Famine is Very Near in Gaza Again

Today Bibi Netanyahu gave a speech at the UN. As he started his speech about half of the auditorium walked out of the room. This was done in protest of the genocide in Gaza.

 

Here's a couple of Alan Dershowitz lies.

• Jeffrey Epstein Accusations: Dershowitz was accused by Virginia Giuffre of sexual misconduct during her time as a sex trafficking victim of Jeffrey Epstein. Giuffre sued Dershowitz for defamation after he publicly called her a liar, and he countersued. Giuffre later settled the lawsuit, stating she "may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz". This resolution has been interpreted differently by both Dershowitz, who claims exoneration, and by Giuffre, who stated she never intended to exonerate him.
• Trump's First Impeachment Trial: During his role on President Donald Trump's defense team, Dershowitz made a controversial legal argument that a president could not be impeached for conduct with a "mixed motive" of national and personal political interest. Dershowitz accused CNN of intentionally distorting his argument by editing his statement, a claim he brought to court in a defamation lawsuit. A judge eventually dismissed the lawsuit, a decision that was appealed.
• Claims Regarding Israeli Soldiers: In a video clip circulated in July 2025, journalist Mehdi Hasan challenged Dershowitz to name Israeli soldiers he had claimed were prosecuted for certain actions, calling his statements false.

As a reminder, there's been about 14 different groups, organizations, committees, commissions that have concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. The world leaders walking out on Netanyahu's speech at the UN just demonstrates how badly the Israeli worldwide reputation has been destroyed by their genocide in Gaza.

 

The number of Arabs who chose to listen to Arab leadership and leave Israel's territory and left during raging Civil war before the establishment of the State because Arab countries started a war against the newly established Jewish state: was about 700,000
people.
The number of Jews who were expelled from Arab countries during the same time period due to antisemitic persecution and severe pogroms: about 850,000 people
This means 150,000 more Jews became
refugees from Arab countries than Arabs who left Israel during those years, but countries in the Western world are only concerned with the Palestinians..
They want to recognize a Palestinian state after the October 7th massacre, and they want to give millions of descendants of Arabs who fled pre-statehood Israel the right of return to the only Jewish state in the world.
This would erase its Jewish identity and
propagate its downfall for purely antisemitic motives.
Neither of these things will happen!

 

You’re missing several key facts and contexts here.
1. On Alan Dershowitz:
Epstein Allegations: The Virginia Giuffre settlement explicitly included her statement that she “may have made a mistake in identifying Mr. Dershowitz.” That was a voluntary settlement initiated after both sides had exchanged evidence. Dershowitz’s exoneration claim is supported by Giuffre’s own legal team acknowledging there was no admission of guilt or wrongdoing.
CNN Defamation Case: The judge did not dismiss the suit on factual grounds (i.e., that CNN was truthful) — it was dismissed primarily on First Amendment procedural grounds, not on the merits of Dershowitz’s argument. Even CNN admitted the video clip they aired omitted crucial context from his impeachment remarks.
Israeli Soldiers Claim: Dershowitz cited multiple Israeli military prosecutions — for instance, the conviction of Elor Azaria (2016) for manslaughter, among others — showing that Israel’s justice system has prosecuted soldiers, contrary to the claim that he “made it up.”
2. On “14 groups declaring genocide”:
This is misleading. There is no internationally recognized legal finding by the ICJ, UN Human Rights Council, or International Criminal Court that Israel has committed genocide. What Bill is referring to are NGO statements (often advocacy-based) and academic letters of opinion, not judicial rulings. In fact, the ICJ’s January 2024 order only called for Israel to prevent acts that could fall under Article II of the Genocide Convention — it did not determine that genocide was occurring.
3. On the UN walkout:
That gesture was political theater, not a legal verdict. Several member states, including the U.S., U.K., Germany, and Canada, did not walk out. The “walkout bloc” consisted mainly of nations already politically aligned against Israel. A UN walkout reflects diplomatic positioning — not evidence of guilt.
In summary:
You selectively cite controversies while ignoring context and outcomes. None of the examples you listed actually demonstrate dishonesty or genocide. They show how narratives can be shaped by partial facts and omission.

 

I would argue that you are the one ignoring the facts that you don't like. I'm more interested in getting to the truth.

Many organizations, experts, and individuals have accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

Accusations and evidence
Many groups have concluded that Israel's actions amount to genocide. Here's a few of them. They point to several factors:

• International Court of Justice (ICJ) case: In 2023, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the ICJ, alleging its conduct in Gaza was in breach of the Genocide Convention. The court issued provisional measures, ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts.
• United Nations findings: A UN commission of inquiry concluded in September 2025 that Israeli authorities and security forces have the "genocidal intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip".
• Genocide scholars' association: The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), a body of over 500 academics, passed a resolution in September 2025 stating that Israel's actions meet the legal definition of genocide.
• Human rights groups: Groups like Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have accused Israel of genocide. They cite evidence of attacks on civilians, destruction of infrastructure, and the deliberate restriction of resources like water and food.
• Statements from Israeli officials: Critics point to statements made by some Israeli officials, such as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant's order of a "complete siege" and reference to Palestinians as "human animals," as evidence of genocidal intent.

