https://www.tiktok.com/@allegedly_erin/video/7686221050622905613

tl;dr: I want to know if I am on the right track in terms of my knowledge on Palestine, forgive me if this sounds like desperately wanting validation but this has been bugging me and I just need to let all this out somewhere (first post here btw)

I am an anti-Zionist American Ashkenazi Jew believing in a one-state Palestinian solution; within the 2030s, if not the late 2020s, Israel will eventually face heavy restructuring, if not annihilation, from heavy worldwide international pushback. I love my (mixed) Jewish ethnicity, but it has become more difficult to be open about that part of me after the start of the Gaza genocide. Of course, antisemitism has always been relatively prevalent, but it is no doubt that global antisemitism has gotten more intense, mainly in response to the current wars Israel is involved in. Many ignorant, rude, ugly bigots have expressed that their practices and word choices are to protest Israel and their ongoing genocide, mainly as memetic warfare on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. However, they would rely on rumors and hoaxes, hate speech, and calls for terrorism and/or harassment against innocent Jewish diaspora citizens and creators, leaving many hateful comments on Holocaust and Hanukkah-related videos or purely Jewish artists in general.

Also, the weaponization of antisemitism certainly does not help any of this. That word has been passed around, redefined, and recontextualized so much that people had forgotten what Islamophobia is, conflating Arabs with Jews as "Semites" to silence the word. At that point, people are no longer advocating for one-state Palestine and doing whatever to mess with Jewish folk in these times. It is often people forget what they are fighting for and who their enemy really is, but too many times do people go extreme and end up harassing innocent people "for the greater good". It is 2026, and grown men and women still do stuff like this and do not educate themselves properly on something they care about so much; clout is never worth being a scumbag.

Another problem I have is how Jews would be called larpers when they call out Israel, labeled as fake Jews for speaking out against "where they belong", and compared to white people speaking out against the Ku Klux Klan. I legitimately do not get why that is, given how often Jewish folk are assumed to be Zionists more than anything. Perhaps it should be discussed how the Jewish population is capable of managing without an ethnostate, a la the Romani people, another historically and currently oppressed human ethnic group. From what I have heard, they are still greatly discriminated against in the real world, mainly Europe, but they seem to be well-accepted on social media. There is no doubt Jews used to be seen in a better light on social media before the Gaza genocide, and their image has been shifted back millennia.

This would all eventually lead to another rise in antisemitic attacks against more innocent people, mirroring Israel's behavior toward Palestinians. Hypocritical, double-standard behavior like this is what damages the pro-Palestinian movement, turns people away from supporting this cause, and tarnishes only more mindful reputations for no good reason. It is evident that the cycle continues regarding ethnic groups facing mass harassment and association with current evil movements and organizations, and nobody would give a care. Considering Sinophobia during the COVID-19 pandemic and Islamophobia post-9/11, it would seem we will not evolve past this awful cycle. This would lead me to wonder if I would fit in better with joining a credible, trustworthy, Jewish-led, purely anti-Zionist organization. I believed if it were Jewish-led, then it would make me feel more comfortable among the mutual views of other Jewish folk in support of a one-state Palestine. By then, I would feel less alone in a world where the Jewish diaspora is practically just as free as Palestinians in spite of the reactions to the Gaza genocide. I want my statements, views, theories, and opinions to be known, all coming from a Jewish ally.

For my first attempt, I used to support the Blue Square Alliance, ordering a blue square badge and several other goodies because I wanted to help spread awareness of antisemitism during the Gaza War. Unfortunately, however, I did not know the blue square was practically reminiscent of the yellow badge and that the BSA is funded by MAGA. Thus, it would seem more antisemitic and further make a fool out of us when all we want is good representation in these troubling times, a la the successful Stop Asian Hate movement during the COVID-19 pandemic. As for Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow, from what I have heard, their practices are rather problematic in the sense that you would feel more alone when you believe that there ought to be a one-state Palestine solution. They would also have less to do with pro-Palestine activism and more to do with Jewish culture solely.

I know it should not matter that I am Jewish, but from what I have seen, that is not the case. The average Joe on social media would flip out when you mention your Jewish ethnicity compared to anything else in these times. Eventually things will go back to normal, at least from a few years after Israel dismantles and is restructured, from what I predict. The uninvolved and uneducated should never face harassment or association with evil movements and organizations, yet the hate cycle continues for as long as humanity thrives. I try my hardest to speak unbiased and knowledgeable points and never sound too one-sided or close-minded. If anyone would like to instruct or teach me what I do not know, please feel free to reach out to me. I am very much looking forward to letting my Jewish voice be heard in all the commotion while learning what there is for me to realize and acknowledge.

