When asked if Israel's actions in Gaza should be called genocide, the NY-13 candidates had strong opinions on the relationship between the US and Israel. Watch the full back-and-forth during their forum with @DanMannarino here: pix11.com/news/local-news/ny…

Yes, @mehdirhasan, we should ignore them. Each one failed to apply the legal standards as required. Amnesty: “However, its [ICJ] rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations. As outlined below, Amnesty International considers this an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence and one that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict.” B’tselem: “This report relies on a broader analytical framework…” The UN Commission of Inquiry did not assess reasonable alternative explanations. The only mention of Hamas’ tunnel infrastructure was to discount the tunnel under the European hospital that Mohammed Sinwar was killed in (and where he directed acts harmful to the “enemy” [e.g. Israel]). The International Association of Genocide Scholars (of which I’m a dues paying member) did not assess reasonable alternative explanations and discount them (which would defeat the only reasonable inference test). Human Rights Watch did not actually assess genocide, it said that they concluded acts of genocide without any assessment. And important to note: Amos Goldberg and Omer Bartov are historians who are not qualified to assess the legal elements of the crime of genocide. Citing to them is a logical fallacy of an appeal to authority that makes zero sense. Not a single accuser assesses the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, particularly GCIV 19 & 28, and API 51(7). Without understanding the implications of these articles one cannot conclude that the only reasonable inference is genocide. If each accuser refuses to apply the jurisprudence as it stands today to make their conclusion, the problem is that they have a predetermined conclusion, and that they are fitting an analysis to that conclusion. This is fundamentally flawed. So, yes, we should ignore all of them. If you must rely on a confirmation bias with fundamentally flawed analyses that are devoid of the legal analysis that is required today, without being honest about the shift in the jurisprudence that they all require, the problem here is you. I can state that Israel hasn’t committed genocide under the jurisprudence because I can measure alternative reasonable explanations for Israel’s conduct. None of your citations attempted to do this required analysis. Genocide is not what you want it to be to convict the Jewish state who had its people taken hostage and Hamas, PIJ, and even Palestinian civilians going door to door slaughtering innocent people because of their membership in either the Israeli or Jewish groups. The more we do this the more we excuse Hamas for its crimes (including genocide), hostage taking, sexual violence, etc. that it committed against the Israeli people, but also its crimes it has committed against the Palestinian people that purposefully inflicted higher incidental harm to them (human shielding, diversion, torture, persecution, murder, etc.). Mehdi so badly wants Israel to be guilty of the crime Hamas committed that he will excuse Hamas from culpability for its crimes against Palestinians that would fundamentally negate genocidal intent for Israel (as confirmed by a UN report this last week, by the way). Mehdi is an evil person, as are all those who portend to care about Palestinians while ignoring Hamas just so they can blame Israel.

original iran nuclear deal: “under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapon.”

Gut wrenching to see four young people jailed for direct action against an arms supplier to Israel. Years in prison for protesting to save lives in Gaza, with 'terrorism' used despite no jury convicting them of it. A truly dangerous attack on the right to protest.

This image shows Sam Corner knocking off an umbrella from a security guard’s hands. It does not show any policewomen or spine smashing. As always, Eylon is not misinformed, he’s misinforming.

Gut wrenching to see four young people jailed for direct action against an arms supplier to Israel. Years in prison for protesting to save lives in Gaza, with 'terrorism' used despite no jury convicting them of it. A truly dangerous attack on the right to protest.

The mother of one of the Palestine Action thugs just given a heavy custodial sentence says she’s so proud of her daughter. She doesn’t seem that upset and says “with the help of Allah victory will be ours” to shouts of Allahu Akbar. Who talks like this.

Gut wrenching to see four young people jailed for direct action against an arms supplier to Israel. Years in prison for protesting to save lives in Gaza, with 'terrorism' used despite no jury convicting them of it. A truly dangerous attack on the right to protest.

UNRWA fires 70 Gaza staffers as it grapples with 'Hamas problem' trib.al/obKblAA

Good to be in Paris today with @jnbarrot and @AnitaAnandMP meeting with Palestinian & Israeli groups following our new International Peace Fund announcement yesterday. We need renewed momentum behind a 2 state solution and peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.

Those blocking the prison van containing the violent criminals just sentenced are chanting “globalise the Intifada” now. Given the context seems like a call for violence. @metpoliceuk