Alan's rant is really just irrelevant anyway. The point was that Israel's reputation is suffering mightily in the world right now. Alan's rant doesn't change that.

 

Israel’s reputation is indeed suffering, but that’s largely because propaganda and emotional imagery spread faster than context or facts.
There’s no effective way to counter pictures from Gaza on social media — they create a narrative of genocide even before legal findings are established.
As for the “evidence” you listed, there’s a huge difference between accusations and legal determinations.
To many to list, but for example: The IAGS resolution is an academic statement, not a legal verdict. Scholars can express strong opinions, but they don’t decide international law.

Alan Dershowitz’s points actually matter, because he’s reminding people to separate emotionally powerful claims from legal definitions and evidence standards. The world is reacting to images and slogans, not to verified judgments.

 

Total nonsense! This would be true in the context of someone being accused of a crime here in the USA. That is not required for genocide in the International arena. Genocide is not a bank robbery or a home burglary. The evidence is plain to see. The destruction and deaths cover many square miles. The famine is obvious. The total destruction is obvious. The many deaths are obvious. It's obvious that Russia, Syria, Iran etc are not responsible. Israel is responsible. Now before an individual can be found guilty of genocide, it would require a trial.

 

I think Alan knows better than you do when it comes to international law and the actual definition of genocide.
He’s not just another commentator — he’s one of the top constitutional and international law scholars in the U.S., with decades of experience teaching and arguing complex legal cases.

You’re confusing moral outrage and legal standards.
Yes, the destruction and loss of life in Gaza are tragic and undeniable. But genocide isn’t defined by the scale of destruction — it’s defined by intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. That intent has to be proven, not assumed.
That’s exactly what Dershowitz points out: the world often confuses horrific wartime acts (which may include war crimes) with genocide, which has a specific legal meaning under the Genocide Convention.
Until the ICJ reaches a final ruling — not a provisional one — no one can honestly claim that genocide has been legally established.
So yes, Israel can be scrutinized, but shouting “genocide” before a verdict is reached isn’t “truth,” it’s propaganda.

What we’re seeing now could push Israel into actions that some might call desperate or irrational — actions that could end up destabilizing to say it mildly the entire Middle East.
The danger isn’t just the current conflict, but what it might trigger if things spiral beyond control.
Unless some form of agreement or ceasefire is reached soon, the region could reach a point of no return, where escalation replaces reason and everyone loses.

 

Alan Dershowitz is a putz. You can live by his words. I don't have to buy a single word he says. If you don't like it, too bad. I hope you get over it. If not, I don't really care.

No reason to go by my opinion, that is just silly. Remember the genocide scholars that concluded that genocide is occurring in Gaza or the other 13 groups organization, committees, commissions. Oh wait, how about this? There are 2 UN groups in that list of 14 that I mentioned. However, the UN is the ONLY group in the 14 that could even have a trail. For the other 12, a trial is completely irrelevant. So I'll call it a dozen groups, organizations, committees, commissions, etc. that have concluded that genocide is occurring in Gaza. Better?

 

I think the reason you can’t see the logic in Alan Dershowitz’s words is simple — you’re not qualified to interpret international law at that level.
Neither am I, but at least I’m not pretending that my selective take on reports and committees is somehow on par with a world-renowned legal scholar who has spent his career dealing with these issues.
You may not like Dershowitz, but dismissing his expertise and replacing it with your own cherry-picked conclusions doesn’t make your argument stronger. It just shows you’d rather go with slogans than with serious legal reasoning.
The usual shooting the messenger tactic?

Bill Maher
"He’s accused liberals of acting with “smug self-righteousness,” pushing radical ideas without room for debate.
In one viral clip, he directly says “you’ve lost touch with reality,” pointing to a Left that he contends is remote from how many people think or live. "

 

You can dismiss the whole world of facts and live by Alan Dershowitz. But Alan Dershowitz or a dozen groups, organizations, committees, commissions, etc. that have concluded that genocide is occurring in Gaza. Calling those 12 dozen groups, organizations, committees, commissions cherry-picked by me is beyond ridiculous. By definition, that is exactly what you are doing not me! You are cherry-picking one fellow and taking his word over 12 dozen groups, organizations, committees, commissions. It makes far more sense to go with the many experts not just one putz that YOU have cherry-picked. You really should think before you post.