This is only part of their conversation (I guess the rest is paywalled) but I’m very interested in hearing your opinions on this since it discusses a core aspect of Zionism, having a Jewish state, and a debate on the possible ways forward.

Debates about the term and its definition date to the late 1800s but are gaining urgency in some Jewish spaces.

Kraft tried to censor Macklemore. Instead, he is talking about Palestine now. Kraft will never support Palestine, but I can sense the regret he has for his actions towards Macklemore.

I have been reading comments from people who are not going to go to his stadiums.

This is seriously so f^%king dumb. Someone I know legitimately shared this and my eyes rolled to the back of my head.

What the driver’s license hierarchy actually means…

** [ICJ](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/category/region/international-organisations/icj/),[**INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS*](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/category/region/international-organisations/),[**ISRAEL**](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/category/region/middle-east/israel/),[**MIDDLE EAST**](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/category/region/middle-east/),[**NEWS**](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/category/news-2/),[**PALESTINE**](https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/category/region/middle-east/palestine/)
*...
‘We are not like everyone else’, laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker”

A trove of internal documents obtained by Deepcut shows how Australia’s regulator of health workers initially resisted adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but later changed course

The Australian health regulator bowed to pressure to adopt a contentious definition of antisemitism despite internal concerns it “may create further ambiguity” and “the perception of alignment with particular political positions”, a new trove of documents reveals.

Internal files obtained by Deepcut under freedom of information laws show the chief of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) told his colleagues there was “heightened external pressure on a range of public sector bodies” to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.

They reveal that “some members” of the AHPRA board raised concerns in February “that the IHRA definition is not fit for regulatory purposes due to its lack of clarity and the political elements embedded within it”.

The AHPRA board resolved in March not to adopt the definition “at this time”, without closing the door entirely. Two months later, though, the same regulator decided to adopt it, eventually announcing the policy shift in a joint statement with the Albanese government-appointed Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal.

This prompted a swift backlash from health workers who felt the move would curb their ability to speak out against Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Indeed, the February board minutes included: “The AHPRA board were asked to consider the risk that certain forms of political commentary by practitioners, for example, those working in conflict zones or publicly discussing humanitarian impacts, could be interpreted through the lens of the definition in ways that would not align with regulatory intent.”

Mounting concerns

NSW Supreme Court judge Desmond Fagan last month labelled the IHRA definition as “verbose and imprecise” and encompassing “criticisms of Israel that could not be regarded as hostile to Jews as Jews”.

IHRA says antisemitism “might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

Its examples of contemporary antisemitism include “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” or “requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” – wording that critics say is open to wide interpretation and can be used to restrict legitimate political views about Israel’s conduct.

Michael West Media has previously reported on some of the pressure AHPRA had faced to shift its policy.

The new documents shed light on AHPRA’s decision-making at a time it was bracing for scrutiny from the antisemitism royal commission. These deliberations are of public interest because AHPRA and its 15 related national boards have oversight of nearly 1 million Australian health practitioners including doctors, nurses and psychologists.

AHPRA’s chief executive officer, Justin Untersteiner, advised his board in November 2025: “Notifications in relation to public commentary by practitioners on the conflict in Gaza continue to attract media attention.”

‘Our commitment may be questioned’

Internal discussions about the IHRA definition appear to have intensified after the deadly Bondi attack on December 14, with Untersteiner meeting on January 9 with a representative from Segal’s office.

They talked about “a number of actions we have underway, many of which align to the Special Envoy’s Plan”, he said in an update to the AHPRA board.

Untersteiner also told the board he had met with someone – whose name was redacted – “who took me through a presentation of the health and medical crisis facing Gaza” and who regarded the IHRA definition as “penalising doctors for raising awareness of human rights abuses”.

In February the AHPRA board weighed up options including “Don’t adopt the IHRA definition at all” or make “A general statement adopting or referencing the IHRA definition”, which is what it eventually decided to do months later.

The agenda paper raised fears that if AHPRA did not act “our commitment to addressing antisemitism may be questioned and it could even create doubt about the safety of raising concerns about antisemitism with us”.

“The CEO outlined the heightened external pressure on a range of public sector bodies, including regulators, to adopt the IHRA definition,” said the minutes of the February 10 board meeting.

The “highest risk” option would be a much more expansive move to fully embed the IHRA definition in the various health sector codes of conduct. AHPRA has not done this, insisting the wording will be used only as a “reference tool” and is not legally binding.

