Sure. It's an active 'observe and report' - or please forgive the phrase if you find it unhelpful: "interrogate and publish"?

But dishonesty wasn't the issue here, 'misbehavior' was (right?), and in that case passing judgement on to us is the training.

Sort of?
Journalists are of course people, but they're also members of a profession that's trained to observe and report.

They're supposed to show us what happened (done); we're supposed to be the "hey now".

No.

"Famine" is a specific measure of _how much_ starvation is happening, it is not a measure of _whether_ someone is using hunger against civilians as a weapon.

i.e Even if that single critique of everyone else is the only correct version, "famine" is not the standard that determines criminality.

Fair enough.
Given your comment, I did feel the need to explain my comment to you.
Hope it helped clarify.

So you've reached your conclusion. The people actually there seem to think there's a case to answer.

I read the report. Those are sample incidents from it.

My first question is the main one: What's their of "antisemitic" and what's just "don't like Netanyahu".

Are they conflating the two, or do they distinguish?

That's entirely good faith question. Having read the report, I don't know. Do you?

Otoh there does seem to be a line of thought that ANY action Netanyahu takes is automatically legitimate as long as he labels it "self defence".

No.

The indictment is for the use of starvation against a civilian population.

Everyone supported Israel when it was a matter of sending in troops to rescue hostages and catch criminals and their accomplices.

And if in any of your writings you defended human rights abuses, and I happened to see that, I would react.

But I assume you didn't, and even if you did, I didn't see it.

And if you read Netanyahu's actual indictment you'll see it's not about whether to use military force, but how it's being used.

But absolutely, if during my brief visits to this platform, I ever saw a post in defence of human rights abuses in Sudan, or Nigeria, or Yemen, or Myanmar, or North Korea, or China, or any one of a depressingly long list, I would react.
I haven't seen any, have you?

Yes, I do, demand the same standards from everyone.
Please share Zelensky's indictment and its grounds.

My life is not social media. My criticism of global evils is not limited to Bluesky. My posts are few, full stop.

But if you want to try to use this account to guess whether or not the only evils I see might be Netanyahu's, all you have to do is look at my user name.

And if you don't suffer from the double standard you're suggesting, but would be equally appalled no matter who was doing it?
Then we're agreed that you're not antisemitic?
Does the OP report also agree and use that as their definition?

I haven't decided.
But the International Criminal Court has spent years investigating and on the evidence they found concluded that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe he is, and should be arrested to stand trial.
I can't fit all their evidence in here.
www.icc-cpi.int/news/situati...

I can't find their definition of antisemitic - would you happen to know it?
i.e. Does agreeing with the ICC that Netanyahu is a war criminal automatically mean you're antisemitic?
Or is it only happen if you graffiti the verdict somewhere?
Or do you actually have to be bigoted against Jewsih folks?

Two world leaders walk into a bar.

One of them rejects science, launches witch hunts and inquisitions, brands anyone who disagrees with him to be a heretic and traitor, and champions anachronistic social mores.

The other is the Pope.

Nationalise their assets and give them to PBS.
It's not who owns them that makes them "state", it's who controls them.

Your description is wrong. He made no comments about the accused killer. He made comments about those trying to exploit the killing