and let Gaza's civilians pay the price while its leaders watched from Qatar. Israel is a democracy with Arab lawmakers, independent courts and elections that can throw out its own government. It makes mistakes, and it should answer for them. Hamas answers to no one. Standing with Israel in this war isn't ignoring Palestinian suffering. It's naming who caused it.

Sources

1. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948, US State Department, Office of the Historian: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

2. Abbas admits he said no to Israel's peace offer, Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/blog/abbas-admits-he-said-no-israels-peace-offer

3. Israel's Disengagement from Gaza, Congressional Research Service: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS22000.html

4. Internal Fight: Palestinian Abuses in Gaza and the West Bank, Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/07/29/internal-fight-0

5. Abbas postpones Palestinian legislative elections another year, Korea Times: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/world/20261011/mahmoud-abbas-postpones-palestinian-legislative-elections-another-year

6. A look at the hostages taken to Gaza, by the numbers, AP via PBS NewsHour: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/a-look-at-the-hostages-left-in-gaza-by-the-numbers

7. Hamas Covenant 1988, Yale Law School Avalon Project: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/Hamas.asp

8. Hamas official says group aims to repeat Oct. 7 onslaught many times, Times of Israel: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/

9. IDF: Captors murdered Ariel and Kfir Bibas with their bare hands, Times of Israel: https://timesofisrael.com/idf-says-captors-murdered-children-ariel-and-kfir-bibas-with-their-bare-hands/

10. UN Commission of Inquiry report A/HRC/62/CRP.2, United Nations: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/coi-report-23jun26/

11. US says Hamas used al-Shifa hospital, The National: https://thenationalnews.com/world/us-news/2023/11/15/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-us

12. 4 hostages released from Hamas captivity in daring IDF raid, Israel Hayom: https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/06/08/4-hostages-released-from-hamas-captivity-in-daring-idf-raid

13. UN says nine employees "may have been involved" in October 7 attack, Al Jazeera: https://aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/5/un-says-nine-employees-may-have-been-involved-in-october-7-hamas-attack

14. Sinwar depicts Palestinian casualties as "necessary sacrifices", FDD on the Wall Street Journal's report: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/06/11/hamas-leader-yahya-sinwar-depicts-palestinian-casualties-as-necessary-sacrifices/

15. Top judge corrects media on the ICJ ruling, Joshua Rozenberg: https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/top-judge-corrects-media

16. How reliable are Gaza Health Ministry's death numbers?, VOA: https://learningenglish.voanews.com/amp/how-reliable-are-gaza-health-ministry-s-death-numbers/7343831.html

17. Ra'am joins the government coalition, INSS: https://www.inss.org.il/publication/raam-party/

18. Israel allocates $434 million for 34 new West Bank settlements, Reuters: https://www.internazionale.it/ultime-notizie-reuters/2026/07/14/israel-allocates-434-million-for-34-new-west-bank-settlements

19. Why the UNHRC's Agenda Item 7 was denounced by Ban Ki-moon, UN Watch: https://unwatch.org/why-the-unhrcs-agenda-item-7-was-denounced-by-un-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon/

20. Senior Hamas official: "Tunnels are for us, the UN can take care of Palestinian citizens", Ynet: https://ynetnews.com/article/bk00giq0fa

21. COGAT: 600 aid trucks waiting for UN in Gaza, Ynet: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjis3irg0

22. Israel attacks Hamas leaders in Doha, CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/israel-attack-doha-qatar-hamas-leadership

I’d like to hear from non-Jewish Middle Easterners, including those in the diaspora.

• How do you view anti-Israel activism in Western countries?
• Do you feel these movements reflect your views and priorities?
• Do you feel represented by their messaging, slogans, and tactics?
• What do you support and what do you not support?
• If you’ve disagreed with activists or challenged their views, how have they responded?

I am a curious person and have posted similar posts recently but this one really gets at the heart of what I am wanting to know. Because I feel like many MENA people are dismissed and gaslit by these supposed Pro-Palestinian/Anti-Israel groups.

So I'd genuinely like to hear your thoughts to help me grow and learn and understand. Thank you in advance, I am a Jewish Zionist and understand we may not agree on all points but I still want to learn and understand and I wish you peace.

I'm not sure this is the best place for this post but here goes.

If you are in (or have been in) the pro-Palestine movement, I'd like to hear your experiences. I'm not necessarily looking for what you did in the movement, but rather how you felt, general vibes, communications, etc.

The reason for this is that over just 3 years, the pro-Palestine movement has reached new heights very very quickly, and has also been adept at using a new tool (social media) to do so. I appreciate that the things coming out of Palestine are very distressing and will spur many people to action. I also think there is something different the movement is doing compared to other movements, as the degree of its popularity is something I haven't really seen before.

So: experiences. Good, bad, neutral. And I'm talking about all experiences here, from organised protests all the way down to, idk, a mini pro-Palestine group chat. When I say 'movement' I generally mean any community, big or tiny, that is activism for Palestine in some way, whether it be offline or online.

What are your hopes for the movement? What are your concerns? What do you think the movement is doing right? What would you change about it?

I need to get 1500 characters here so I guess I'll chuck in a specific one I'm interested in. As we all know a lot of horrific videos/photos have been circulating from Gaza over the past few years. I have seen some people suggest that if one does not watch these videos, it means they do not care. Is this true in your experience(s)? Do you feel pressured to watch gory videos? I don't think this is true for all pro-Palestinians, but it's something I've seen a few times and am wondering how widespread it is.

