A rise in fake antisemitism to pass hate-speech laws.
Hate speech is recognising a Palestinian state. Thatās what gave rise to this crap.
Itās time to just tell them āno, it will never happen.ā andā¦ force countries like Egypt and Lebanon to take them in rather that forcing them upon us.
4 Likes
I agree. This attack isnāt the result of some amorphous āantisemitismā concocted to rush through hate-speech laws. Itās more likely a direct result of whatās happening to Palestinian people. It reminds me of the old Russian proverb.
1 Like
Exactly. Also correct me if Iām wrong but Iāve never seen terrorist attacks orchestrated by Jewish people on Muslim communities. (And noā¦ winning a war against an islamic terrorist state isnāt considered an act of terrorism.)
Iām not condoning the attacks, and I also donāt agree with them happening on Australian soil. I just donāt like people blaming it on rising āanti-Semitismā, especially when a lot of that anti-Semitism was proven to fake, and used as a tool to rush through new laws.
Thereās anti everything in Australia. Anti Muslim, anti immigration, anti ā¦ etc. Sure anti-Semitism exists, along with all the others, I just donāt see it as being Australiaās most pressing issue, or the cause of these shootings.
Obviously itās a very pressing issue. Just because it doesnāt align with your thinkingā¦..you are hopelessly flailing around with your argument here. Other communities donāt get targeted for mass murder for being X, Y,Z in Australia.
What is different right now is how unevenly these things are treated. As it stands, Muslim groups appear to operate as a protected group in practice. Their protests are widely tolerated, even when rhetoric crosses into intimidation or support for overseas conflicts, while opposing views are far more quickly restricted, shut down, or labelled as hate. That double standard breeds resentment and undermines the idea of equal treatment under the law.
On top of that, the Australian government has actively added fuel to the fire by picking sides in the Gaza vs Israel conflict while claiming neutrality. Weāve seen symbolic positioning, visa decisions, and even refusals of entry for Israeli veterans and politicians. Once the government imports a foreign conflict into domestic politics, it inevitably imports the tensions with it.
All the government really had to say was: āweāre not taking a position on a Palestinian state, and our focus is on social cohesion inside Australia and what it means to be Australian.ā Instead, we now have selective enforcement and selective outrage.
If someone incites hatred or violence whether a Jew targeting Muslims or a Muslim targeting Jews the response should be exactly the same. No protected groups, no favourites, no political shielding. Equal standards, equal consequences. Anything else just deepens division and makes coexistence harder, not easier.
4 Likes
Probably because other X, Y, Z groups arenāt committing, or supporting, genocide abroad.
That really depends on what you mean by genocide, because the term has a specific legal definition, not just an emotional or political one.
Under the UN Genocide Convention, genocide means acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. Intent is the key element, not just civilian deaths, not just a war, and not just a brutal one.
By that definition, Israelās invasion of Gaza does not clearly meet the threshold for genocide. Israelās stated objective is the destruction of Hamas, an armed militant organisation, not the elimination of Palestinians as a people. Civilian casualties, (even very high ones that you would expect from a small densely populated area) are not genocide under international law if they occur in the context of an armed conflict without demonstrable intent to exterminate a protected group.
If āgenocideā simply means āa war I strongly opposeā or āa conflict with unacceptable civilian casualties,ā then the word becomes useless and selectively applied. That kind of language doesnāt clarify anything; it just escalates tensions and shuts down serious discussion.
6 Likes
Not really surprising given Anthony Albanese used to frequent pro-Palestine rallies.
1 Like
Many organizations and genocide scholars call it genocide
Exactly and this is what Iām not liking at the moment is that the government is taking positions on foreign conflicts. If somebody wants to go and support their group, they can go and fight for them in their army, but donāt import it into Australia.
If a Muslim wants to go and fight for Gaza, then go to the Gaza strip and fight against the Israel if in Jewish wants to fight, they can go back to Israel and fight against the people in Gaza.
1 Like
This 100%. All hate crimes are wrong. When your country commits genocide, and its leader tries to gaslight the rest of us to think they arenāt, guess what? The gaslighting is going to make some crazy people, especially those who share commonalities with the tens of thousands (most of them completely innocent as well) being mass murdered, crack and reciprocate heinous violence.
It continues to be a shame to me that, yet again, there seems to exist a tier list for human life. Netanyahu and his hard right Zionists have been antagonizing these people for so long now. I would say they deserve just as much blame for this horrific event, as the IDFās barbarity to hundreds of thousands of Gazans has created massive blowback ā leading to even more loss of innocent lives.
One should be able to call out atrocities on both sides of the dispute without being labelled an āanti-semiteā or whatever the term is for those who dehumanize Muslims.
3 Likes
And many disagree. There is no consensus.
More importantly, the ICJ has not ruled that genocide is occurring. It explicitly said there is a āplausible risk of genocideā, which is a procedural threshold for provisional measures, not a legal finding. āPlausible riskā means potentially, not proven (which is an easy thresholdā¦ any war where there is a clearly winning side could have it). Final rulings on genocide require a very high evidentiary bar, especially proof of specific intent, and that process can take years and it is unlikely to be found true.
Itās also worth noting that the case was brought by South Africa, a country facing its own accusations of violence against white farmers, often described by critics as ethnic or racial targeting. At the very least, that shows a bit of projectionā¦
1 Like
Not my definition. Itās from the UN.
1 Like
Lol yeah no. Itās pretty universally recognized as genocide. You must be joking.
1 Like
Sure, but there are sound reasons for using the term, not simply āemotionalā or āpoliticalā ones.
What are you talking about??? Itās been almost entirely emotional and political.
Strip that away and the facts are simple: a terrorist entity attacked a democratic state, embedded itself among civilians, and started a war it couldnāt win. Now itās losing badly.
Thatās tragic for the people that voted in this terrorist entity and are brainwashed into fighting for and supporting it. It isnāt automatically genocide.
You can argue excessive force or war crimes without abusing the most extreme legal term in international law. When āgenocideā gets used as a slogan instead of a legal finding, it stops being analysis and becomes pure politics.
4 Likes
Lol. That all sounds a bit emotional and political! We could listen to you, or take the word of numerous organizations and genocide scholars. YMMV
2 Likes
Hard to tell whether itās genocide or not because Israel wonāt let news media into Gaza to see whatās really going on there.
1 Like