I started attending a progressive and anti-genocide synagogue a year ago. I love my synagogue. I was not raised Jewish but have started considering conversion and have informed my rabbi.

However I've been given pause by whether I'll truly be accepted by the larger Jewish community. My conversion would not be seen as legitimate to Orthodox Judaism. On top of that, the mainstream Jewish institutions: most synagogues, Jewish Federations, Hillel, et al. are Liberal Zionists at best and are supporting or involved in pro-Israel activities that I cannot support. Synagogues having national flags on the bimah, Jewish Federations and Hillel organizing and sponsoring activities featuring IOF soldiers, sending aid to the IOF (one synagogue in town even organized care packages for the IOF), organizing talks or events that reiterate the need to defend Israel as a Jewish state, etc.

I feel that as great as American Jewish institutions can be for cultural programming and community building they can also promote a lot of centering Jewish feelings, which as someone not raised Jewish I feel uncomfortable calling out since I feel I will be labeled as a fake Jew or an imposter. And to be clear there is very real antisemitism out there that needs to be countered. And here's where it gets very tricky. Because there are instances where demonstrations have gone too far in what they've said or done and at the same time organizations being demonstrated against have in some way participated in activities that I cannot support. So I don't want to isolate Jewish organizations or their members who have to contend with real antisemitism and at the same time I don't want to rush to make a public defense of an organization that has participated in Zionist activities just because the larger Jewish community in the area is asking to "stand" with xyz organization.

It has been impressed upon me that I cannot and am not supposed to practice Judaism alone. I very much want to find community and belonging. But if I seek it among mainstream American Jewish institutions I run the risk of being alienated and feeling out of place at best or potentially being ostracized if I'm too vocal in my criticism. I am lucky to be in a city where there is some anti-Zionist Jewish presence and groups. But those groups tend to be very focused on planning political campaigns whereas I'm looking more for a ritual community (also totally respect those who see their political organizing as an expression of Jewish practice - just saying that for me that can't be the only thing).

Again I am very grateful that I even have anti-genocide synagogue I can attend. But I feel like I essentially have to leapfrog from scant anti-Zionist lily pad to anti-Zionist lily pad and don't feel like I belong or have a place in mainstream Jewish institutions and plan not to participate.

My question is whether it is right for someone to convert to Judaism (which is also joining the Jewish people at large) when that person has no intention of participating in the larger Jewish institutions? I feel so conflicted because the American Jewish community is already so small and the need for these larger institutions is real. But why does it feel like my only choices are alienation/ostracization or checking my morals at the door for a sense of belonging?

Hi,an Arab here! I don't hate Jews. I have nothing against Jews. My parents never taught my siblings and i to hate Jewish people. Sorry,I know it's off topic and not about me,but I just wanted to point this out.

Tovah Feldshuh is speaking out after her Nobody Wants This costar, Adam Brody’s remarks about Palestine.

The 77-year-old actress shared her thoughts on Brody’s recent GQ interview, in which he called for a free Palestine and spoke critically about Israel’s military actions.

“To accuse the Jewish people of genocide is wild,” Feldshuh, who is Jewish, told The New York Post. “It’s right out of Hitler’s playbook. You take the victim and you make the victim the perpetrator.”

While speaking with The New York Post, Feldshuh said that it “makes a difference to the [Jewish] community” when genocide accusations are made by Jewish people. She also told the outlet that individuals with “large platforms who feed their followers such falsehoods do the most damage,” but did not specifically mention Brody by name.

“I believe that the perseverance of the existence of the state of Israel is crucial to the well-being of the democratic world and of the free world,” Feldshuh continued. “Of course, Israel needs the United States, [but] the United States needs Israel, believe you me.”

The Walking Dead alum added that she believes “we’re in a time… where socialism and antisemitism are trying to meet,” and claimed that the only way to combat what she described as “lies,” is through telling the truth.

https://x.com/infolibnews/status/2114549630767878146

Her arguments don't even work

The biggest problem for me is the way she seems to treat the fact that most Palestinians in Gaza are still alive as evidence that Israel therefore cannot have genocidal intent. “96.6% of the population wasn't killed” wasn't killed therefore isn't a genocide, is she serious?. The Genocide Convention explicitly says destruction can be committed “in whole or in part,” and genocide isn't limited to killing everyone in a population. It also includes causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group.

And then, I don't really understand the argument that because Israel has a very powerful military, the number of people killed proves that it exercised enough restraint to rule out genocide. That's basically a counterfactual: “If Israel really wanted to destroy Palestinians, it could have killed many more.” How are we supposed to know what the hypothetical maximum number of deaths would have been? And even if we could, genocidal intent isn't measured by how many people someone could theoretically have killed but chose not to. "There was some restraint” and “therefore genocide is impossible” are two completely different claims.

