Last week, as Concordia students staged a “strike” to protest the ongoing Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, video captured someone giving a Nazi salute to nearby Jewish students while repeatedly declaring the “final solution is coming your way.” Antisemitism has become far too common, but this incident, which had unmistakable Holocaust echoes, still had the capacity to shock. Soon after, the culprit was identified as Mia Abdulhadi, the co-owner of two Second Cup coffee cafe franchises improbably located in the Montreal Jewish General hospital.
The Concordia events later gave way to violent riots in Montreal, but this particular case has been hard to shake. Part of it stems from the affirmation of the campus antisemitism concerns that have been voiced for many months by Jewish students and faculty. Despite the denials, the reality is that the line between legitimate protest and the use of reprehensible antisemitic slurs was blurred long ago. University presidents have acknowledged as much, yet largely failed to respond. The net effect – as evidenced last week – is that the Jewish community has faced intolerable discrimination on campus and is too often left to fear for its own safety.
The incident was also emblematic of the disappointing political leadership in leading the fight against antisemitism. To its credit, within hours Second Cup ownership unhesitatingly shut down the café and cancelled its franchise agreement, stating that it had a zero tolerance policy for hate. The swift action stood in sharp contrast to the political response, with many waiting to craft inoffensive tweets, trying to “both sides” the issue, or saying nothing at all. The missing leadership has sadly also been par for the course for the past year.
Yet perhaps the most disturbing aspect was the denials that that there had been any antisemitism at all. Almost immediately, social media lit up with claims that the person responsible had been a “Zionist plant” or an “agent provocateur”. In other words, it was instantly time to blame the Jews. If this sounds familiar, the response mirrors the recent Amsterdam pogrom, where a Jew hunt in the city of Anne Frank was quickly reframed as a case of soccer hooliganism in which the Jews had it coming.
Social media is filled with bots that are often best ignored. But these comments came from journalists, professors, and even a rabbi closely aligned with fringe anti-Zionist groups. Those comments actively responded to posts from Jews and Jewish groups (including my own) with confident proclamations that this was “an obvious plant” or “so fake”.
When evidence surfaced that it was not a Jewish conspiracy but rather precisely what it looked like – a pro-Palestinian protester resorting to the vilest form of hate – those same accounts said nothing or doubled down by claiming “there were many good reasons for thinking” that the Jewish community was behind it. It goes without saying, but you don’t need the Canadian government’s new handbook on antisemitism to know these comments trade in age-old antisemitic tropes that paint Jews as mistrustful and deceitful.
It also raises troubling questions about how that mindset plays out in other environments. How does a professor who retweets unsubstantiated conspiracy theories tying Jews to Nazi hate speech treat Jewish students fairly in the classroom? How does a journalist cover antisemitic incidents in Canada if their first instinct is to think they are fake? How does an anti-Zionist group claim to support the interests of the Jewish community when it suspects that the community resorts to fraudulent antisemitic incidents and can’t be trusted?
The answer is that antisemitism is far more pervasive than we care to admit. When there is no taboo or consequences for trading in the very worst antisemitic behaviour, the political bromides that “this isn’t who we are” appear dangerously out of touch. Indeed, months of antisemitic incidents on campuses and on Canadian streets is now attracting global attention and putting Canada on the map in the very worst way. This is precisely who we are now.
I just finished reading “Everyday Hate: How antisemitism is built into our world” by Dave Rich. It takes a deep dive into how and why antisemitism became so prevalent in society and how it morphed throughout the ages. It never really went away, it just ebbs and flows from time to time and place to place.
That’s great to hear!
I think you’re perhaps missing some relevant context. I’m not involved with this protest group but as someone who has experience with unrelated protests I can tell you my first assumption wouldn’t be that the Jewish community nor agents of the State of Israel would be behind any agents provocateurs. Rather I’d assume it was the SQ (Quebec Provincial Police) up to their old dirty tricks to disrupt any and all kinds of protests as they’ve been caught red handed doing on multiple occasions before including in 2007 at the Montebello protest and again in 2016 at the Montreal anti-austerity protest.
