Reminder: Only right wing supporters of Iaraeli Likud party actually support genocide going on.
Literally half of Israeli citizens hate Likud and Natanyahu.
ps. Interesting trivia: Mahmoud Abbas (President of the Palestinian West Bank) and FATAH militia also are against Hamas. They always have been:
This is a popular idea in the Israeli propaganda. Israelis like to say that they hate Netanyahu, but in reality, majority of Israeli Jews fully align with his policies towards Palestinians, and multiple polls confirm this. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-08-05/ty-article/.p...
There tends to be a lot more nuance[0] when it comes to polling results like these, the reality is that opinions amongst Israelis vary quite a lot. There are also a lot of problems with organizations like the UN historically wildly misrepresenting the food situation[1] which are likely to make Israelis question the accuracy of many of these starvation reports, especially from organizations that have historically made many highly inaccurate claims. UN backed IPC reports like those cited in the CNN article likewise have serious credibility issues as well[2], additionally there are extremely biased individuals like Michael Fakhri(the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food) cited in the CNN article that even publish comic books with some rather overt antisemitic tropes[3].
This equivocation is absurd. Literally every international aid organization is saying the same thing - and even a few Israeli ones are now recognizing the genocide in Gaza. The fact that Israel, far from sending "large amounts of aid", has, in fact, systematically blocked aid to Gaza was recognized even by the US government. The US even resorted to building a pier to send their own aid in.
Edit: looking at the claims more specifically, this one is particularly easy to debunk:
> even publish comic books with some rather overt antisemitic trope
The supposed "antisemitic trope" is an image of a person holding a cracked globe. The blog post implies that this is supposed to be an image representing the antisemitic "masters of the world" trope. In fact, the image represents the UN rapporteur himself looking at how the lack of international reaction to Israel's crimes has left a crack in the UN-led rules-based world order.
Ok, find a single international humanitarian organization active in Gaza that believes that Gazans are treated well. Or even a single one active in Gaza that is not saying that a blatant genocide is taking place.
And the "tentacles" are the heads of a hydra labeled "Imperialism", "Racism", "Extractivism", "Capitalism", "Patriarchy". Not sure how much clearer the imagery could get, and which part of this is antisemitic.
> Or even a single one active in Gaza that is not saying that a blatant genocide is taking place.
World Central Kitchen is active in Gaza and last I checked makes no claim of there being a genocide in Gaza.
> And the "tentacles" are the heads of a hydra labeled "Imperialism", "Racism", "Extractivism", "Capitalism", "Patriarchy".
What seems to be implied here is that these are the means in which the Jews control the world. Casting Israelis/Jews as demonic figures in general is also a common antisemitic trope.
> Not sure how much clearer the imagery could get, and which part of this is antisemitic.
The implied world domination part as well as the demonic imagery.
> World Central Kitchen is active in Gaza and last I checked makes no claim of there being a genocide in Gaza.
They don't talk about genocide, true, but they do talk about the famine they're seeing and the extreme difficulty of getting humanitarian aid into Gaza - causing them to have almost ceased food delivery at the beginning of this year, before finding ingenious new ways of cooking and delivering supplies.
It's also funny to pick an organization which has suffered one of the most clear and well documented assassinations of aid workers by Israeli forces, the World Central Kitchen attack in 2024. This was one of the cases that even the IDF couldn't invent a justification for (the convoy they killed had been coordinating constantly with them, they had followed the root exactly, etc). They called it a regrettable error, of course.
> What seems to be implied here is that these are the means in which the Jews control the world. Casting Israelis/Jews as demonic figures in general is also a common antisemitic trope.
The comic is quite explicit, we don't have to look for implicit innuendo. It says that these forces (imperialism, capitalism, etc) are the main reasons for food insecurity everywhere this happens in the world, and Gaza is just one example. While Israel, backed by the USA, is the aggressor in the case of Gaza, the same forces (again, meaning imperialist tendencies, not some conspiracy of "evil Jews") behind other acts of aggression by other states in other places impacted by famine.
> They don't talk about genocide, true, but they do talk about the famine they're seeing and the extreme difficulty of getting humanitarian aid into Gaza - causing them to have almost ceased food delivery at the beginning of this year, before finding ingenious new ways of cooking and delivering supplies.
