👌

After the Green Party's "Zionism is Racism" vote, the Leader of Haringey Council, which is controlled by the Greens, wrote to various Synagogues in the borough to "reassure" them. I want to show you Highgate Synagogue's reply. I believe it is worth reading in its entirety.

You have to remember that Israelis are basically the only surviving Jews outside the Anglosphere, after the 20th century saw the destruction of almost every Jewish community in Eurasia. Very few Jewish families started and ended the 20th century in the same place. As such, when you tell them they have some kind of moral or legal obligation to give any part of their country over to Arabs, who not only already have a continent sized swathe of territory, but also immediately set about trying to murder them the last time Israelis handed them any land, they’re probably going to tell you to get fucked. If they had stayed in Gaza everyone would have been objectively better off. Tens of thousands of people would still be alive. The trial run of Palestinian statehood ended in Arab Einsatzgruppen going door to door murdering Jewish civilians followed by one of the largest and longest urban battles in modern history. A Palestinian state would just be that, but bigger. Israelis will literally go to any lengths humanly possible to stop that, and since they’re a nuclear state and heavily militarized society populated by some of the most high-agency people on the planet, they ultimately have the final say. Thus, this ending with Palestinian territorial self determination of any kind is predicated on them being disabused of their genocidal fantasy of driving the Jews into the sea. Anyone who supports them in that impulse is just helping get them killed. All your solidarity is doing is feeding their sick fantasy of mass beheadings in Tel Aviv, and ultimately, most of the heads that end up rolling whenever they act on those fantasies tend to be theirs.

𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐄𝐃: $𝟑𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐚𝐳𝐚 𝐋𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐭𝐡𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐅𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐅𝐨𝐫? The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal through an Official Information Act request that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities funded $30,000 for Asturlab Cultural Centre to run a nationwide advocacy campaign, using taxpayer funds to promote pro-Palestinian narratives on the conflict in Gaza. This funding comes from the Ethnic Communities Development Fund which distributes $4.2 million of taxpayer money each year and follows a select committee report finding the Ministry has no clear evidence of achieving any meaningful outcomes. Taxpayers Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley said: “OIA documents show $30,000 was handed to the Asturlab Cultural Centre in Christchurch to run the ‘4 for 40 Stop the Silence Campaign’ - a Gaza advocacy campaign aimed at shifting public opinion toward a ceasefire and accusing Israel of genocide.. How does a government body funding an explicitly political campaign support our ethnic communities?” "We've all seen posters around town accusing Israel of such things. Not in a million years would anyone expect them to be taxpayer-funded." “The fund’s own rules say it does not support political objectives, yet this application was approved within days, with a Ministry advisor even helping tweak it to get over the line.” “Looking through the full list of funded projects, you see everything from swimming lessons for Pakistani women to events like Wellington’s CubaDupa festival. When the Ministry has already been found to have no clear achievements, taxpayers deserve to know what exactly they’re getting for their money.” “New Zealand already has multiple agencies funding and advising on community development, social cohesion, and diversity. Would it not be far cheaper to wind up these demographic ministries and have the work picked up by existing bodies like the Human Rights Commission?” nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/p… assets.nationbuilder.com/tax…

German police handle the "Free Palestine" hate group perfectly. This is beautiful. 👉Share if you want to see this worldwide.