This is ridiculous. The police in all jurisdictions have treated these protests with kid gloves for 13 months, despite open and obvious examples of sedition, incitement to violence and uttering threats happening constantly. There are rarely any arrests. (When a smattering of arrests was finally made in Ottawa recently for clear examples of criminal conduct, the union president of a civil servant charged immediately tried to claim it was racist… which shows how much credibility he has).
Given this, when the SQ has constantly protected the “protestors” rather than their targets, why would they be engaged in such conduct? And if they were, they sure as hell wouldn’t be parroting actual Nazi ideology in perfect English.
Well said
Yes, pretty clearly the person discussed above was an actual antisemite. That’s a real problem and I agree the response was inappropriate and inadequate at best. Weeding out people like that who hold views contrary to a movement out of large protests can be difficult but very important task.
An easy rule of thumb if you want to know who police support or oppose is to check which way they’re facing. In the case of the pro Palestine protests it’s pretty clear in every picture I’ve seen they’re facing the protesters with their backs to the counter-protesters. As for “kid gloves”, I guess you must consider the SPVM dispersing protestors outside the Palais des Congrès with pepper spray, tear gas, and batons akin to a brotherly hug?
Regardless, my point was only addressing why people might reasonably jump to the initial conclusion that agents provocateurs were involved, because there’s a very real and long history of police in Quebec actually doing just that.
Turns out genocide is kosher so long as there are a few anti-semites amongst those who oppose it. Who knew? Apparently clueless idiots like Geist and his fellow bigots.
So now rabbis are enabling antisemitism for criticizing Israel? Geist gets to call anyone in the Jewish community that doesn’t agree with him politically as ‘fringe’. A very odd majoritarian viewpoint for someone who is an expert in Canadian law. And why oh why do so many people distrust the narrative of Zionists when it comes to their smearing entire movements and protests, I am sure it’s all age-old antisemitism and nothing to do with the dishonesty of Israeli propagandists who are supporting a state literally engaging in a genocide right now and ruled by a bonafide war criminal. Just incredible.
How does a journalist cover antisemitic incidents in Pasadena if their first instinct is to think they are fake?
I’m absolutely delighted to hear that! It’s always refreshing to come across such positive news and perspectives. They truly brighten the day and inspire a sense of joy and connection for http://www.drywallamarillo.com. What’s the story behind it? I’d love to hear more!
Isn’t it interesting how articles about antisemitism predictably inflame and trigger the same vocal minority of people over and over again? Who then — quite predictably, much like a broken record — spout the same logically incoherent and fallacious arguments?
As long as they (those who harbor anti-Jewish biases and prejudices) continue over and over to demonstrate to everyone else their astonishing biases and incompetence on this matter, then I agree we can never stop talking about antisemitism and demanding solutions from those who ARE competent at addressing it.
What’s really fascinating is how Israeli apologists like ‘Curious’ ignore data like polls which have consistently shown that most people in North America want Israel to stop their genocide of the Palestinian people, let alone the very clear evidence that most people in the world feel that way, or the indictments by the International Criminal Court, or the UN voting record of almost every country in the world outside of Israel and the US (and a couple of its protectorates). They claim that their isolated group-think bubble is actually somehow the majority despite all the evidence to the contrary and that the largest student protests since the 1960s are a “vocal minority of people.” Truly incredible how disconnected from reality these people are. They seem to be truly antidemocratic and think that their opinions count more than the opinions of everyone else on the planet.
☝️ This is the broken record I was referring to
Some folks get auto-triggered by articles about antisemitism and reflexively and predictably vent about Israel, like a broken record stuck on repeat. When the flaws in their causal reasoning are pointed out, they simply deny, deflect, and double down.
It can be reminiscent of those who attempt to justify the Oct 7 massacre every time they read about Oct 7. They think they’re just connecting the dots and drawing the line that feels right to them. Yet their single-cause narratives presents them as apologists or sympathizers for Hamas terrorists — and rightly so. We’ve seen this sort of astonishing lack of mindfulness, time and time again, with the “Free Palestine” movement.
