😅 I hope you can keep your cool. You seem very nice. Nothing will change anywhere in the world if we disagree. This doesn't need to be a fight to the death.
Perhaps we can soothe ourselves by talking about this quote:
"...it's as if you automatically assumed --yes Jews the whole world over ARE RIGHTLY to be punished for whatever perceived sins Israel commits, similar to the way Jews historically were held responsible for killing Jesus."
First, of course, I meant to say that ISRAEL is being held accountable, not JEWS are being held accountable. My mistake. Though in my defence, I think I wrote "Jews are being held accountable" because you did:
"...doesn't that strike you as weird how Jews should be held accountable for Gaza"
I respond to a lot of comments on here, often having dozens of conversations all at once, and don't proof-read anything. I also often refer directly to the language people use, which led to this slip up. But yes, I'm well aware of the perils of collectivisation. If the entire theme of this article isn't enough to convince you of that, I'll remind you that black people know something about being unjustly collectivised too. I'm not an antisemite. I don't blame you for killing Jesus. There’s no need to shake. Everything's fine.
And yes, obviously I'm well aware of anti-Israel bias. I'm sure there are people in the UN and Amnesty International and any organisation you care to name who are biased one way or the other (I think I'm detecting an extremely subtle pro-Israel bias in you, for example). But note, almost every link in the article criticising Hamas' atrocities is from Amnesty International. So they aren't so biased that they won't talk about what Hamas are doing. Are they reliable when they criticise Hamas but antisemitic when they criticise Israel?
I had a look at the links you provided. You began this conversation by criticising the use of “rhetoric heavy” language. But seem not to raise an eyebrow at gems like this "Amnesty’s report is a particularly vicious stream of invective against Israel."
And, "Based on their deliberately falsified narrative, Amnesty has accused every Jewish leader since 1948 and the institutions that comprise the State of Israel of numerous “inhumane” acts [...] in other words, since its inception the Jewish state is the worst human rights abuser in the world."
And the almost comical, "Amnesty emphasizes Israeli “cruelty,” a word that appears in the title page and thus literally on every page of the report as the title appears in the footer of each page."
I"m not going to read Amnesty International's entire 280 page report or NGO Monitor's entire 155 page rebuttal (which emphasises Amnesty International's "cruelty" on literally every page as it includes the word "cruel" in the title). I'm guessing you haven't read them either, so I'm not going to comment on it. But the rebuttal doesn't seem likely to be objective or unbiased.
And as you concede that Israel can be as evil as any other country, and as there's very little room for argument that the conditions in Gaza are appalling thanks, in no small part, to Israel's blockade, I don't think there's much value in continuing to quibble over the word "apartheid". Frankly, there are worse terms one could use to describe Gaza.
As for the rest, I honestly don't understand why you're talking about women having their breasts cut off or being gang raped. This is absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making or believing all women. The report about beheaded babies came from a single male soldier who claimed he'd seen them. He may have been telling the truth. But the report was unconfirmed, has not since been confirmed, and was repeated widely anyway. This, in the context of us talking about unconfirmed reports being spread, was the point.