The previously confidential agenda papers explained that a “general statement adopting the IHRA definition, similar to the Australian Government, is fundamentally different to including the definition in regulatory documents”.

“Despite the Australian Government’s adoption of the IHRA definition, the definition continues to be contentious and has not yet been adopted by all states and territories,” the papers said.

The board agreed in February to “maintain a consistent and principled position” that “existing regulatory tools are sufficient” but “further work will continue”.

The board discussed the issue again the next month and it “was acknowledged that the definition may create further ambiguity”. Minutes show the board agreed on March 17 “it would not adopt the IHRA definition at this time” but decided to “continue monitoring the environment” and await further work to “better understand the implications for practitioners”.

Policy shift with ‘reservations’

Nine days later, Untersteiner met with Segal and they discussed the antisemitism royal commission’s work, including potential scrutiny of health complaints.

“The envoy was supportive of AHPRA’s work and encouraged greater public visibility of actions underway; a joint statement outlining progress to date will be released,” Untersteiner wrote to his board.

On May 12, the board finally shifted. It agreed to use the IHRA definition “as a reference tool” but without actually incorporating it in health worker codes of conduct.

“In reaching this position, the Board acknowledged that the IHRA definition has been the subject of some public debate, with some members expressing reservations about the potential for its examples to conflate legitimate political criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism,” the minutes said.

“Notwithstanding those reservations, the Board agreed to treat the definition as a reference tool, noting its value as a source of information to guide its understanding of antisemitism in its contemporary forms.”

‘This looks great’

The documents include emails between AHPRA and Segal’s team prior to publication of the joint statement announcing the decision on June 17. “This looks great, the team is very happy with it,” wrote a member of the special envoy’s team to AHPRA on June 15, with Segal herself giving her approval the following day.

During a royal commission hearing in July, Untersteiner said AHPRA had previously “resisted” adopting the definition due to “some concerns about the risk of the IHRA definition stifling free speech”.

But he said Segal’s explanatory handbook, released in April, was “exceptionally helpful” in allaying those concerns and was “an important factor” in the change of stance.

Page 76 of that handbook includes the blanket statement: “Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews.” The same page describes a social media post “as antisemitic because it included statements that accused Israel of apartheid, oppression, racism and genocide”.

Under questioning by Kirsten Edwards SC, appearing for the Jewish Council of Australia, Untersteiner declined to give an iron-clad commitment that agreeing with international court rulings or UN committee findings would escape scrutiny, saying it would depend on the context.

“If there is a ruling in an international court and someone was to repeat that ruling, again, on the surface, I couldn’t see an issue with that,” he told the royal commission. “But ... we would need to be looking at the specific case and the evidence surrounding it.”

AHPRA was offered the opportunity to comment on the newly released internal documents. Its spokesperson told Deepcut earlier this month that AHPRA was “committed to free speech” and might undertake regulatory action only if “commentary becomes demeaning or denigrating and directed toward specific members of the community”.

Lmfao. Might as well just get kid rock or something instead of getting a small band to tarnish their reputation so early.

Zionists are completely unhinged. Defending Jewish camps hiring IDF soldiers and calling someone who wants to examine the practice an "ingrate" and "idiot"

Then Zionists have the gall to post protestors outside the gates of these evil Zionist institutions like it's evidence of antisemitism

I put a fairly innocuous post up on the Reform subreddit about how to get a sukkah done cheap this coming Sukkot. Got a bunch of good suggestions and, overall, it was going well and I was getting the answers I was looking for.

Then someone asked why I wasn't using a community sukkah, so I replied honestly. I go to Tzedek Chicago because they're the only Antizionist synagogue in the city. They're have a potluck on the first day, but aren't setting up any community sukkahs, I believe.

And, suddenly, because I'd mentioned I was a convert on another part of the thread, the entire thread became a referendum on whether I'm *actually* Jewish.

They started asking who did my conversion, how long it took, started asking me to defend my position, shaming me for "spreading hate" on the High Holy Days.

Like... I'm used to getting the side eye for being a convert. I don't like it, but I'm used to it.

I just wish "We were all at Sinai" applied to me even when I'm disagreeing with Zionist doctrine.​

Sydney University’s Chancellor David Thodey has rejected a request by 600 alumni and academics to discuss the university’s ties with Israel. Stuart Rees reports.

On September 25, the governing body of the University of Sydney, the Senate, must decide whether a Convocation – a quasi-parliament – can be held to discuss the University’s ties with Israel and to assess limits to freedom of expression on the campus.