Fallacious reasoning like this is as old as human history. Take victim-blaming in cases of sexual harassment: instead of holding the harasser accountable, the victim is blamed for dressing provocatively. While such “logic” is thankfully less acceptable these days in much of the Western world, the trend of blaming antisemitic outcomes on Israel or Zionists remains alarmingly common. And some are working to normalize this narrative. But the emotional reasoning and causal reasoning beneath it is absolutely flawed.
The “meta” problem here is that broken-record arguments generally come from people unwilling and incompetent at understanding *why* their broken-record approach is so flawed (and arguably, net harmful for large parts of society).
Put simply, if individuals like Emerys understood why their comment were problematic, they wouldn’t have kept repeating it in the first place—unless they are perfectly fine being problematic. And so, the other question is: how do you deal with someone who is entirely comfortable acting that way? Nothing, I think. We can only confront and try to expose their biases and prejudices and cognitive dissonance.
I predict that the next response (if any) from broken-record Emerys will ironically support the hypothesis of incompetence and cognitive dissonance.
It’s always funny when people who rely entirely on ad hominem whine about logical fallacies.
How delusional would you have to be to think that antisemitism is not weaponized by Israel and its supporters. As if we cannot all see the Israeli government now saying Ireland’s Premier is antisemitic for criticizing the genocide. The list of ‘antisemites who are recognizable by their criticism of Israel’ keeps expanding at an exponential rate. We can add Ireland’s Premier to the Wikipedia community, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the International Criminal Court, the Pope, and the government’s of virtually every country in the world except for the US and Micronesia. And don’t look at polls in Canada or the US either because it’s not looking good for Israeli apologists. It’s incredible that despite the powerful ‘logic’ used by genocide-enablers like ‘Curiosity’, they’re somehow doing such a poor job of influencing public opinion. Maybe calling everyone an irrational antisemite for not being silent on Israel’s ongoing genocide and apartheid isn’t very persuasive after all. Seems obvious the purpose is not to persuade at all. Intimidate, sure.
I suspect if Curiosity responds it will be more accusations of others using logical fallacies sandwiched in between their own use of ad hominem attacks. It’s all part of the noble mission to silence criticism of a state led by a war criminal who by the way has a warrant out for them and would be arrested if they came to Canada.
They are getting more desperate and shrill as one can see from the pro genocide comments here.
All they can do is accuse those opposed to genocide of being anti-semites. Their remaining arguments are sophist noise based on anti-Semitic accusations with no substance.
It would be laughable if the situation were not tragic.
After 9/11, discrimination and hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. surged. Say someone had explained how that discrimination against American Muslims is not OK. If your primary response was dismissal and arguing it’s being “weaponized”, you might be called out as “Islamophobic”
Over the past year, discrimination and hate crimes against Jews have spiked. If someone explained how the discrimination against Jews is not OK, and your primary response is dismissal and that antisemitism is being “weaponized”, your comment might be seen as “antisemitic” in intent or outcome
Now if someone’s comfortable with labeling the former response as Islamophobic, but gets upset at labeling the latter response as antisemitic, it’s worth considering whether that reaction stems from a prejudice against Jews.
To support allegations of bias/prejudice against Jews and/or Israelis, we need evidence based on a pattern of downplaying, deflecting, double standards, selective outrage, etc.. We find plenty of that in the real world and online, which is why these articles about antisemitism are so important.
A counterargument from the “pro-Palestinian” (I put this in quotes for a reason) movement is that everyone has the right to feel safe, but Jews do not have the right to interpret anti-Israel or anti-Zionist statements as unsafe or antisemitic. IOW, these critiques are political, not identity-based and not discriminatory, even if they cause discomfort…
…and all the “pro-Palestinian” acts of harassment, intimidation, vandalism, and violence are dismissed as incidental; they don’t reflect the broader intent/goals. Or, those unfortunate events are reframed as involuntary (“I can’t control my anger and hate”) and inevitable reactions to injustice (“it’s all the fault of the Jews… I mean, Zionists”).
That reframing dismisses the harm caused to Jewish communities and shifts responsibility away from the perpetrators of antisemitic outcomes, as I noted before. Astonishingly, too many “pro-Palestinians” (again in quotes when it has nothing to do with bettering Palestinian lives) seem perfectly OK with that.