It's much less an issue of getting aid into Gaza and much more an issue of distribution, with most aid being intercepted before reaching the intended destination[3]. Even then I've yet to see any credible evidence that there is a famine, although there are certainly various degrees of food insecurity.
> It's also funny to pick an organization which has suffered one of the most clear and well documented assassinations of aid workers by Israeli forces, the World Central Kitchen attack in 2024. This was one of the cases that even the IDF couldn't invent a justification for (the convoy they killed had been coordinating constantly with them, they had followed the root exactly, etc). They called it a regrettable error, of course.
It's a war, targeting mistakes happen, the IDF generally makes an effort to investigate when these sort of things happen. It quite clearly wasn't a case of the IDF intentionally targeting aid workers. There are simply no incentives or evidence for the IDF to have a policy of deliberately targeting WCK aid workers. Friendly fire incidents where IDF soldiers have been killed have been somewhat common in Gaza in general so it certainly doesn't seem to be improbable that a targeting mistake like this could happen by accident.
> The comic is quite explicit, we don't have to look for implicit innuendo.
Lets go through these and see if they match up with antisemetic tropes as well.
> imperialism
So here we have the "world imperialism"[0] antisemetic trope.
> capitalism
Here we have the "Jewish Capitalism"[1] antisemetic trope.
we even have a "Patriarchy"[2] trope as well
Seems pretty clear to me what the author is doing here.
> While Israel, backed by the USA, is the aggressor in the case of Gaza, the same forces (again, meaning imperialist tendencies, not some conspiracy of "evil Jews") behind other acts of aggression by other states in other places impacted by famine.
This war was started by Hamas on October 7th, it's quite clear they are the aggressor here.
> It's much less an issue of getting aid into Gaza and much more an issue of distribution
The WCK that you cited is very clear on this: the problem is getting aid into Gaza, not distributing it. They had to close their kitchens at the beginning of the year because they just couldn't get any supplies into the territory, because Israel wouldn't allow them - especially fuel. They found creative solutions in the meantime.
> Even then I've yet to see any credible evidence that there is a famine, although there are certainly various degrees of food insecurity.
Again, the org you yourself cited has many examples.
> It quite clearly wasn't a case of the IDF intentionally targeting aid workers.
It quite clearly was. The WCK said plain as day that it was. It wasn't the first or the last either - the IDF has killed more international aid workers than even the Russian barbarians have in Ukraine. When you systematically make such "targeting mistakes" over and over again, at some point the deliberate targeting becomes obvious.
> [ going one by one]
Decrying the ills of imperialism and capitalism and patriarchy is not antisemitic. Sure, the nazis used these crisicisms to refer to Jewish people. But the Indians also used them to refer to their British colonizers, the Romanians used them to refer to the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians, the Afghani and the Nicaraguans used them to refer to the USA etc. Stating that imperialism and capitalism and colonialism are the cause of much suffering in this world is not antisemitic, unless you associate it with other antisemitic imagery. Pointing out that Israel is an imperialist country that is trying to conquer (pieces of) its neighbors and opressing the Palestinian people, sometimes for patriarchal/religious reasons, sometimes for capitalist interests, is not antisemitic.
> This war was started by Hamas on October 7th, it's quite clear they are the aggressor here.
This war started when the state of Israel was formed and kicked out much of the local Palestinian population (mostly Muslims, but also some Christians and even Jewish Palestinians). Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem have been under Israeli occupation for some 70+ years. October 7th was just one atrocity, from a long series of atrocities, on both sides, that have punctuated this war. But the aggressor in a war doesn't change just because of one attack by the defender, even when that attack is a war crime. If Ukraine launches a terrorist bombing in Moscow tomorrow killing 700 civillians, that war crime will not change the fact that Russia is the aggressor in that war.
> The WCK that you cited is very clear on this: the problem is getting aid into Gaza, not distributing it.
I'm referring to the current situation, I'm not disputing that there have been times where aid was not allowed in, however at those times there was generally sufficient stockpiles available.
> Again, the org you yourself cited has many examples.
Examples of food insecurity, sure, but not to the level of famine.
> The WCK said plain as day that it was.
How would the WCK alone be able to make that sort of determination? Only those with direct access to the targeting decision making process would be able to with any reasonable degree of certainty be able to determine if the WCK incident was a genuine mistake vs an intentional attack. The details the IDF provided regarding how the mistake was made certainly indicate it being a mistake is plausible IMO.