 

The reason I chose to reference Alan Dershowitz is precisely because I’m not a qualified professional — and he is.
He’s one of the world’s leading experts on constitutional and international law, with decades of experience analyzing complex legal and moral issues like this.
You can criticize me all you want, but dismissing Dershowitz as a “putz” doesn’t make your case stronger — it just shows that you’d rather attack the person than address the legal reasoning.
You listed “12 dozen groups, committees, and commissions,” but quantity doesn’t replace credibility. Most of those bodies are political or advocacy-based, not judicial. Dershowitz’s point is about legal definition, not emotion or headlines — and that’s where your argument falls apart.

 

Norm Finkelstein, a Holocaust and Israel-Palestine expect, has already addressed and refuted all of Dershowitz’s false claims about Israel. Here he is putting Dershowitz in his place:

 

Your interpretation of occurred on this exchange is completely off.
I have seen this before, I’ve listened to Finkelstein’s arguments — and honestly, I think he’s wrong on most of his points.
He comes across as more of an activist than a legal scholar, and his critiques often rely on rhetoric and emotional framing rather than balanced legal reasoning.
Even if he raised a few fair questions about Dershowitz’s writing style or sourcing, that doesn’t invalidate Dershowitz’s legal reasoning or decades of expertise.
Finkelstein’s arguments are strong and well-known — but they are not universally accepted or adjudicated in a court of law.
So you can present them as “serious challenges” to Dershowitz’s claims, not as “proof that Dershowitz is wrong.”
I would say that Finkelstein arguments deserve to be addressed, not dismissed out of hand.
Dershowitz, on the other hand, is focused on the legal definitions of war crimes, self-defense, and genocide under international law — not political slogans.
That’s why I trust his analysis over someone whose approach is primarily ideological.

 

Practically the whole world believes that genocide is happening in Gaza. There are about a dozen groups that have publicly stated that they believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. That includes a large group of academic genocide scholars and two groups from Israel. Lerner doesn't want to believe genocide is occurring in Gaza. Therefore he has cherry-picked one jerk that agrees with him. In his mind Alan's opinion is the only opinion that matters. He even made the silly statement that I cherry-picked the dozen groups that believed genocide was occurring to just use against the only opinion in the world that matters, Alan Dershowitz's opinion. It makes zero sense unless you remember that Lerner always selects the facts he likes and discards the rest that he would rather not believe.

 

I acknowledge that the pictures from Gaza drive the propaganda narrative — they’re powerful and emotional, and that’s what shapes public opinion right now.
But I'm correct: the real issue is Hamas, and you’re trying to divert attention from that.
This entire tragedy started because Hamas embedded itself among civilians and provoked the very situation we’re seeing.
Blaming Israel while ignoring Hamas’s deliberate use of human shields is intellectually dishonest.
You can list as many “groups” as you want, but none of them erase the basic fact that Hamas created this disaster and continues to exploit it for propaganda.

Release hostages, capitulate, the war ends.
The key to end the war is in Hamas hands.
If it was up tome, the war would have ended in 2023.
I repeatedly stated, I would've protected PA in Gaza.
I never supported the politics of Hamas rule in Gaza.
But hostile state that wants to wipeout Israel is a big NO.

 

Yes, Hamas is evil. Yes, Hamas started the war. Genocide is also evil. I'm not diverting attention away from Hamas. Netanyahu is doing that by committing genocide. Netanyahu should fight Hamas. He shouldn't commit genocide while fighting against Hamas, though.

 

You’re right that Hamas is evil — and that’s where the focus should stay. But labeling Israel’s actions as “genocide” is a distortion of both the facts and the legal definition.
Netanyahu isn’t committing genocide by fighting Hamas. Israel’s goal has been to eliminate a terror organization that openly calls for its destruction — not to destroy the Palestinian people. The difference between targeting a population and targeting a terrorist force that hides among that population is the entire point of distinction under international law.
Civilian deaths are tragic and unacceptable, but they don’t automatically equal genocide. Hamas intentionally turned Gaza into a battlefield, knowing that every civilian death fuels the global propaganda you just echoed.
If we want peace — or even just fewer deaths — it starts with dismantling Hamas, not vilifying Israel for defending itself.

 

Netanyahu accepts Trump's plan to end Gaza war, no word from Hamas

"Israel accepts US President Donald Trump's plan to end the war in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday at a press conference with Trump following a meeting between the two at the White House.

It is unclear if the Palestinian Islamist Hamas has or will accept the plan, which, according to its own statements, it has not yet seen. However during the press briefing Trump said Israel would have full US support for actions against Hamas, should it reject the deal."


WASHINGTON — Pressed on whether the US plan for ending the war in Gaza includes assurances for Palestinian self-determination, US special envoy Steve Witkoff responds, “Of course.”

“They just have to prove,” he begins before shifting slightly. “We have to set up success for them… This is a complicated deal to hand off from one government to another,” Witkoff says.

“All of the stakeholders in this…. they want to see it happen. And the president believes it’s going to happen, and is dug in. That’s what really gives me hope. He gets to the finish line,” Witkoff says outside the White House.