Burnham has given an interview to Gary Lineker in which Lineker accused Israel of genocide and Burnham declared that Labour had been wrong about Gaza and promised change.

Excellent.

Because when Britain faces a complicated war involving terrorism, hostages, Iranian proxies, urban combat, international law and the survival of a democratic ally, whom better to consult than a former footballer? The Hague, apparently, now has a branch office at Match of the Day.

Burnham can sit opposite Lineker, nod gravely and promise to correct British foreign policy. Yet, apparently, he will not face parliamentary scrutiny or questions until September.

No Parliament? No problem.

We have an ex-striker, soft lighting and the moral certainty of two men who will never have to live with the consequences of their recommendations.

This is not accountability. It is political theatre. Burnham gets to look courageous without facing a hostile question. Lineker gets to play prosecutor without presenting evidence. Labour’s activists get another emotional sugar rush. Everyone goes home feeling virtuous.

Apart from the Israelis, obviously. They merely have to survive the policy.

The Ex-Footballer’s Court of International Justice

Gary Lineker has transformed himself from football presenter into a one-man international tribunal. He does not need witnesses. He does not require military expertise. He apparently has little interest in Hamas’s strategy, its tunnels, its command centres, its use of civilian infrastructure or its openly declared intention to destroy Israel.

He has a word.

Genocide.

Say it slowly. Look concerned. Job done.

In my view, Lineker’s anti-Israel activism has crossed into antisemitic demonisation. Not the old-fashioned variety with boots and banners. Britain has standards now. This is modern, socially acceptable antisemitism: obsessive attention to the Jewish state, grotesque accusations, selective outrage and the firm belief that Jewish self-defence becomes criminal the moment it becomes effective.

No swastikas. Just a reusable coffee cup and a genocide allegation.

The accusation is not ordinary criticism. Genocide is not a synonym for “a war I dislike”, “civilian suffering I find unbearable” or “images that upset me on Instagram”. It alleges an intention to destroy a people.

That is an extraordinarily serious claim. Which is precisely why unserious people enjoy making it.

It gives them instant moral altitude. They no longer need to understand the war. They simply float above it, looking down on everyone else like disappointed gods.

Evidence Is Such a Nuisance

A detailed 2025 study examining the war up to June 2025 found no evidence of a systematic Israeli policy of exterminating civilians.

The researchers did not claim that every Israeli decision was correct. They criticised Israeli policy where they believed criticism was justified, including the decision to halt aid before an alternative distribution system was fully functioning.

That is what serious analysis looks like. It distinguishes between criticism and hysteria.

The study examined a major database of allegations concerning deliberate killings. Among more than 50,000 reported war deaths, incidents containing evidence or specific claims of deliberate killing accounted for 61 fatalities.

That does not prove every other death was justified. It does not mean war crimes are impossible. Every credible allegation should be investigated.

But it does demonstrate the enormous distance between the available evidence and the confident declaration that Israel is conducting a systematic extermination campaign.

Sixty-one cases requiring examination become 50,000 deliberate murders in the popular imagination. That is not analysis. That is alchemy.

The same report examined the starvation narrative and found that it had been built partly on inaccurate figures, circular sourcing and an assumption that 500 trucks entered Gaza every day before the war, including 150 food trucks.

The actual pre-war average cited in the research was 292 trucks per day, of which roughly 73 carried food. Yet the inflated figure travelled from organisation to journalist, from journalist to politician and from politician to Gary Lineker until it acquired the status of revealed truth.

Nobody checked the original number because everyone was citing everyone else. It is the humanitarian version of Wikipedia.

The study also concluded that, for much of the war, the amount of food entering Gaza was sufficient to meet the population’s estimated calorific requirements. Again, this does not mean distribution was perfect. Hamas theft, damaged infrastructure, combat conditions and failures by international agencies all affected whether aid reached civilians.

But those complications are inconvenient.

“Genocide” fits comfortably into a social-media post. “Complex logistical failure in territory controlled by a terrorist organisation that steals aid and embeds itself among civilians” rather ruins the rhythm.

The War Britain Pretends Is Happening

Britain has constructed an imaginary Middle East.

In this fantasy, the conflict is a slightly more exotic version of Northern Ireland. Two communities are arguing over land. Both have legitimate grievances. Someone needs to bring them together, bang their heads gently, divide the territory and organise a peace conference with name badges.

Very British.