> When you systematically make such "targeting mistakes" over and over again, at some point the deliberate targeting becomes obvious.
So when the IDF systematically has friendly fire issues where their own soldiers get killed does that mean they are deliberately targeting their own soldiers by that logic?
> Decrying the ills of imperialism and capitalism and patriarchy is not antisemitic. Sure, the nazis used these crisicisms to refer to Jewish people. But the Indians also used them to refer to their British colonizers, the Romanians used them to refer to the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians, the Afghani and the Nicaraguans used them to refer to the USA etc. Stating that imperialism and capitalism and colonialism are the cause of much suffering in this world is not antisemitic, unless you associate it with other antisemitic imagery.
You seem to agree that these are in fact historically documented antisemitic tropes(i.e. used by the Nazis), you appear to be saying their use is justified...that's a rather different argument.
> Pointing out that Israel is an imperialist country that is trying to conquer (pieces of) its neighbors and opressing the Palestinian people, sometimes for patriarchal/religious reasons, sometimes for capitalist interests, is not antisemitic.
One can easily make an argument that Israel's formation was anti-imperialist because its independence was an act of breaking away from an imperialist power(the British). I would agree that is a bit of an oversimplification. This particular conflict has a number of elements to it that are somewhat unique which make these sort of broad categorizations somewhat misleading.
> This war started when the state of Israel was formed and kicked out much of the local Palestinian population (mostly Muslims, but also some Christians and even Jewish Palestinians).
That's not exactly accurate IMO, the Arab-Israeli War started when the British Mandate ended and the Arab states attacked[0].
> Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem have been under Israeli occupation for some 70+ years.
This is simply factually inaccurate, Gaza has not been occupied by Israel for 70+ years, you seem to forget that it was occupied by Egypt[1] until 1967. The West Bank was annexed/occupied by Jordan until 1967 as well[2]. So in reality this occupation by Israel of Gaza and the West Bank has only been happening for around 58 years. Most Palestinians say the occupation has occurred for 70+ years because they consider all of Israel proper to be an occupation(as they largely reject Israel's right to exist outright).
> October 7th was just one atrocity, from a long series of atrocities, on both sides, that have punctuated this war.
This is certainly a conflict where one can easily blame either side depending on at what point in time you start.
> But the aggressor in a war doesn't change just because of one attack by the defender, even when that attack is a war crime. If Ukraine launches a terrorist bombing in Moscow tomorrow killing 700 civillians, that war crime will not change the fact that Russia is the aggressor in that war.
There's no clear original aggressor here as it largely depends on how far you look back in history, there's been so much back and forth fighting that's it's hard to pin the blame on either side for starting the conflict due to the lack of clearly defined national boarders being recognized by both sides as was the case with Ukraine and Russia.
> You seem to agree that these are in fact historically documented antisemitic tropes(i.e. used by the Nazis), you appear to be saying their use is justified...that's a rather different argument.
No, I'm saying that the nazis also ate apples, but that doesn't mean eating apples is antisemitic. Just because the nazis accused the Jewish people of being the root of all evil doesn't mean that saying evil is bad is antisemitic, if you're not accusing the Jewish people of being the root of this evil. Yes, even if you're accusing a particular group of Jewish people, such as the Israeli state, of doing this.
> There's no clear original aggressor here as it largely depends on how far you look back in history
This is actually very simple. The historic region of Palestine has been inhabited by more or less the same people ever since Biblical times. It was conquered a few times by various empires, and a large part of the population has converted to various religions (from pre-Biblical religions to Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam). The languages they speak have changed various times, and of course the genetic makeup of the population has not been constant, especially given it's a relatively common trade route.
Then, starting with the 1930s or so, a colonization effort by an initially fringe group of Jewish zealots, the Zionist movement; they became much more mainstream after the horrors of the Holocaust. This colonization effort culminated with the proclamation of the state of Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic" state in 1948, led mostly by the colonists who started to expel the local population from the region, with the assent of the British Empire, the USA , and even the USSR (and other European powers). This is the beginning point of the current conflict. Going back further in history is completely absurd: the Palestinians of today are descendants of the ancient Jewish people, of ancient Romans, of ancient Arabic tribes and so on - just as much if not more so than the Jewish people "returning home".