Thanks in advance

I don’t know much about the subject nor have much time to research it myself and sift through what’s biased and what’s not.

I want to know this subs take on this is, and also the most agreed upon one by experts.

From what I understand, skeleton crews were left at the Gaza border during festivities despite many prior warnings allowing the attack to be as devastating as it was and the timing was beneficial for Netanyahu in some way. That’s all I know, so please educate me.

If possible, please cite sources also

A lot of Zionists basically believe a very strawmanned version of what the pro Palestinian movement is.

They essentially see it as a pro Hamas or Hamas funding movement that just totally ignores that Israel is a powerful nuclear state that will extract as much vengeance as they wish.

In reality, the pro Palestinian movement is essentially an acknowledgment of unfortunate realities and a movement to encourage the rest of the world, not Israel, but the rest of the world to do the right thing in the face of said realities.

Zionists really like to harp on “who won the wars,” which matters in terms of setting the reality but means nothing in terms of how we should react to reality.

Many wars in history are morally neutral. But many have a clear good and bad side.

And when we go back to 1948, we have a clear morally evil side with the Zionists and a clear morally good side (with some exceptions of somewhat concerning statements from Palestinian and other Arab officials) with the Palestinians.

And the morally evil side won and has defended their victory for 78 years. And they have had and continue to have no intention to stop being the bad guy and start working towards a one state solution.

And that is a thing that happens sometimes too. The world is an unjust place, and the fact that even the idea or concept of Israel was even thought of, let alone implemented, is proof of that.

But just because the bad guy wins doesn’t mean you just deal with the bad guy like they’re anyone else. Sure, them winning is definitely an argument against military action against them.

But that doesn’t mean you just ignore them. You still have an obligation to boycott, verbally condemn, and if possible, fully sanction them. Just because evil people won a war 78 years ago and have not attempted to give the land back to the people who deserve the entirety of it today, does not in any way force you to support, interact, or do business with them.

And also, one should ask Zionists this. Among the Zionists who believe Israel’s inception itself was evil, when did its continued existence become a good thing over a bad thing? If one has no answer to this, agreeing with me is the logical conclusion.

But back to the point, our movement is not only not pro Hamas, but it’s not pro-any military action against Israel whatsoever. You don’t see pro Palestinians asking the government to wage war on Israel and give Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Netanya back to its rightful owners. And there’s good reason for that.

Because, unlike what Zionists will tell you, we fully acknowledge the realities of Israel’s military might. We just think the rest of the world should react appropriately to it. Just because Zionists won a war 78 years ago doesn’t force you to buy their products today. Nor does it stop you from simply making the world aware of how their conduct is a stain on humanity.

And when I think about it, you don’t even have to disagree with Zionists to be pro Palestinian. Most Zionist arguments focus on military might. So what I say is go ahead and listen to those arguments, maybe even agree with them, and then go to the pro Palestinian side to learn the morality as well as the appropriate response of the West.

Sure, there are many Zionists like Trump who believe Israel is justified, and there are a good number of Zionists like Benny Morris who believe Israel has been justified *since inception*. But even then, the value of their arguments is not that they’re worth anything, but more so that they provide an example of how nasty Zionist thinking is. *Most* Zionist arguments still focus on power and futility more than anything.

And what I’ve always said is that the best proof of this is that you can ask Zionists “why do you care if I accuse Israel of apartheid or genocide?” Literally, that’s all you have to do.

If Israel and Zionists truly believed it was not a genocide, they would just ignore us. Israel is already very powerful militarily. There’s no reason they should care about whether you or I think it’s a genocide or whether the WB and settlements are a form of apartheid. But, they very much do care, like a lot, so we have to ask why.

And while I can’t mind read Zionists, the likeliest reason is that they know we’re right, so they lash out at us in a form of moral insecurity. Because remember, ignoring us = them genuinely not believing it’s genocide and apartheid (even if they’d be very wrong about that). And they are doing just about the opposite, so you can do the math.

So, next time you’re facing Zionist opinion policing, ask them why they’re opinion policing you in the first place, and it’ll say a lot about them and a lot about what Zionism truly is.

This is very simple. As anti Zionists we hate Israel. An antisemite is someone who hates Jews.

To be clear, if someone thinks that Israel should exist, that is absolutely their right to think that. They are wrong, but its definitely their right to think that.

But ultimately, our beef is with a nuclear nation state, not with any ethnic group. Our hatred of Israel is not equivalent to hatred of Jews, or any other ethnic group. We see this flawed logic from Zionists all the time. “You hate Israel so therefore you must hate Jews since Israel was made for Jews.”

But this logic doesn’t fly. In the US, affirmative action was a thing for decades. There are many arguments for and against, but the argument that anti affirmative action = anti black is not considered a serious argument. The lesson from that is that arguments that say you’re against x ethnic group because you’re against y political concept are generally invalid.

Sure, you can be pro Israel and have all your reasons. That doesn’t mean the other side‘s reason has to be hate Jews.

The best way I can place it is this. A person can be Zionist for their own reasons and that’s fine. If a person is anti Zionist, it doesn’t mean that he hates Jews, but rather disagrees that the Zionists’ reasons are justified or that Israel is a good solution to said reasons.

It’s a very simple concept intentionally obfuscated by Zionist lies.