For progressives, it is normalized for minority groups to be THE authority on defining what constitutes discrimination against them. Yet in too many “progressive” circles, it’s become normalized to dismiss or distort Jewish concerns about what constitutes discrimination against Jews. Such inconsistency betrays a moral failing, and I think betrays what it means to actually be progressive.
Jews, Israelis, and their allies, individuals and organizations, have published extensively about these biases and misinformation. There’s a wealth of information and lived experiences accessible to anyone who chooses to engage. But we’re the most worried about those who refuse to do so in good faith, who are the most unwilling and/or incompetent at internalizing these genuine perspectives.
So yes, as I wrote above, “some folks get auto-triggered by articles about antisemitism and reflexively and predictably vent about Israel, like a broken record stuck on repeat. When the flaws in their causal reasoning are pointed out, they simply deny, deflect, and double down.”
Perhaps those who *feel* implicated in a critique about antisemitism are unintentionally exposing themselves by their reactions. Predictably, they protest this perception, while denying both their own agency and the more progressive and productive choices that they could have made (in many cases, over and over again, ad nauseum).
So for me, their protests ring hollow, their indignant word salads reinforce my perception of their prejudices. If you think I’ve been unfair to any one individual, take a look at how each commenter has reacted (historically, and into the future) to Michael Geist’s earnest and needed series on antisemitism, and judge for yourself if their responses resemble the unhelpful, biased and broken record I’ve described above.
How many Jews have been harmed by the supposed rise in anti-semitism?
Well, that’s a non-sequitur
As I mentioned above, the “meta” problem here is that we cannot expect thoughtful, productive responses from individuals who are unwilling and/or incompetent at mindful introspection and critical thinking on the topic of antisemitism.
If my hypothesis was incorrect, “Stoparabhate” likely wouldn’t have asked me this question in the first place.
Instead, they might have started by asking themselves a few key questions:
“Why did I use the word ‘supposed’? Does it suggest that I’m deliberately dismissing readily available statistics? What does that say about my perspective?”
“If I genuinely want an answer, why didn’t I research it myself in good faith?”
“How does my question relate to the post I’m responding to in a logically coherent manner?”
“Do I even fully comprehend what I’m responding to?”
“What have I learned—if anything—from my past comments on this subject? Am I making any progress here — why or why not? Am I just reinforcing a perception that I’m ‘stuck’ in my biases?”
It seems evident to me that “Stoparabhate” didn’t ask themselves any of these questions before replying.
In that sense, “Stoparabhate” has provided a textbook example of how to support my hypothesis around the “meta” problem — so I suppose I should thank them for that.
You are just an apologist for genocide so long as the right group is doing it. GFY.
I say supposed because it is a claim made, not a definitive proof. I note anti semitism never seems to decrease, only to surge and increase…..
Honestly, I think the more you write, the more you are:
1. exposing your true attitude
2. supporting my hypothesis and assumptions
3. utterly oblivious to #1 and #2
And that’s fine, if you really think you’re doing a fine job here, then we can just agree to disagree on that
Honestly the more you write the more you sound like a genocide apologist.
Interesting
1. I understand, that according to you, I sound like a “genocide apologist” to you
2. Let’s agree to disagree that your interpretation is objectively truthful
3. No, I don’t care how frustrated or upset you are about any of that
I really could not care one whit about you except to call you out for the pro genocide dishonest sophist that you are.
A genocide is going on and because it is being done by the self proclaimed Jewish state that does not make it kosher.
The supposed rise (always rising, never decreasing, how odd!) in anti-semitism (supposed as the ADL is the gatekeeper of such and it is an untrustworthy organization) does not mitigate the reality that the self proclaimed Jewish state is committing genocide and seems to have the full support of many in the West, including some Jewish people whom one would think should know better.
I’m less concerned about the supposed rise in anti-semitism (that has physically harmed exactly how many Jewish citizens?) then I am with getting a genocide to stop.
Why aren’t you?