> This is actually very simple. The historic region of Palestine has been inhabited by more or less the same people ever since Biblical times. It was conquered a few times by various empires, and a large part of the population has converted to various religions (from pre-Biblical religions to Judaism, to Christianity, to Islam). The languages they speak have changed various times, and of course the genetic makeup of the population has not been constant, especially given it's a relatively common trade route.
There have been many rather significant demographic shifts since biblical times[0] including migration waves of Egyptians during the Ottoman period. The genetic makeup of the population changing would be something one would expect to result from things like population movements into and out of the region, so I'm not sure what you mean by "The historic region of Palestine has been inhabited by more or less the same people ever since Biblical times." if there have been significant changes since Biblical times.
> Then, starting with the 1930s or so, a colonization effort by an initially fringe group of Jewish zealots, the Zionist movement; they became much more mainstream after the horrors of the Holocaust.
That didn't just start in the 1930s[1].
> This colonization effort culminated with the proclamation of the state of Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic" state in 1948, led mostly by the colonists who started to expel the local population from the region, with the assent of the British Empire, the USA , and even the USSR (and other European powers). This is the beginning point of the current conflict. Going back further in history is completely absurd: the Palestinians of today are descendants of the ancient Jewish people, of ancient Romans, of ancient Arabic tribes and so on - just as much if not more so than the Jewish people "returning home".
The origins of the current conflict arguably started in the 1800s, however Jews occupied the region prior to that period as well in smaller numbers.
Regardless of the history most Israelis living in Israel were born in Israel and hold no other citizenship so one can't really expect them to leave their country at this point.
The ICC has found a significant risk of genocide more than a year ago, based on solid legal documents. People with on the ground experience have been saying it even longer. Holocaust scholars have been looking at the evidence and noticing the patterns. It's ridiculous to claim that it only started being a "legitimate genocide" two weeks ago.
> The ICC has found a significant risk of genocide more than a year ago
Both the court and the finding described are inaccurate: it was the ICJ, not the ICC, and it didn't find a significant risk of genocide (it found that Palestinians plausibly had rights under the Genocide Convention, South Africa had the legal right to bring a case to vindicate those rights, and there was a risk of harm in the period of adjudication of those rights were provisional measures not adopted.)
But what you're saying undersells the decision. They very explicitly found that there is credible evidence of a risk of genocide, and ordered Israel to cease their military operations entirely until the court finishes its investigation. They reviewed numerous indications of genocidal intent from public speeches by President Hertz, ministers Ben Gvir and Smotrich, and various members of the Knesset, in addition to various facts about the way the actual operations are carried out.
Here is their specific finding [0]:
> In light of the considerations set out above, the Court considers that there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the plausible rights invoked by South Africa [emp. mine], as specified by the Court.
You're treating the "real and imminent risk" finding as being comparable to an injunction, which weighs whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the cafe. To my knowledge, the ICJ doesn't do that.
Prejudice to the rights to be protected against genocide doesn’t mean genocide, it can mean making it impossible to litigate the potential violations because of destruction of evidence and witnesses, with or without genocide.
The ICJ decision is important, but it being sold as a ruling on the likelihood of an ultimate genocide finding is inaccurate.
But now, dear reader, just do as instructed and visit the links [0] and [1]. The comic imagery is not antisemitic. But a claim here to the contrary, and the fact that we don't have infinite time to check claims, might have fooled you, as it very nearly fooled me. Fortunately, I clicked and read by myself.
> But now, dear reader, just do as instructed and visit the links [0] and [1]. The comic imagery is not antisemitic. But a claim here to the contrary, and the fact that we don't have infinite time to check claims, might have fooled you, as it very nearly fooled me. Fortunately, I clicked and read by myself.
I posted the link because it's incredibly obvious that these are variations of classic antisemetic tropes, I'm really not sure how one could argue otherwise.
You were refuted in a sibling post. I am not sure what is unclear to you in that situation. Can you screenshot what you think is at fault? Because if it is that subtle, it isn't working.
I think antisemitism is becoming a very elastic concept to neuter any criticism. And, by the way, the Palestinians are a semitic people too. So it should be antijudaism.
> You were refuted in a sibling post. I am not sure what is unclear to you in that situation. Can you screenshot what you think is at fault? Because if it is that subtle, it isn't working.
If you don't recognize the obvious antisemitic tropes based on what I've already shown I don't think further evidence would change your mind.