The same thing goes for the distinction between a statement and an act. Yes, a politician saying something genocidal isn't automatically proof that genocide was committed. Nobody needs to pretend otherwise. But if you're trying to establish specific intent, statements by senior government and military officials are obviously relevant evidence. That's literally the kind of evidence you would expect investigators to examine when trying to figure out what the people directing a war intended. So I don't buy the “random tweets” framing either. If we're talking about some random person on Twitter saying “kill them all,” obviously that tells us very little about state policy. But we're also talking about statements made by people who actually hold political or military power.

Did Slobodan Milošević have to write down “I intend to destroy X number of Bosniaks” before his intentions could be assessed? Of course not. In the Yugoslav wars, prosecutors and courts looked at political objectives, statements, communications, policies, the conduct of forces, forced expulsions, killings and the wider pattern of events. Genocidal intent is generally something that has to be established from the totality of the evidence. It isn't necessary for a perpetrator to leave behind a signed document saying “this is my genocide plan.”

And then the “war vs. genocide” framing that a lot of Zionists talk about. Genocide can happen during a war. So can war crimes and crimes against humanity. Period.

Then there's the part about the genocide accusation being comparable to blood libel or functioning as a “permission structure” for antisemitism. Of course that some people use criticism of Israel as a vehicle for antisemitic conspiracy theories. But that doesn't mean the accusation of genocide itself is a blood libel. You actually have to demonstrate that connection. Otherwise you're essentially saying that because some people make an accusation for antisemitic reasons, the accusation itself becomes antisemitic. That's obviously not how we evaluate political or legal claims.

There are also Jewish scholars and organizations who have argued that Israel is committing genocide, just as there are Jewish scholars and organizations who reject that characterization. Their Jewish identity doesn't settle the question either way. What matters is the evidence. And the evidence is clear: Israel is commiting a genocide.

And I find the “appeal to authority” argument a little strange too. Nobody saying you should believe Israel is committing genocide simply because Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, the UN or some academic says so. Their reports are arguments based on evidence. For example, Amnesty's investigation wasn't just they decided genocide was happening and then looked for evidence. It involved interviews, satellite imagery, visual and digital evidence, analysis of statements by Israeli officials, and an examination of Israel's conduct.

And the same applies to statements by Israeli officials. If you're trying to determine whether the specific intent required for genocide existed, why would statements from senior officials be excluded from the analysis? Just because they're so called "random tweets"? Bitch, please.

Again, her argument about the genocide is weak. It seems to assume that genocide has a specific body count attached to it. It doesn't. The acts, policies, circumstances and evidence of intent have to meet the definition. There isn't some threshold where 500,000 deaths equals genocide but 50,000 doesn't.

Fascinating, uplifting, and depressing all at once.

This is genuinely horrifying.

https://x.com/SMohyeddin/status/2114735597961064914

Some people talk about their campaign. Others encourage people to vote for them by bragging about harsh punishments for eating a little extra food. Ben Gvir is the latter.

One common Zionist argument I hear is that other countries have laws of return that no one blinks an eye at, but they do with Israel because it’s Jews and they hate us.

Is there ANY country on earth with a similar law of return, much less more than one?

I know some Eastern European countries can be a bit more lax about people claiming citizenship, but typically this has to do with a grandparent, or at most, great-grandparent, having lived in that country. And you can’t convert into being Eastern European. Several countries allow you to claim citizenship if your grandparent was a citizen, but that’s insanely different from Israel.

But obviously because my experiences are Euro-centric, I’d be interested in hearing about any other country….though I truly do doubt any country has an equivalent law of return to Israel.

There is no other country where one can claim citizenship based on their religion/ethnoreligion, is there?

The delegation aims to stand with Palestinian farmers facing escalating settler violence, land seizures and attacks involving Israeli forces.

https://x.com/PalTimesNews/status/2114670487422763403

Hi everyone, I'm from Latin America and these past few years I've seen an incredibly concerning amount of misinformation regarding the genocide and the apartheid, mainly from Evangelical Zionists as well as antisemitic alt right who don't care about Palestinian safety.

Is there an organization led by Palestinians and anti Zionist Jews in the region? Mainly Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.

From today’s Ynet in Hebrew:

Security Coordinator Who Fired at Palestinian Vehicle, Seriously Injuring a Woman, Released to House Arrest

The Jerusalem District Court has ordered the release of Pinhas Shem Tov Ran—the security coordinator for Reches Gid'onim—to house arrest. In his ruling, the judge took into account Ran’s military service, his lack of a criminal record, recommendations from his commanders, and the fact that he had saved the lives of fellow combatants in battle. The judge also rejected the prosecution’s argument that there was a risk of the judicial process being obstructed. The security coordinator is charged with aggravated assault and obstruction of justice; he had entered the Palestinian village of Aqraba—outside his area of ​​responsibility—where he conducted unauthorized identity checks and opened fire on a vehicle carrying a couple, after the driver failed to comply with his orders to stop. Two bullets struck a woman inside the vehicle, leaving her seriously injured.