Calling it genocide is absurd. And hateful. To me its a question of morals and doing what is right.
I don't enjoy slurring others. Antisemitism makes me upset. As does any hatred. Right now we have a sharp rise in Antisemitism and, I think, it's more important than ever that, we who has a functioning moral compas, speak up.
That's all.
I think those who defend Hamas and Iran are on the wrong side of history. I think they should be ashamed of themselves.
Pretending that Hamas can be defeated without bloodshed is so dumb, that I have a hard time believing those who say it, do it purely out of ignorance. Its just too bizarre. Its not like Hamas' tactics are a secret. Least secret conspiracy in history
Israel isn't perfect. There's plenty of problems with it. But it's not a malicious nation hellbent on destroying its neighbours. Like Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas
What you’ve written isn’t a moral stance. It’s a moral shield—one used to deflect accountability behind the language of hurt feelings and tribal loyalty.
Calling what’s happening in Gaza genocide isn’t “absurd” or “hateful.” What’s absurd is pretending that the mass displacement, deliberate starvation, bombing of civilians, destruction of hospitals, and obstruction of humanitarian aid—openly documented by the UN, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and even Israeli sources—is just war as usual. Genocide is not defined by how offended you are. It’s defined by intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. That’s a legal threshold—not a vibe check.
You say antisemitism makes you upset. Good. It should. But invoking antisemitism to shut down criticism of a state’s war crimes is not protecting Jews—it’s weaponizing Jewish identity to shield state violence. That’s not solidarity. That’s complicity. If your moral compass only points north when it’s your side suffering, it’s not a compass. It’s a mirror.
No one here is defending Hamas or Iran. That’s the oldest bad-faith move in the book: equating criticism of Israeli policy with endorsement of its enemies. It’s lazy, it’s dishonest, and it’s meant to silence—not to clarify. Opposing Hamas does not require blind loyalty to everything Israel does. And if your definition of being on the “right side of history” requires ignoring war crimes so long as they’re wrapped in your flag, then you’re not on the right side of history—you’re on the side of selective outrage.
You say defeating Hamas can’t be done without bloodshed. Fine. No one is saying it can. But bloodshed is not a blank check. There are rules. There are laws. And there are limits. You don’t get to flatten cities, starve families, and erase entire neighborhoods and then cry foul when the world calls that what it is. War is not a justification for abandoning humanity. It’s the reason those laws were written in the first place.
You admit Israel isn’t perfect—but then you spend every word pretending it’s blameless. You talk about Hamas’s tactics, but refuse to address that Israel has killed over 30,000 people, most of them civilians, including aid workers, children, and doctors. You call Iran “malicious” for supporting proxy violence, but ignore that Israel receives billions in weapons annually and uses them to collectively punish an occupied people.
This isn’t about whether Israel has a right to defend itself. It’s about how far it goes—and how many corpses you’re willing to stack to call that defense.
You end by saying it’s a matter of morals. You’re right. And morality doesn’t stop at borders. It doesn’t stop at religion. And it doesn’t excuse the mass killing of civilians just because the flag is blue and white.
If you want to speak from moral high ground, then act like it.
Because morality without accountability isn’t morality.
It’s propaganda with better PR.
NHC