“You cannot reason with someone who has not reached a conclusion through reason.” – Albert Einstein
That’s exactly how I feel about you, “Curious”.
You are a dipshit ignorant bigot. A “human animal” (where have I heard that before) worth only insults and derision.
“Stoparabhate” told me to “GFY”, and now is calling me “dipshit”, “ignorant”, etc.
This behavior illustrates the broader issue I’ve been commenting on: the lack of reasoning behind these antisemitic outcomes
We see so-called “pro-Palestinian” protesters ripping down hostage posters, denying and/or glorifying Hamas atrocities (sometimes simultaneously), intimidating Jewish communities, escalating to threats and violence, and so forth
And it begs the question: How is any of this freeing Palestine? (It doesn’t.)
Jews are not a sacrificial lamb that must endure antisemitism as some “side effect” of a movement supposedly fighting genocide with such an appalling lack of emotional intelligence and rationality
But people like “Stoparabhate” don’t get that, and I expect they never will.
I get it Curious, for you only Jewish lives matter. As I stated earlier human animals like you deserve no respect; just derision and contempt.
You and your fellow bigots better get used to it.
☝️ for reference: this thread may provide evidence that “Stoparabhate” is an actual unapologetic bigot
Supporting evidence: a pattern of baseless accusations that Michael, myself, and “fellow bigots” are “dipshit ignorant” “clueless idiots” and “human animals” who “deserve no respect; just derision and contempt” and “better get used to it”.
You may want to keep an eye out for a pattern of discrimination or hateful rhetoric against Jews or “Zionists” from previous articles as well
Now how many times can I thank people like “Stoparabhate” whose behaviour — unintentionally, ironically and consistently — support all my points, without myself being a broken record?
Such is the futility of engaging with those who unwittingly undermine their own positions.
We observe their lack of self-awareness, while also trying to be self-aware and acknowledging our own frustration with the futility of going in endless circles with people like that
more drivel from a bigoted genocide apologist who wants the last word.
Maybe you don’t get it; genocide denial is vile as is attempting to weaponize anti-semitism.
You are the problem.
How absurd to cite the prevalence of attacks, protests and criticism against Jews as evidence that such acts are not antisemitic. This demonstrates a blatant disregard for world history. Would anyone claim that the fact that honor killings and child marriages are prevalent in certain countries, means they do not demonstrate sexism?
Consider the glaring hypocrisies of the institutions in question: the UN Security Council includes permanent members like Russia and China, notorious for their own human rights abuses. UN Women took 8 weeks—and immense public pressure—to finally denounce the horrifying rapes committed by Hamas terrorists against Jewish women on October 7th. The International Criminal Court faces growing criticism for being Eurocentric, opaque, and racist.
Irish political leadership? The Irish Prime Minister’s statement upon the release of a nine-year-old girl from captivity was nothing short of appalling. He described this Irish citizen as merely “lost” and now “found,” sidestepping the brutal truth. There is no nuance to the act of abducting a child from a home, dragging her into a car filled with terrorists, and holding her captive for 50 days. Failing to plainly state these facts and to identify the perpetrators is not just moral cowardice—it is extreme antisemitic bias.
Michael Geist, thank you for your courageous article. Your description of this disturbing trend is only further validated by some of the hateful comments you’ve received. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to bring these issues up to the forefront.
Wanting Israel to stop being genocidal is anti-semitism.
Too rich.
Zionist racists love trying to project their faults onto others.
At this point in the ongoing genocide there is no longer any need to treat these “human animals” that support genocide as anything other than trash.
Who was it that said “human animals” back in October 2023?
Israel cannot “stop being genocidal” because it has never been genocidal. Hamas, by contrast, has been explicitly genocidal since its inception. Its covenant openly calls for the murder of Jews through jihad. For decades, Hamas has fired rockets indiscriminately at civilian populations, and on October 7th, its scumbags documented themselves committing acts of rape, murder, mutilation, and desecration against Jews.
Israel has been forced to fight an existential war against this terrorist organization, which views the deaths of its own people as a political strategy—a strategy tragically effective due to the gullibility of some in the international community. Hamas bears responsibility for civilian casualties in this war, as it continues to hold hostages—including toddlers, young women, and seniors—while depriving its own population of aid and using them as human shields.