Tea at four. Partition at five. Ancient religious war solved before supper.

But Hamas is not simply an angrier Palestinian negotiating team. It does not regard Israel’s borders as the problem. It regards Israel’s existence as the problem.

Its leaders have repeatedly promised to carry out more October 7 massacres. It built an enormous subterranean military system beneath civilian areas. The research in the uploaded material describes more than 500 kilometres of tunnels and thousands of shafts integrated into Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.

Schools, homes, hospitals and mosques were used for military purposes. Fighters operated in civilian clothing. Buildings were booby-trapped. Civilians were kept in danger because their deaths produced the images required to isolate Israel internationally.

It is a hideous but rational strategy.

Hamas cannot defeat Israel militarily. It can, however, persuade Western politicians to stop Israel from defeating Hamas.

Every civilian death becomes a weapon. Every photograph becomes ammunition. Every celebrity who repeats the accusation becomes an unpaid member of the information operation.

Gary Lineker may believe he is opposing Hamas by expressing compassion for Palestinians. In reality, when he repeats Hamas’s preferred accusation while ignoring its military strategy, he helps prove that the strategy works.

Britain’s Imperialist Complex

There is another element to this performance: Britain’s imperialist complex.

Britain issued declarations, administered the Palestine Mandate, proposed solutions, reversed policies, attempted to control immigration, handed the problem to the United Nations and eventually left Arabs and Jews to fight over the consequences.

A masterclass.

Create the administrative maze. Mismanage it. Withdraw. Then spend the next eighty years lecturing the survivors.

The Empire is gone, but the managerial confidence remains.

Britain no longer sends governors to the Middle East. It sends politicians with podcasts. It no longer draws borders with rulers. It draws moral conclusions from television clips. It no longer commands from Jerusalem. It commands from Manchester.

The British political class behaves as though Israel were still a troublesome colonial possession awaiting instructions from Whitehall. Israel may be attacked, invaded, rocketed and surrounded by organisations openly committed to its destruction, but it must wait for Britain’s permission before defending itself.

Apparently, the nation that helped create the regional mess retains the hereditary right to dictate how everyone else should clean it up.

It is imperialism after empire. All the arrogance. None of the responsibility.

Burnham’s promise to “change” Labour’s position is presented as moral progress. But what does this change mean in practice?

More pressure on Israel while Hamas keeps hostages? A ceasefire that leaves Hamas armed? Recognition of a Palestinian state without requiring its leadership to recognise Israel as the Jewish state? Diplomatic rewards for a cause whose armed wing carried out October 7? Punishment for the country attacked, because the attackers successfully placed civilians between themselves and the consequences?

That is not peace-making. It is teaching every terrorist organisation on earth that civilian sacrifice works.

The Progressive Hall of Mirrors

The modern Western progressive does not merely believe certain policies are compassionate. He believes his compassion proves that he is a good person.

Supporting the Palestinian cause has become part of that moral identity.

Then October 7 happened.

People presented for decades as powerless victims crossed into Israel and committed atrocities against families, children, elderly people and young people at a music festival. They murdered, tortured, kidnapped and burned.

That should have forced a reassessment.

Instead, it created panic.

Because admitting that the designated victims had committed monstrous acts against the designated oppressors would shatter the entire moral story.

So the story was reversed.

The victims became Nazis. Self-defence became genocide. Hostages disappeared from the conversation. Hamas became “resistance”. And the people defending the murder of Jews continued congratulating themselves for opposing fascism.

It is projection on an industrial scale.

Western activists accuse Israel of settler colonialism because they have been taught to feel guilty about Western colonialism. They accuse it of white supremacy despite the ethnic reality of Israeli society. They accuse it of genocide while supporting a movement whose founding ideology calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Israel becomes a screen on which Britain projects every sin it thinks it has committed.

Colonialism. Racism. Imperialism. Ethnic cleansing.

The Jewish state is required to carry Britain’s guilt because, historically, asking Jews to carry everyone else’s guilt has worked rather well.

The Media Laundering Machine

The accusation begins with Hamas. It is repeated by activists. Humanitarian organisations cite reports produced inside Hamas-controlled territory. Journalists cite the organisations. Politicians cite the journalists. Celebrities cite the politicians. Then the original Hamas claim returns wearing a suit and calling itself “international consensus”.

