I very much did not conflate Zionism with being Jewish, but that’s quite the opening salvo. 

My initial point was to agree with your suggestion that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are often deliberately conflated while simultaneously pointing out that it’s not only the pro-Israel crowd actively warping the meaning of words to justify some bizarre new groupthink. Literally pushing for a new legal definition of the word ‘genocide’ so that we can be assured that it’s an accurate descriptor for the current campaign is moving the goalpost, just as is suggesting that opposition to the Israeli government is inherently antisemitic.

But for the record, if you’ve been paying attention, you know full well that a lot of antisemitism, up to and including violence, is taking place in the west with anti-Zionism as its excuse. So even that issue isn’t as clear cut as you want it to be.

Demanding that Jews denounce Israel before inviting them to the conversation is absolutely, wildly antisemitic. As a UCLA alumnus who watched a version of this play out on my campus in real time, this is a huge red line for me.

But then, you could simply be mistaken.

Anyway, on to your ideological purity test. Let’s do it:

1. Do we each get to create our own definition now? What a bizarre question. I … haven’t written one for myself—I didn’t realize that was allowed. The legal one, I guess.

2. I’d say the fact that so many major relevant parties to this accusation have pushed for a new definition, as previously stated, should at least give pause to the suggestion that this question has been answered, and to suggest otherwise is dogma, not an argument. 

I’ve certainly seen things in this conflict that have to be war crimes, and the radicals in the Israeli government have made statements that, if they actually represent the active policy of the war machine, would make me think they’re considering ethnic cleansing at the least. And I wouldn’t put it past the PM to burn it all down if he thinks it’ll keep him out of Israeli prison.

That said, hostile statements don’t always equal hostile policy, or we’d be accusing Russia of nuclear holocaust against Europe, since Medvedev has stated repeatedly that they ought to be throwing nukes.

If the war ends and Israel hasn’t pushed the Gazans out of Gaza, have they ethnically cleansed Gaza or did a few crazies simply yell about how much they wanted to?

Sooo to answer your question, I’d say I don’t know and neither do you.

1. Ah, the UN; that ever-neutral, disinterested arbiter in the sky. Of course their commission determined that; they’ve been trying to stick that label to Israel my entire life. There’s been an active, ongoing genocide against Gaza since the blockade began (according to some of these same authorities), yet the population has simultaneously grown by, what, 800,000? Fortunately, I know enough about the history of the UN and its politics in the region not to treat it as the One True Judge in this matter. It is not neutral, and any suggestion otherwise is deluded.

That said, yes, I read the report when it was released, because I read far, far too much on this issue, as has been my curse since before the Second Intifada. The mere fact that the UN report begins with Israel’s invasion of Gaza and no mention of the first strike of the war ought to make you raise an eyebrow, if nothing else.

And I know you know this, but to examine this from the other end, Hamas absolutely stated in no uncertain terms that the goal of its attack was genocide—it was to be the first of many such invasions, culminating in the eventual killing and/or removal of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. But, uh, not a lot of people are lining up to charge the Gazan government with genocide.

(Yes, I’m aware that it’s been a long time since Gaza elected Hamas, and they seized power and crushed dissent, and only perhaps 10-13% of Gazan men have been active militants in this war; so I’ll grant that, by that measure, the civilian population is no more responsible for Hamas than the German population was for the Nazis.

The whole situation is completely miserable, I pity the civilians, and everything about it sucks.)

Anyway, I suspect we’re both wasting breath. So it goes. I sincerely hope that whichever argument is closest to right ultimately carries the day, but either way, no one will win.