The international community’s fixation on scapegoating Israel serves as a convenient distraction from their human rights violations. For example, Russia’s UN representative accusing Israel of genocide is absurdly hypocritical. The UN’s bias against Israel is so blatant that they dismissed Kenyan genocide expert Alice Wairimu Nderitu for rejecting the baseless claim that Israel is committing genocide.
Amnesty International’s definition of genocide is so overly broad that it includes economic harm—a frequent and unfortunate byproduct of war, initiated by Hamas. Despite overwhelming evidence of Hamas’s atrocities, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has only issued a warrant for one Hamas leader, likely already deceased. The double standard is so blatant, it demonstrates this institution’s complete lack of credibility. And yet, their use of this word is perceived as license by antisemites like the commenter above to parrot baseless accusations and throw insults.
Unimpressive.
Calling a Spade says:
“Irish political leadership? The Irish Prime Minister’s statement upon the release of a nine-year-old girl from captivity was nothing short of appalling. He described this Irish citizen as merely “lost” and now “found,” sidestepping the brutal truth. There is no nuance to the act of abducting a child from a home, dragging her into a car filled with terrorists, and holding her captive for 50 days. Failing to plainly state these facts and to identify the perpetrators is not just moral cowardice—it is extreme antisemitic bias.”
Thank you for presenting a perfect example of how Israeli apologists insist that things they do not like are antisemitism. In this world showing too much nuance is a clear example of “extreme antisemitic bias.”
CallingaSpade says:
“Amnesty International’s definition of genocide is so overly broad that it includes economic harm—a frequent and unfortunate byproduct of war,”
You clearly have not read Amnesty International’s report or you would know ‘economic harm’ is hardly the charge they are making or the evidence that they are providing. It sounds like you are just parroting talking points from Israel’s genocide-enabling propaganda machine. Which includes a healthy mix of disinformation and ‘whataboutism’.
The charge Amnesty is making is made up, even by their own account. In their report, they admit that they are rejecting the ICJ’s definition – which is to say, if the person doesn’t fit the crime, we will fit the crime to the person. Their attempt to build the case for intent is so clumsy that it sounds more like guesswork than the work of a professional, highly funded organization.
It is so clear that Hamas must be eliminated and yet the report has offered no alternative for Israel to end the threat to its existence and bring back the hostages. The only ones who can end this unfortunate predicament for the people of Gaza is the organization that started it – Hamas. However, Amnesty International is still working on that report, assessing something that was obvious on October 7th.
CallingaSpade said:
“The charge Amnesty is making is made up, even by their own account. In their report, they admit that they are rejecting the ICJ’s definition – which is to say, if the person doesn’t fit the crime, we will fit the crime to the person. Their attempt to build the case for intent is so clumsy that it sounds more like guesswork than the work of a professional, highly funded organization.”
Pure lies. Like your previous lie that Amnesty had changed the definition of genocide to be purely ‘economic’. The report very clearly states that the definition they are using comes from the Genocide Convention. In section 5 of the report:
“The principal definition of the crime of genocide is provided for in Article II of the Genocide Convention, which reads:
“… genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Amnesty also isn’t still “working on that report.” You can read the report here:
https://amnesty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Amnesty-International-Gaza-Genocide-Report-December-4-2024.pdf
Why are spreading blatant lies in order to deny a genocide? Why would anyone do that? Why would anyone trust anything you said?
Firstly, you might want to tone it down a bit with the “spreading blatant lies” outrage. Apoplexy usually doesn’t inspire trust among people who are center in a controversy. Stoparabhate has completely lost the plot, but perhaps you’re not as oblivious?
Secondly, I’m not sure how much anybody trusts any random stranger on the internet. In my opinion, you don’t exactly have a glowing track record of neutrality yourself (you keep attacking and deflecting from the actual topic of this article, which is antisemitism)
Whoever this “anyone” is that you’re referring to, they don’t need to blindly trust CallingaSpade—or you, for that matter. They can simply do their own research and may come across insights like this:
* * *
“On page 101 of its 296-page report, the authors acknowledge that the question of intent is a huge problem for those who accuse Israel of genocide. But they go on to reject ‘an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence … that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.’