This is how propaganda is laundered. The BBC, Sky, newspapers, NGOs, United Nations agencies and international institutions create an atmosphere in which repetition is mistaken for corroboration. Ten organisations repeating one unreliable source do not create ten sources. They create a choir.

The media’s obsession also matters. No other conflict receives this relentless, emotional and frequently context-free attention. Israel is treated not as one country fighting one war, but as the central moral problem of humanity.

War in Sudan? Complicated. Mass slaughter elsewhere? Tragic. Israel strikes a Hamas command centre? Emergency podcast.

This obsessive double standard does not remain confined to foreign policy. The demonisation of Israel spills into hostility towards Jews in Britain and throughout the West. Jews are expected to denounce Israel, apologise for Israel or prove that they are the acceptable kind of Jew by joining the attack.

Everyone may define their own identity. Except Jews.

For them, progressive Britain has prepared a form.

Burnham’s Leadership Audition

Burnham’s interview looks less like serious foreign policy and more like a leadership audition conducted before a sympathetic celebrity.

Lineker supplies the moral accusation. Burnham supplies the concerned nod. The audience supplies the applause.

Nobody asks what happens after Israel is forced to stop. Nobody asks who removes Hamas. Nobody asks what message is sent to Hezbollah, Iran and every other force watching closely. Nobody asks whether abandoning an ally under attack makes Britain safer. Nobody asks why the Palestinian leadership has repeatedly rejected arrangements that would have produced a state while preserving Israel. Nobody asks whether a movement whose maps erase Israel actually wants two states. Nobody asks what “peace” means when one side regards peace as a temporary stage before victory.

That would spoil the interview.

Better to discuss Labour’s moral awakening with a man who once explained the offside rule.

Israel Is Not Above Criticism

Israel is a democracy. Its government can be criticised. Its military decisions should be examined. Individual misconduct should be investigated. Civilian suffering should never be treated casually.

But criticism requires proportion, context and evidence.

The genocide accusation destroys all three.

It erases October 7. It erases the hostages. It erases Hamas’s declared objectives. It erases the tunnel network. It erases human shields. It erases the Iranian strategy surrounding Israel with armed proxies. It erases Israel’s attempts to evacuate civilians and distribute aid. It erases every distinction between military error, alleged war crime and a state policy of extermination.

Then, having erased reality, it presents itself as moral clarity.

Burnham should be asked about all of this in Parliament.

Not in September, after the performance has been edited, circulated and applauded.

Now.

He should explain what evidence justifies allowing the genocide accusation to frame his interview. He should explain precisely how he would change Labour policy, what concessions he expects from Hamas and what protection his policy offers Israel.

He should explain whether Britain still believes a democratic ally has the right to defeat an organisation that invaded it, massacred its citizens and promised to do it again.

And he should do so before elected representatives, not an ex-footballer playing international judge.

Britain’s politicians continue to imagine that the world is waiting for their instructions.

It is not.

The Middle East has had quite enough of British plans, British partitions, British withdrawals and British moral lectures.

The Empire is over.

Someone should tell the imperialists.

This is the first trick of modern anti-Zionism. It does not argue with Jewish history. It chops it up, burns the inconvenient parts, and presents the ashes as a university module.

Historically, strands of Christian thought rewrote Jewish history to cast Jews as the people of blindness, stubbornness and unbelief. Not every Christian, obviously — before anyone faints into their oat milk. This is not an attack on ordinary believers; it is a point about an inherited Western habit of using Jews as symbols. In that tradition, Jews were made to play a role: the people who missed the truth, rejected the prophets, and wandered as evidence of their own failure.

Modern anti-Zionism does something similar, only with worse haircuts and better grant funding. It severs Jewish history from the present and shrinks the whole Jewish story into the last 60 or 70 years of conflict. The Jew becomes visible only as a soldier, settler, oppressor, coloniser. The Jew praying towards Jerusalem for centuries? Too complicated. The Jew returning to an ancestral homeland after exile and slaughter? Awkward. The Jew as a people with memory, land, law and continuity? Sorry, not available in the activist starter pack.

Not Criticism. A Movement.

There is nothing wrong with criticising Israel. Israelis do it daily, loudly, and usually before breakfast. If shouting at your own government were an Olympic sport, Israel would sweep the medals and then argue about the referee.

But anti-Zionism as a movement is not the same thing as criticism of policy. It is not “I dislike Netanyahu”. It is not “I oppose this settlement” or “I object to this military decision”. That is politics. Anti-Zionism, as a movement, is something else. It says the Jewish state itself is illegitimate.

