In the news

I think it would be legitimate if words like holocaust were used. And absolutely understand why genocide would be an emotive term, but it is not unique to any one group.

According to Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Ianail but I don't think the intent is a slam dunk, but physical destruction in part seems pretty clear doesn't it? So on balance it seems like up for fair debate without accusations of antisemitism.

What is frustrating is that while you can criticise Israel without being antisemitic, too often it quickly moves into antisemitism. I thought Lewis Goodall's peice on the News Agents covering the protests on armistice day was interesting. The tl;Dr was that it was the sort of protest he could have imagined going on as a student, but based on a number of the participants views wouldn't have been comfortable attending a second one.