If Israel were actually trying to eliminate the Palestinians as a people, I think it would be obvious and easy for Amnesty and others to prove. But the point is that the report essentially concedes that Israel isn’t committing genocide under prevailing interpretations of international law.”
From: “The headlines said Amnesty International accused Israel of genocide. Here’s what they missed”
* * *
By your logic, that article and others are also “spreading blatant lies” and not because you’ve made a coherent reasoned argument that they are “blatant lies” but because it’s pro-Israel “propaganda”? In the same breath, you expect people to trust you that you’re a credible trustworthy source and not prejudiced?
I’m not sure how this “anyone” will ultimately decide who to trust, but I’d suggest it’s not unlikely to happen with your approach.
CallingaSpade, I have refused to engage with these two at the level they want to engage. Their sole intent appears to be deflecting from the core premise of Michael’s articles, and it’s evident they have no intention of ever stopping
Typo: …but I’d suggest it’s unlikely to happen that they’ll trust you based on your approach
Curious said:
“I’m not sure how this “anyone” will ultimately decide who to trust, but I’d suggest it’s not unlikely to happen with your approach.”
In your “evidence” you are quoting Jonah Goldberg, a rightwing propagandist for the National Review, who was a huge booster of the illegal Iraq War based on the false case of WMD, and who famously said he would bet money that there would be no civil war in Iraq after the invasion. His lame criticism that intent is a “huge problem” for Amnesty is addressed in the report in a very detailed manner with citations to international legal jurisprudence and arguments that are supported by reasoning and evidence. It is not actually hard for thinking people to know which of these sources to trust.
It really says everything that you need to rely on sources with a history of propagandizing blatant lies that no one believed then or now to enable invasions that violated international law.
Well, when asked at press briefing that “Amnesty International concluded that Israel is, in fact, committing genocide in Gaza”, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel replied “We disagree with the conclusions of such a report. We have said previously and continue to find the allegations of genocide to be unfounded”
He then repeated, “…that’s an opinion… They are entitled to make their own analysis of the situation and come to their own conclusions. What I can say as a spokesperson of the U.S. Government and as a spokesperson of this administration is that the findings of – the accusations of genocide, we continue to believe those to be unfounded”
He repeated it a third time, “People, organizations, groups are entitled to draw their own conclusions. The U.S. conclusion is that these allegations of genocide are unfounded”
German also rejected the conclusions of the report. Foreign ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer said “The question of genocide presupposes a clear intention to eradicate an ethnic group. I still do not recognize any such clear intention and therefore I cannot share the conclusions of the report.”
And “it is still our opinion that Israel is acting in defense against Hamas which sparked this conflict with its terror attacks.”
So to recap, this is your approach:
1. claim people who disagree with you here are “spreading blatant lies”
2. claim that others who disagree with you have “a history of propagandizing blatant lies”
3. claim that the US and German administrations who disagree with you are also spreading blatant lies
And sure, we do have extreme anti-Israel far-left radical types who think some Western governments are supporting genocide.
But at least “anyone” can see exactly what approach you use to reject the views of anyone who disagrees with you.
So in my opinion, everything I wrote above still stands.
Happy holidays!
Too much nuance? Saying that a little girl who was violently abducted, was “lost” is a blatant lie. What could possibly be the motivation for neglecting to name Hamas in this clear case of child abuse? Perhaps the PM is just “anti-zionist” against a nine-year-old Jewish girl.
You are lying about so much of the conflict so really are not in a position to make judgements.
All you want to do is feel ok with genocide being undertaken by Israel and to smear those who object to such.
Curious said:
“claim that others who disagree with you have “a history of propagandizing blatant lies””
No, I’m claiming that Jonah Goldberg, who writes for the far right National Review, has that history. He has an easily found public history of supporting the Iraq War, which was based on the lie of WMD and he also has a history of using his position to say that Iraq would definitely not have a civil war after the invasion. So he both supported an illegal war based on lies and has a history of extremely poor judgement when analyzing geopolitics. That’s a fact unless you are one of the very few people who still believe that the Iraq War wasn’t based on lies despite the evidence to the contrary?