That distinction matters. Because once you decide that the Jewish state is the problem, not a government, not a policy, not a war, but the very existence of Jewish sovereignty, then the solution becomes obvious. Remove the state. Disempower the Jews. Render them harmless. Return them to the condition in which the world apparently prefers them: scattered, vulnerable, dependent, grateful, and preferably available for memorial ceremonies.

This is why anti-Zionism is action-oriented. It does not merely dislike Israel. It seeks to dismantle the vehicle of Jewish power. That is the whole point. Israel is not hated because it fails to be perfect. It is hated because it prevents Jews from being powerless.

And that, for many people, is unforgivable.

Palestine: The Omni-Cause

Palestine is no longer treated as a cause. It is treated as the cause. The mother cause. The holy cause. The cause that swallowed every grievance on earth and now waddles through the public square wearing every badge at once.

But every religion needs a devil. In this one, it is Israel.

Climate change? Israel.
Racism? Israel.
Capitalism? Israel.
Colonialism? Israel.
The price of sourdough in Hackney? Give it five minutes. Someone will find a settler to blame.

This is what I call the omni-cause. Palestine becomes the sacred excuse, while Israel becomes the magic key that explains everything. Every grievance, every rage, every failed revolution, every half-read theory from a university seminar gets stapled to the Jewish state. The result is not politics. It is theology with worse posters.

And like all bad theology, it needs a devil.

Israel becomes the cosmic evil. The one thing that must be defeated before the world can be redeemed. Palestine will save us all, they say. Not peace. Not reform. Not freedom from Hamas. Not democracy in the Arab world. Not women’s rights in the Middle East. Not gay rights under Islamist rule. No, Palestine. Always Palestine.

Apparently once Israel is destroyed, racism will end, capitalism will collapse, dolphins will return to the Thames, and Jeremy Corbyn will finally discover deodorant. A beautiful vision, really. Completely mad, but beautiful in the way a man shouting at traffic cones is beautiful.

Israel as the West in Convenient Packaging

Part of the obsession is simple: Israel allows people to attack the West without sounding like they are attacking themselves.

Israel is allied with America. It is democratic, Western-facing, technologically advanced, militarily capable, and unapologetically national. So for the anti-Zionist imagination, Israel becomes the West in miniature. America with Hebrew signs. Europe with tanks. Colonial guilt in a smaller, more emotionally satisfying package.

This is why criticism of Israel often stands in for criticism of the West, America, capitalism, borders, nationhood, modernity, military power, and whatever else the activist class has decided to hate this week. Israel becomes the little box into which they place every Western sin.

There is also an old reversal here. In Christian Europe, Jews were often portrayed as backward, stubborn, anachronistic. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Zionists were accused of being too modern, too clever, too urban, too powerful, too successful. Now Jews are apparently backward again because they have a nation state and use military power to defend it.

So which is it? Are Jews too weak or too powerful? Too ancient or too modern? Too tribal or too universal? Too diasporic or too sovereign?

The answer is yes. Whatever is needed at the time. Antisemitism is nothing if not flexible. Like yoga, but for bigots.

The Two Jews the West Allows

There are two images of the Jew that Western thought has often found acceptable.

The first is the evil Jew: powerful, scheming, rootless, manipulative, hidden behind events, pulling strings like a villain in a badly written spy film.

The second is the good Jew: suffering, passive, universal, diasporic, progressive, and preferably dead. The Jew as victim. The Jew as moral symbol. The Jew who teaches the world tolerance by not fighting back.

This is the Jew people love. The museum Jew. The memorial Jew. The candlelit Jew. The Jew who appears in black-and-white photographs and does not ask difficult questions about why the world abandoned him.

But the Jew with a border? The Jew with an army? The Jew who says “never again” and means “we will shoot back”? That Jew ruins the performance.

Jean-Paul Sartre captured the trap perfectly: the antisemite wants to destroy the Jew as a man and leave only the Jew; the liberal universalist wants to destroy him as a Jew and leave only the man.

Different costume. Same erasure.

One says: you are only a Jew.
The other says: stop being a Jew.

And now anti-Zionism adds a third option: you may be Jewish, but only if you renounce Jewish power, Jewish sovereignty, and Jewish self-defence. You may keep the food, the jokes, the trauma, and perhaps a tasteful klezmer soundtrack. But Jerusalem? No. An army? Absolutely not. That makes people uncomfortable at dinner parties.

