If you can afford it, you should try to find a therapist. Therapy helps.

Haaretz also reported this story, but with details behind their paywall.

This is certainly better, but it’s unclear to me whether this item:

Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.

…implies that denying the legitimacy of the state of Israel is antisemitic. While I would have been in favor of a two state solution in the past, the genocidal mania of the apartheid state has led me to conclude that two states alone is insufficient, even with monetary reparations, and justice after the recent level of atrocity perpetrated by Israel might require granting Palestinians full government control of the land.

Ah! When we go to the questions further down:

Guideline 10 says it is antisemitic to deny the right of Jews in the State of Israel “to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews”. Isn’t this contradicted by guidelines 12 and 13?

There is no contradiction. The rights mentioned in guideline 10 attach to Jewish inhabitants of the state, whatever its constitution or name. Guidelines 12 and 13 clarify that it is not antisemitic, on the face of it, to propose a different set of political or constitutional arrangements.

Ok, this is a MUCH better definition. Thank you for sharing it.

Careful, per the IHRA definition of antisemitism, when one says:

As the descendant of a survivor of a genocide, the Holocaust, I refuse to be a bystander to another genocide

they might be antisemitic:

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

This is the definition adopted by the United States.

Seems like this was a result of Israeli arrogance, assuming it crashed or was shot down rather than recognizing that they aren’t the only ones with effective munitions.

They could choose to take this as a sign that war isn’t the path to safety, or that they just need to also depopulate Lebanon to bring safety. I think it’s obvious which they’ll do, of course.

In Article 49, the Fourth Geneva Convention, adopted on 12 August 1949, specifically forbade forced displacement: Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

(Short excerpt of the long section clarifying that it’s a war crime)

I don’t think pretending October 7th is the start of history is fair, though. Any discussion of October 7th needs to explore why people might become so angry as to take the actions taken on that day. It didn’t happen in a vacuum; it takes a lot to make people do that to other people.

Ah yes, we should make sure whenever we discuss Israeli atrocities that we explain why they are justified in doing what they do to the people whose land they stole and continue to steal. It’s purely reasonable self defense by innocents, don’t ya know!

It is deleted; what did it say?

Probably for as long as the US support is unconditional.

Is this a reference to the IDF’s murder of Irish peacekeeper Dermot McLaughlin in 1987, or something else?

Funny how countries that have experienced brutality call it when they see it.

A newer live update from BBC reports:

In 2006, during the last major confrontation, a UN Observation Position (OP) came under Israeli artillery and aerial bombardment. Despite repeated appeals to the IDF to stop firing, throughout 25 July, the OP on the outskirts of the village of Khiam was finally destroyed. Four UN military observers from Austria, Canada, China and Finland were killed. Israel’s ambassador to the US, Danny Ayalon, said “Unifil obviously got caught in the middle", and suggested that the deadly fire could have come from Hezbollah. A UN investigation concluded that the base had been destroyed by a 500kg precision-guided bomb dropped by an Israeli warplane.

Israel has been doing this for ages.

I’m not sure why it’s so hated. It’s a handy sanity check. By the way, it doesn’t know bbc.co.uk is BBC. It wants bbc.com.

Unfortunately it has happened before.

This article was written in 2022 and updated in 2023. Maybe a community like Today I Learned would be a better fit?

They may have forgotten that unlike Gaza where they can plausibly-ish claim that everything remotely governmental was technically Hamas, that isn’t the case in Lebanon.

So you’re choosing the Netanyahu fanzine to increase the chance that Zionists don’t dismiss the story out of hand?

Yes. My powers are limited, so I do what little I can.

Not that your claim was hard to believe, but because I like being well-sourced, I looked it up and you’re correct:

Most prefer to be identified as Palestinian citizens of Israel.[8][9][10] International media outlets often use the term “Arab-Israeli” or “Israeli-Arab” to distinguish Israel’s Arab citizens from the Palestinian Arabs residing in the Israeli-occupied territories.[11]

source of except

Seems like international media should find a better label for them.

I originally found it on Al Jazeera’s live coverage, which is difficult to link to. I only later found a second source, which I used. I never came across Haaretz’s coverage. I probably would have still chosen Times of Israel because “Israeli evil” coverage is less common from them than from Haaretz; I would imagine more Zionists read Times of Israel than Haaretz or they’d already care about Palestinian lives.