> I think antisemitism is becoming a very elastic concept to neuter any criticism.
I'm sure there are some cases where that happens, but I don't think this case would qualify as it's far too overt.
> And, by the way, the Palestinians are a semitic people too. So it should be antijudaism.
You're now going as far as trying to redefine the normal accepted definition of antisemitism, this seems to me to just be another attempt at downplaying antisemitism for whatever reason.
“Here's a challenge - find me just one article in the mainstream media that calls for the de-radicalization of Israeli society. I'll save you the effort - you can't!”
The demonstrations are about his power grabs. They have 0 to do with the genocide. On that topic most Israelis are not against him. It is, in fact, what is keeping him in power and why he wants this war so badly.
~15% of Israelis believe that a terrorist who shot up a mosque (literally all he did) is a national hero.
It shouldnt be that that hard to imagine that most of the rest are willing to look the other way in the event of a genocide against the same untermensch.
(It's an archive link because the original is paywalled).
> Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents agreed that "when conquering an enemy city, the Israel Defense Forces should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command – killing all its inhabitants."
> Religious interpretations play a key role in shaping these views. Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents agreed that "when conquering an enemy city, the Israel Defense Forces should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command – killing all its inhabitants." Sixty-five percent said they believed in the existence of a modern-day incarnation of Amalek, the Israelite biblical enemy whom God commanded to wipe out in Deuteronomy 25:19. Among those believers, 93 percent said the commandment to erase Amalek's memory remains relevant today.
Opposition to Netanyahu inside Israel is almost entirely about domestic issues (like judicial reform) and the fact that he refuses to accept any negotiated deal to get the hostages back. Relatively few Israelis care about what he's doing to the Palestinians.
Israeli society is deeply complicit in the mass killing and starvation in Gaza. The IDF is a citizen army. There haven't been mass refusals or resistance. It's not just Netanyahu.
Does Israel have a government structure that allows for a counter-majoritarian government?
In the US, we do... due to the structure of the Senate and Electoral College, low population states wield outsize influence on national politics. This goes as far as allowing the election of a president with <50% national support. Add in political gerrymandering (setting electrical districts to constrain the influence of certain demographics), and we have a national government that's opposed to policies that have wide support across the population in general.
Moderates in Israel have shrunk because for decades, every attempt at compromise seemed to end in more violence rather than peace. From the Oslo years and the Second Intifada, to the Gaza withdrawal and repeated rocket wars, many Israelis came to believe that “giving ground” only brought terror closer to their homes. The sense is that moderation was tried, failed, and cost lives.
On top of that, politics and demographics shifted rightward, and October 7th reinforced the belief that peace is not realistic in the near term. For many Israelis, moderation no longer feels like a safe or responsible option- it feels like a risk their families can’t afford.
I appreciate the response, and I essentially agree with your assessment that this has become the prevailing feeling in Israel. With that being said: surely Israelis understand that the current direction of travel leads to a dark place, not least for Israel itself? I can't imagine a reality where the crisis in Gaza continues and Israel continues to be supported by the West. And then what happens? Surely at some point peace and reconciliation prevails?
I wish that was the natural path, that seeing the damage would turn people back toward reconciliation. But for now, most Israelis don’t see a viable partner on the other side to reconcile with.
This is a very dire situation. We’ve come to realize there are millions, perhaps tens of millions, across the region whose worldview includes the elimination of the Jewish state, and they are very committed to it. We can’t and won’t wage war on whole populations as that is not in our blood. Nor can we realistically change their beliefs in the foreseeable future or find something to offer that would produce lasting peace.
So today our choices feel grim and limited. That is why many Israelis believe we must:
1. Be excellent at predicting attacks and when necessary, strike first to disrupt them
2. Impose a very heavy cost on anyone who contemplates attacking us, so others think twice
3. Remain stronger and more capable than everyone around us
It’s a terrible place to be, and it’s not the future anyone hoped for. But until there’s a credible, sustained shift in the region, a process that would likely take generations of committed leadership, many here see little alternative.
I wish this were true, but it looks like that even if Natanyahu has little support (mostly because of corruption), the genocide is well accepted by israeli public
ps. Interesting trivia: Mahmoud Abbas (President of the Palestinian West Bank) and FATAH militia also are against Hamas. They always have been:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict
Nothing is black or white.