The Old Code in New Clothes

Shulamit Volkov famously described antisemitism as a “cultural code” in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Germany. It was not just one prejudice among others. It became part of a whole worldview. To be antisemitic was often to belong to a wider political and cultural package: anti-democratic, militarist, nationalist, reactionary.

Today, anti-Zionism works in a similar way inside parts of the progressive world. It acts as a badge. A password. A signal that you belong.

You don’t need to know anything about the Mandate, the Ottoman Empire, the Mufti, the Farhud, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, the Peel Commission, the UN partition plan, or the fact that Jews have prayed towards Jerusalem since before Britain worked out plumbing.

You just need to say “Free Palestine” with the correct facial expression.

Then you are in.

Anti-Zionism has become part of a progressive doctrine: anti-Western, anti-American, anti-national, anti-border, anti-police, anti-military, anti-everything except Hamas, somehow. Funny how that works. The one group that actually embodies fascism, theocracy, misogyny, homophobia and death-cult politics gets a free pass because it has the right enemies.

In the mid-twentieth century, anti-Bolshevism served as a organising myth for parts of the far right. Today, anti-Zionism plays a similar role for parts of the far left. It gathers anxieties, resentments and fantasies into one object. Israel becomes the symbol through which everything can be hated at once.

Very efficient. Like Amazon Prime for moral stupidity.

From the Margins to the Mainstream

The danger is not that every critic of Israel is an antisemite. That is lazy. And worse, it lets the serious ones hide behind the stupid ones.

The danger is that antisemitic patterns of thought have moved from the margins into respectable institutions under the language of anti-Zionism. Universities. Media. NGOs. Political parties. Churches. Unions. Cultural spaces. Places that used to know better, or at least pretended to after Auschwitz.

Now we hear the same old themes dressed up in new vocabulary.

Jews are too powerful.
Israel controls the narrative.
Jewish suffering is exaggerated.
Jewish self-defence is aggression.
Jewish history is invented.
Jewish sovereignty is illegitimate.
Jewish fear is manipulation.
Jewish memory is propaganda.

And all of this is said in the language of justice. That is the clever part. Old hatred rarely comes wearing the old uniform. It comes dressed as compassion, liberation, decolonisation, human rights. It carries a tote bag. It has a podcast. It says “as an educator” before saying something historically illiterate enough to make a brick wince.

The Genocide Conspiracy

At the centre of modern anti-Zionism sits a conspiracy theory. It says Jews invented or exploited their history in order to justify stealing land and committing genocide.

That is why Holocaust memory is now attacked so often by the same people screaming about Gaza. They understand that Jewish history is the foundation under Israel’s moral legitimacy. So they have to break it. They have to turn memory into manipulation. They have to make Jewish suffering look like a weapon.

This is why the accusation of genocide is so useful. It reverses the Holocaust. It turns Jews from the victims of extermination into its authors. It says: you became what you suffered. It is not only an accusation. It is a ritual humiliation.

And it works because it gives Western audiences moral relief. They can stop feeling guilty about dead Jews and start feeling righteous about condemning living ones.

Much more convenient. Dead Jews ask for remembrance. Living Jews ask for ammunition.

The Jew Who Refuses to Disappear

The real offence of Zionism is not colonialism. It is Jewish refusal.

Refusal to vanish.
Refusal to remain dependent.
Refusal to be ornamental victims in someone else’s moral theatre.
Refusal to let Europe write the final chapter and then congratulate itself for the memorial plaque.

Zionism said the Jewish people are not just a religion, not just a trauma, not just a minority, not just a museum exhibit, not just the ghost in Europe’s conscience. They are a people. With a land. With a language. With rights. With enemies. With the right to defend themselves.

That is what anti-Zionism cannot forgive.

Because Jewish power breaks the script.

The old script says Jews suffer, others interpret. Jews die, others learn lessons. Jews are persecuted, others build museums. Zionism interrupts that with something terribly rude: survival with agency.

The Idiots Are Rising Again

We are told anti-Zionism is about justice. Fine. Then let us ask the obvious questions.

Where is the justice in denying Jewish self-determination alone among the nations?

Where is the justice in demanding that Jews return to statelessness after centuries of pogroms, expulsions, ghettos, inquisitions, massacres and genocide?