Oh no, it is absolutely a blood libel, Martin. Here's the problem with what you just said: 70,000+ (including combatants which are about 25,000 of the total reported deaths) killed in two years of war when the pre-war population was 2,230,000 fails to be so substantive that it would threaten the groups (Palestinians in Gaza) very existence. 70,000/2,230,000=0.0314 (3.14% of the Palestinian population in Gaza, including combatants, has been reportedly killed) If we want to estimate that this is 100,000 it would be: 100,000/2,230,000=0.0448 (4.48% of the Palestinian population in Gaza, including combatants, having been killed) To be "in part" it requires that the amount killed be so substantial that the viability of their continued existence be threatened. If you were a serious scholar on genocide you would know this. See, the following from ICTY's Krstic decision: Para. 8: "It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." Para. 9: "In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.” This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group." Para. 10: "This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term “in part” contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that “the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety.” He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that “the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale.” Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group. In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that “the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group,” this formulation being the aim of the Convention. Para. 11: "The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that “the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group.” Para. 12: "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4." Related, here: men make up the group with the most reported deaths in Gaza. Children (including combat aged individuals per the law), who make up 50% of the entire population, are not 50% of the deaths in Gaza. Meaning that death toll itself is not emblematic of the population, which negates this analysis for intent in the substantiality requirements. To be comparative, in Rwanda it was nearly 80% of the Tutsi population murdered in 100 days within the borders of Rwanda. In Srebrenica, it was about 20-30% of the Bosnian Muslim population of the enclave. These are the only two adjudications we have on genocide, both stipulate that the analysis requires substantiality in finding the destruction of a group "in part." Something that is not present in Gaza. At its high end, under the law as required to be applied, it is not plausible to find that Israel has the mens rea (dolus specialis) to commit genocide. Even under the only reasonable inference test from Tolimir and Bosnia v. Serbia (2007), para. 373: “The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly demonstrated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be that it could only point to the existence of such intent." Because there are plenty of reasonable alternative explanation, which must be assessed, such as but not limited to the fact that Hamas committed atrocities giving Israel an article 51 right to self-defense, took innocent people hostage, acted with the intent to destroy Jews/Israelis, in whole or in part, as such, in the geographic region that they invaded, that Hamas has systematically (for years) embedded within civilian and humanitarian infrastructure, does not distinguish itself from civilians, and has weaponized places that are meant to keep civilians safe (see: GCIV 19 & 28, API 51(7)), it raises plenty of alternative reasonable explanations other than genocidal intent to exist. Couple that with the inability of establishing the inference prongs established by ICTY, it is impossible to follow the jurisprudence and establish that Israel has the required mens rea. What makes this a blood libel from you, and many others, is that you, who portrays himself as an "expert" and have written books about this, have decided that it is more important to change the law to convict Israel ex post facto than to apply it equally and adequately. Doing so, and using your appeal to authority as said "expert" has caused people around the world to grasp this nonsensical lie that flies in the face of the law and is contrary to what Rafael Lemkin wrote and invented, has caused real harm to real people around the world. Something we saw just yesterday on Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia. So, yes, it is a blood libel, and you are among the worst offenders of it. You should stop misaligning what genocide is to be relevant and apologize to the world's Jewish population for causing us to be murdered because you want to be relevant. Changing the law to suit your needs and ideological bias does not make you right. It makes you wrong and a liar, and you should be more upfront with people about why you conclude that genocide has occurred. Because you advocate for shifting the standards to loosen them to make genocide easier to find, which is antithetical to the plain language of the Genocide Convention's Article II: "[a]cts with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such..." That plain language of the Genocide Convention tells us that this is a dolus specialis standard of intent. It requires that a party intend that harm, nothing less will do. Your advocacy in your writings to shift from that would require a complete rewriting of what genocide actually is.

RT @BoozeAndFagz: You're either on the side of the Jews - or you're on the side of those who want to kill the Jews. I chose my side long ag…

Well if you're at all serious about protection, stop hate marches chanting for the globalized intifada and river to sea and give Jewish demonstrators the same rights of free speech. Do it. We've had it with crocodile tears.

For @amnesty International, let’s be completely clear: targeting civilians in a mass slaughter explicitly intended to murder as many people as possible—by organizations that openly recite the hadith about killing every last Jew at the end of days (“they will hide behind each tree and stone...”)—is not Genocide. It’s classified as extermination, a crime against humanity, even though the key criteria that distinguish Genocide from extermination—intent and the targeting of a protected group—are plainly present. But when a military targets combatants and militarized infrastructure, that is Genocide—“secretly”—because, according to Amnesty, it supposedly reveals a “dual intent” to “destroy” Palestinian society. In other words: for Israel, Genocide is defined downward into “destruction,” and can apply even when combatants are being targeted. But for Hamas, Genocide is defined upward, so that even the intentional and openly declared plan to commit mass murder against an entire population—as in calls to carry out “a thousand October 7ths”—does not qualify. Amnesty International is not merely applying a double standard. It is functioning as a propaganda agent, working to invert international law so that Israel always comes out “worse” than Hamas—Israel is guilty of the “crime of crimes,” while Hamas is guilty of something less. Because if that inversion failed, the entire ideological narrative would collapse.

What do you want him to do? Order a pizza?

Most western supporters of Palestinianism don’t think very deeply (or at all) about what the Palestinians actually want. I’m glad the quiet parts are now being said out loud. Polls and interviews consistently show Palestinians tend to believe Jews should leave (i.e. ethnic cleansing) and that they can achieve this by terrorising them. murdering civilians etc - it’s easier than taking on Jews with guns, and the Palestinians do love a soft target. Free Palestine, in the Palestinian mind, means a Middle East without Jews. The tragedy is that they misunderstand their enemy. Largely because they have always dehumanised them. The Jews are not the pieds-noirs of Algeria. most of them have nowhere else to go. They’re not the whites of South Africa, a tiny minority dominating and exploiting the labour of a black majority many times greater. They’re a tiny country, but they have secured a majority and don’t intend to give it up. Israel does not rely on Palestinian labour. They’re not going to leave. They’re already home. And they will fight to defend it. The Palestinians can learn to live next door and let time (and development) heal the wounds of the past, or they can devote themselves to a revanchist forever war. I would recommend the former, but idk… when you love a glorious death more than you value a practical life, you don’t always make smart choices.