People like Goldberg were saying that everyone who predicted the civil war and foreign policy disaster were “anti-American far left radical types” so you’re tapping into a rhetorical tradition with a pretty poor track record.
If you are honestly arguing that the US is an honest neutral broker on this issue then you have not been paying attention.
As usual, there are so many things in your arguments that are so very problematic
1. I don’t know anything about Jonah Goldberg, so I quickly googled. It looks like he admits the “Iraq war was a mistake”. But then he also says “WMD fiasco was a global intelligence failure, but calling Saddam Hussein’s bluff after 9/11 was the right thing to do”. It sounds like a mix of mea culpa and saving face. To characterize it as “spreading blatant lies” sounds like an extreme position, maybe defamatory, I’m not sure. And frankly, based on our engagements above, my trust in you has gone straight down the toilet. So I’ll call this a draw at best. At worst, you tried to assassinate his character to try to “win” this argument, not for the goal of finding the truth in an intellectually honest way.
2. If a person is wrong about A, it doesn’t prove they’re wrong about B. (If it were otherwise, then there would be very few reliable sources in the world: “Oh he was wrong about that, so he must be wrong about this too”). Now if you see a pattern with someone and you don’t trust them anymore, fine, that’s your prerogative. But make no mistake, that’s all it is, your opinion. There’s no objective proof.
3. As you know, it’s not only Jonah Goldberg who wrote rejected Amnesty International’s conclusions. I gave you the first one I found, but I saw more from other journalists and organizations. (Even if I took the time to locate them, you would just slander them too or deflect to the next thing.) And then there’s the positions of US and Germany. So even if do tear down Jonah Goldberg, you still haven’t proven all the other similar positions are “blatant lies”
4. You have an opinion about something. Somebody else has a different opinion. That should be the default stance. But *if* that’s not enough for you, and you need to demonstrate to “anyone” that you’re telling the truth and nothing but the truth and those contrarians are “spreading blatant lies”, then you need to supply the evidence. Otherwise it’s just defamatory or slander or whatever is the correct term. And if you’re establishing a pattern of baselessly alleging that someone is “spreading blatant lies”, like you did with CallingaSpade, and like Stoparabhate is claiming people are lying, then I think you’ve completely and utterly disqualified yourself
5. And now you’re taking on the US and German government too! And you’re claiming they’re not an “honest neutral broker on this issue”. In your opinion, fine. But you haven’t provided any proof whatsoever. So essentially, you’re asking “anyone” to trust you — a random stranger online — over the US and German governments. So if that’s your ask, if you’re asking me or “anyone” to believe you more than we believe those government officials and their conclusions on matters of military and international law, then please tell us: who are you, what are your credentials, what is the nature of your expertise, etc. I know you won’t do that, but then I wouldn’t expect people to seriously weigh your opinion against the conclusions of these government officials.
6. Friendly reminder that none of this has anything to do with the premise of the article.
Oh ya, and 5b: If you’re going to write off the conclusions of the US and German government *on the basis* that they’re not an “honest neutral broker on this issue”, then I think you will have to also write off the conclusions of Amnesty International because they’re not an “honest neutral broker on this issue”. Here’s at least one documentation that I found via the geopolitics reddit
https://david-collier.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/191219_amnesty_final.pdf
As per the Executive Summary, AI is NOT neutral on this issue, so it is problematic to automatically trust them as a reliable source.
And if you’re taking the position of writing off the conclusions of those who are not an “honest neutral broker on this issue”, then you also have to write off *yourself*. Because clearly you “Emerys” are also not neutral either, far from it in fact
That’s the thing about logical coherence. It doesn’t care about your perspective. It cares about fairness and consistency of approach, a level playing field based on reasoning. A lot of people don’t like that when it works against them
Pingback: The Year of Disbelief: The Relentless Rise of Antisemitism in Canada – Selfpos