Where is the justice in treating Palestinian nationalism as sacred and Jewish nationalism as uniquely evil?

Where is the justice in marching for Gaza while ignoring Hamas, the regime that turned Gaza into a tunnel network with civilians parked on top like sandbags?

Where is the justice in telling Jews that they may be safe only when they are weak?

That is not justice. That is old Western thinking with a new slogan.

And the slogans are everywhere now. On campuses. In parliament. In newspapers. In art galleries. In streets where people who cannot find Israel on a map explain “settler colonialism” to police officers while standing in a country that once owned half the planet. Britain lecturing Jews on colonialism is always a special treat. Like Dracula running a blood donation ethics seminar.

Final Beat: The Oldest Hatred, Updated for Wi-Fi

Anti-Zionism’s roots are deep because the West has spent centuries turning Jews into symbols. Sometimes of stubbornness. Sometimes of capitalism. Sometimes of communism. Sometimes of modernity. Sometimes of backwardness. Sometimes of victimhood. Sometimes of power.

The Jew is never allowed simply to be a people among peoples.

That is the pattern.

Today, anti-Zionism tells us Israel is the source of global evil, Palestine is the key to redemption, and Jews must choose between being universal victims or particular villains. It is not new. It is ancient machinery running on modern electricity.

The language has changed. The appetite has not.

So no, this is not about a border dispute. It is not about Netanyahu. It is not about settlements. Those may be real debates, but they are not the engine of this obsession.

The engine is older.

It is the belief that Jewish power is illegitimate, Jewish memory is suspicious, Jewish survival is negotiable, and Jewish sovereignty is a problem to be solved.

And once you understand that, the whole circus becomes much clearer.

The placards. The chants. The university statements. The BBC throat-clearing. The politicians discovering moral courage only when Jews are on the receiving end. The activists who cannot name a single Palestinian leader without accidentally endorsing a terrorist. The people who think “Free Palestine” is a personality.

It is all part of the same script.

The Jews are allowed to be mourned. They are not allowed to win.

That is why Zionism still matters.

Because it says: no.

No to disappearance.
No to dependency.
No to being reduced to someone else’s lesson.
No to the museum Jew.
No to the helpless Jew.
No to the polite Jew who waits for permission to survive.

The Jewish state exists because history taught Jews what the world does when they have no power.

And the world’s rage at that fact tells us exactly why it is still necessary.

If you value this work and want more writing that cuts through the fog, consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation.

Independent voices do not run on Foreign Office grants, NGO money, or polite applause from people who think courage is changing their profile picture.

They run on support.

Subscribe. Share. Help keep this work alive.

The idiots are rising. Let’s not leave them the microphone.

In November 1944, the Red Cross produced a report relating to Auschwitz. Its delegate had not found evidence of extermination facilities or the systematic murder of Jews.

Auschwitz.

In 1944.

It is rather like inspecting the Titanic halfway to the seabed and reporting that the drinks service appears slightly delayed.

To be clear, the Red Cross delegate was not given unrestricted access to Auschwitz-Birkenau. He did not inspect the gas chambers or crematoria. The Nazis controlled what he saw, because apparently genocidal dictatorships are not famous for transparent site visits and honest TripAdvisor reviews.

Auschwitz was an extermination camp. More than a million Jews were murdered there. That is not the question.

The question is how one of the world’s most respected humanitarian organisations managed to stand so close to history’s greatest crime and fail to expose it.

The answer seems to be a mixture of limited access, institutional caution, neutrality and bureaucracy. In other words, all the things organisations describe as principles shortly before issuing an apology seventy years later.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has since acknowledged that it failed Europe’s Jews during the Holocaust. It did not create the camps. It did not operate the gas chambers. But it failed to recognise, confront and publicly expose what was happening with anything approaching the urgency it deserved.

That matters because we still have an almost childish faith in institutions. Give an organisation a famous logo, a headquarters in Geneva and enough people wearing lanyards, and suddenly we assume it possesses wisdom unavailable to ordinary mortals.

It does not.

Institutions are simply groups of human beings with better stationery.

The Red Cross operated under a policy of neutrality. That neutrality was supposed to preserve access and allow humanitarian work to continue. A perfectly serious argument. But neutrality is a method, not a religion. Its value depends on what it achieves.

If you remain neutral between an arsonist and a burning family, the family may not be especially impressed by your ethical consistency.