People often blame another collective for the exact wrongdoing that their own collective commits. Psychologists call this projection, but in real life it is simpler. When a group is too frightened to look in the mirror, it looks for an easier target. Blaming the other reinforces identity, hides internal failures, and creates a comforting story where responsibility always belongs to someone else. It is a way to avoid shame and convert weakness into certainty. This becomes even more obvious when we look at the imbalance between the size of the global Muslim world and the tiny footprint of the Jewish people. There are about 2,000,000,000 Muslims alive today which is roughly 26% of humanity. There are fewer than 16,000,000 Jews, which is about 0.2% of the world. There are 50 Muslim-majority countries across the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. There is 1 Jewish state on a piece of land smaller than 0.1% of the territory controlled by Muslim countries. The combined land controlled by Muslim-majority states is close to 30,000,000 km², while Israel sits at about 22,000 km², which means the Muslim world controls more than 99.9% of the land between the two. History tells a similar story. Muslim empires ruled or colonized vast regions across Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe for more than 1,300 years. Jewish political sovereignty existed almost nowhere for 2,000 years except in ancient history. The Muslim world produced massive imperial systems like the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire, and the early Caliphates. The Jewish people spent most of history as a persecuted minority with no territory at all. Yet somehow the narrative is reversed. A large collective accuses the smallest collective on earth of doing the very things it has done on a scale thousands of times larger. This is not logic and it is not history. It is psychology. When a powerful group cannot face its own record it redirects the story toward the smallest and easiest target. Once you see these numbers, the projection becomes impossible to ignore. A population of 2,000,000,000 blaming a population of 16,000,000 for global domination. A land mass of 30,000,000 km² accusing 22,000 km² of expansionism. A civilization that ruled continents describing a people who had no state for 2,000 years as colonizers. The math exposes the narrative. The psychology explains it. The refusal to look inward creates a need to blame outward. And the larger the collective, the stronger the temptation to assign its own failures to a smaller one.

The need to immediately label the entire military operation in Gaza as genocide is not a neutral instinct. It reflects an internal bias in how this conflict is framed. There are many words that can describe what is happening in Gaza, including armed conflict, urban warfare, a tragic and devastating military campaign, or more simply, a war. But genocide is a legal term with a very specific and very high threshold. It is not a synonym for large-scale suffering. And the absence of genocide does not diminish the scale of suffering or the seriousness of what civilians in Gaza endure. I encourage you to read retired Supreme Court Justice of Canada Rosalie Abella’s piece in the Globe and Mail titled “The genocide case against Israel is an abuse of the postwar legal order.” As the daughter of Holocaust survivors, she argues that the allegation brought to the ICJ is a legal absurdity and that Israel’s response, while tragic in its civilian toll, does not meet the intent threshold required by the Genocide Convention. Many jurists of stature have said the same. So when in doubt, why not wait until there is a decision on the merits? It is striking that so many people suddenly feel confident making definitive legal pronouncements on genocide when the subject is Israel. I am also not claiming that the court of public opinion is always wrong. But if you look at Sudan, a conflict that has unfolded over roughly the same period, the contrast is remarkable. Sudan is a civil war, and within that civil war there are specific atrocities in Darfur that the United States has already recognized as acts of genocide. The overall conflict remains a civil war, but certain targeted campaigns clearly cross the genocide threshold. Yet Sudan receives almost no attention. Meanwhile, there is a societal eagerness to label the entire Israeli intervention as genocidal, even before the ICJ has ruled on the merits. Or worse, people treat the provisional measures order as if it were a finding of guilt. That impulse is not about legal accuracy. It reflects, I argue, an existing libel that has long been directed at the Jewish state and at Jews. For me, this is not theoretical. I help run an NPO that removes hateful graffiti for free, and what we have seen since October 7 is alarming. Messages like “all Zionists are terrorists,” “Zionists are genocidal monsters,” and “kill all the Zionists” are appearing everywhere across our streets. This should make everyone pause. Violent speech left unchecked is often one step away from physical violence, and history and current events give us no reason to dismiss that risk. You are free to use whatever language you choose, but it is important to reflect on the internal biases that shape how certain terms are applied. When a label as grave as genocide is used reflexively in one context and ignored in others, it reveals narratives that we have absorbed without scrutiny. And it has real consequences for Jewish communities here at home. The rise in hate speech, harassment, and open threats since October 7 is not abstract. These dynamics place people at risk, and the language we use plays a direct role in that reality.