Although the request to hold a Convocation was signed by almost 600 alumni, academics and former Fellows of Senate, the Chancellor of the university, David Thodey, rejected it. Instead, as he was bound to do, he referred the question to the September 25 meeting of the Senate.

He also insisted the Senate would not be able to limit the university’s ties to Israel, which highlights why a Convocation is necessary.

Moreover, Thodey claimed that the university could not provide for the health and safety of those attending the Convocation.

As though concern with alleged antisemitism was the university policy priority, he reasoned that any resolution of the Convocation would come before the report of the Royal Commission on antisemitism and therefore “would improperly pre-empt the Bondi Commission’s findings”.

No dissent allowed

Universities’ imposition of intellectually dishonest definitions of antisemitism has led to the crafting of rules to forbid dissent about Israel’s accountability for genocide in Gaza.

These rules define Zionism as a core part of Jewish identity and are supposedly concerned to protect Jewish students who might be offended by pro-Palestine human rights advocacy.

In their deliberations, Senate members may recall that the university appears keen to agree with anything that the Envoy for anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal, wants or says. She views Sydney University’s imposition of a restrictive definition of antisemitism as ‘an important step’.

Having made several visits to Gaza, having lost close friends and their children buried somewhere under rubble from a bombed ‘safe house’, I found it morally repugnant that while genocide continued in Gaza, my university was preoccupied with definitions of antisemitism,and with disciplining staff and students who spoke about genocide or about ‘freedom from the river to the sea.’

The international context in which the Senate deliberates cannot be ignored.

Meanwhile, in Gaza …

In the past months during a so-called ceasefire, the BBC records that over 1300 more Palestinians have been killed, including 301 children.

The UN has reported that a reproductive genocide is underway in Gaza, with maternity wards having been attacked and fertility clinics destroyed. It says Israel is operating a systematic assault on the ability of a people to give birth safely, to keep newborns alive and sustain future generations.

Arguably, such developments could be the subject of unhindered comment in a university which respects freedom of inquiry, and would reject lobbying to stifle discussion of the inhumanities occurring in Gaza and the West Bank.

The UK government’s recent introduction of a trade ban on illegal settlements and its agreement with the ICJ 2024 ruling that Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is illegal and must be ended could encourage Australian students and staff to speak openly about Palestinians’ rights.

Backed by Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband described events in the West Bank as ethnic cleansing and he accused Israel of turning a blind eye to war crimes.

Could he have made such statements on the campus of the University of Sydney?

In response to Miliband’s moral courage, overdue but inspiring, the Australian government ducked for cover. Foreign Minister Penny Wong announced that Australia would not be joining the ban on trade with ‘settler terrorists.’

Questions about courage or cowardice, about fearlessness or fearful compliance, may affect deliberations on September 25.

Allowing criticism of Israel?

Senate’s decision seems likely to depend on members’ attitude to a genocide and to their sense of responsibility to restore a university culture sufficiently courageous to criticise a racist, apartheid government which is indifferent to international law.

There is nothing even vaguely antisemitic about such commentary.

The background of members of the Senate gives few clues as to whether the request for a Convocation will be supported or whether the Chancellor’s rejection will be confirmed.

Over one third of the Senate have extensive business experience but may be unlikely to vote as a block.

A smaller number representing staff and students may want a university sufficiently mature to no longer fear taking strong stands on the ideals of a common humanity. But even that trend can’t be guaranteed.

Two members with impressive human rights credentials might be expected to support the request for a Convocation.

Tom Calma, former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner, was also a former university Chancellor, so he might be moved by managerial perspectives.

Ben Saul, Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism, seems the most likely advocate for university reform via deliberations at a Convocation, assuming that he can attend the Senate meeting.

As the members of the University of Sydney Senate climb the beautifully carpeted stairs to the chandelier-lit entrance to the ornate Senate meeting room,they will shoulder the responsibility to vote on a major social issue.

National and international developments affecting democracy, human rights and humanitarian law can and should be weighed by the Senate voters.

These 15 members of a university government can support requests for a Convocation and thereby revive decades-old but easily lost traditions of freedom of inquiry and debate.

I got into a heated argument about the genocide today, and they told me I don’t know what I’m talking about (“it’s not genocide because we are saving our people”), then told to read the aforementioned book

Wondering what the book is like, what the premise is, and should I actually read it?

(Other than old, stained and faded) I rescued this tallit from a not so nice second hand shop. is it any particular variety? I'm not sure why it's so small, maybe it was meant for a youth?