Lefties on police abuse: "anyone who says 'all lives matter' instead of 'Black lives matter' is racist" Lefties on the Holocaust: "there's been all sorts of mass murders and don't forget the Nazis killed gypsies and gays".

My wife's boyfriend worked at the BBC for many years. I can say categorically that there was no bias there. Ze followed the science and fact-checked everything. The climate emergency is real. Trans women are women. All vaccines are safe and effective. Immigrants are doctors and engineers. White people are bigots. These are FACTS.

every accusation is a confession

Lord, these people are so exhausting. No one is saying put Israel first… we just are pushing back against the mountains of propaganda trying to vilify them simply because they are Jewish. Israel is a strategic ally whether people like it or not. Our international diplomatic and military strategies in the Middle East and Central Asia rely heavily on them. Again, these facts don’t care about your feelings. Every strategic level commander worth anything agrees with this assessment, mind you. Israel is also held to an impossible standard that no country, not even the US, could satisfy. It’s insane that we are even having to talk about this. My goal is to just spread a little common sense and critical thinking into the mix against the adversarial propaganda that is trying its best to tear us all apart. And there is absolutely gobs of this propaganda being pushed across all platforms right now.

The Holocaust is one of the most heavily documented atrocities in human history, supported by mountains of undeniable evidence. Only fools and extremists dare to question it. Gaza, on the other hand, is a manufactured lie. The entire genocide narrative was orchestrated from the very beginning by a barbaric terrorist group that openly admitted its plan to use propaganda to turn the West against Israel. The so-called evidence of genocide in Gaza is laughably weak, built on staged videos, distorted statistics, and emotional manipulation.

When I was in Israel, there was a fair amount of talk about something called "the Conception." I asked how they say this in Hebrew, and they say, "the Conception." They say it in English. The Conception is a misconception that has been a central security risk to Israel all along. It's a belief that by being generous, kind, helpful, etc., with people who openly want to kill them, that they'll win them over. It's the misconception that the "Palestinians" and Islamists are dangerous because they're poorer and don't have good opportunities, schools, jobs, etc. It's the error that there's something Jews and Israelis can do to have peaceful coexistence with people who want them dead for being Jews and for being on land they intrinsically believe is "occupied" and "stolen" (radical Muslims believe all land they have ever held is theirs forever and that any land lost is intolerably stolen). The Left throughout the West operates upon the same "Conception," which is a misconception. That crime is caused by poverty. That criminals can be rehabilitated through money, opportunity, kindness, and generosity that they simply take advantage of. That we can import the worst of the world and simply have more great citizens by being nice to them. We, realists and conservatives, rightly mock the Conception in Western Leftists. We also understand why the Conception is dangerous, as do many more (but not nearly all) Israelis after October 7. The change in demeanor and approach you see in the actions of Israel since October 7 is the result of the Conception shattering in murder, evil, hostage-taking, and blood (to keep it polite). Of course, taqiyyah (Islamist Machiavellianism) encourages maintaining belief in the Conception. It is to their advantage, so it is not only acceptable but necessary to make these airs. Useful idiots fall for it pretty much every time, and the results we saw on October 7. Many among the slain and brutalized were devout believers in the Conception, living in hippie kibbutzim that got obliterated, often involving the betrayal of Islamist "friends" they had been helping. More taqiyyah. The Left, both here and in Israel, still believe in the Conception, and they're wrong. Radical militants, whether Communist, Fascist, or Islamist (or any hybrid blend of these), cannot be collaborated with into a successful integration because their objective is conquest, destruction, and/or murder. The Conception is wrong. The Left is wrong. Dangerously wrong. But there's another Conception running now, too, this one on and from the New Right. It believes the radicals on the New Right (or Woke Reich) are just chest-beating conservatives. That they're on our side for the most part but a little too radical or unseemly. That they can or must be in our tent to "win" and that they'll come back around to genuine conservative and realistic politics as we move forward together. This is just another manifestation of the Conception, and it's just as deadly. The New Right is openly and proudly Machiavellian (doing taqiyyah). They're not just betraying us and our trust and need, they're taking advantage of us and our MAGA Conception to radicalize more and more of our youth and capture more and more of our voices in the trap they're laying for us, and their October 7 of MAGA is coming. Israel failed with its belief in the Conception and in not taking the intelligence regarding Hamas seriously enough before October 7. New Yorkers are making the same mistake with Mamdani. The American MAGA movement is making the same mistake with the New Right. We must see through the Conception. Radical militant groups and splinters are not our friends and cannot be tolerated. We have the intelligence. We must not fail to heed it.