The Red Cross feared that confronting Nazi Germany too openly could result in losing access to prisoners of war. That was a genuine dilemma. But dilemmas do not erase consequences. Sometimes every available option is terrible. That does not mean every decision was correct.

The deeper problem is that institutions frequently become more devoted to protecting their procedures than fulfilling their purpose. The Red Cross existed to protect victims of war. Neutrality was meant to serve that mission. Yet once the method becomes sacred, the mission can become strangely negotiable.

We see this everywhere. Governments become more interested in surviving elections than governing. Universities protect approved opinions rather than free inquiry. News organisations defend their reputation for impartiality while reporting events through a narrative chosen before the facts have arrived.

Human-rights organisations issue reports about human beings they have never met, based on information supplied by people who may have a mild interest in misleading them. But the report contains footnotes, so apparently reality must surrender.

Nobody means to become ridiculous. It happens gradually, through meetings.

The Holocaust should have destroyed our blind faith in respectable organisations. Instead, we simply created more of them. Now we have international institutions, which are treated as morally superior because they contain the word “international”.

Why? Does stupidity become wisdom when several passports are involved?

Then came 7 October.

More than 250 people were kidnapped and taken into Gaza. Children, elderly people, wounded civilians and soldiers were dragged into tunnels, homes and hidden rooms controlled by Hamas and other armed groups.

The Red Cross repeatedly requested access. Hamas refused. The hostages received no Red Cross visits while they remained in captivity.

Not one.

Families begged for information. They wanted proof of life. They wanted medicines delivered. They wanted someone independent to verify whether their relatives were alive, injured or slowly dying underground.

They received statements expressing concern.

Very useful. Almost medicinal.

Then, when some hostages were eventually released, Red Cross vehicles appeared at the handovers. Cameras rolled. Armed terrorists posed. Hostages were displayed before crowds and transferred through carefully staged ceremonies designed to make kidnapping look like community theatre.

Apparently there was no access while the hostages were starving in tunnels, but there was excellent access once Hamas needed transport and a respectable logo in the background.

That is convenient.

The Red Cross did not organise the ceremonies, and its representatives were there to take released hostages to safety. That work mattered. But the images were still grotesque. Emaciated captives were paraded on stages. Armed men stood around them. Certificates were handed over, because even terrorists understand that nothing says professionalism like paperwork.

And beside it all stood the emblem of the Red Cross.

Perhaps everyone followed procedure perfectly. That seems to be the problem.

Humanitarian organisations should not become props in propaganda productions. If the captors control the stage, the cameras and the performance, the supposedly neutral intermediary must be extremely careful not to lend the event legitimacy.

Otherwise, it begins to look less like a rescue and more like an awards ceremony arranged by psychopaths.

The Red Cross argues that neutrality is essential. Without it, the organisation cannot communicate with all sides or operate in hostile territory.

Again, fair enough.

But the hostages were never visited.

Their medical condition was not independently monitored. Their families were not given proof of life through the Red Cross. There was no reliable confirmation that medicines reached them.

Neutrality survived beautifully.

The hostages were less fortunate.

Hamas bears responsibility for kidnapping, torturing and starving them. That should not need saying, although modern public debate now requires clarification that kidnappers are responsible for kidnapping. Progress.

But acknowledging Hamas’s responsibility does not place the Red Cross beyond criticism. Quite the opposite. Institutions claiming moral authority should face greater scrutiny, not less.

The pattern is uncomfortable. During the Holocaust, the Red Cross failed Europe’s Jews at the moment they needed it most. After 7 October, it again proved unable to reach Jews held by an organisation openly committed to their destruction, yet appeared when their captors required an orderly public handover.

The two situations are not identical. History rarely repeats itself with the same uniforms and catering arrangements. But the institutional instinct feels familiar: preserve neutrality, protect access, avoid confrontation and explain later why more could not be done.

Then issue a report.

There is always a report.

This is not an argument that the Red Cross is evil. It is not. That would actually make the lesson easier. Evil institutions are simple. You oppose them.

The frightening lesson is that good institutions can fail while remaining convinced of their goodness. They can follow every protocol, use compassionate language and maintain a spotless public image while the people they were created to protect remain abandoned.

Good intentions are lovely. Results are better.

A lifeboat is not judged by the elegance of its neutrality towards the sea. It is judged by whether anyone gets rescued.

The same standard should apply to humanitarian organisations. Did they reach the victims? Did they deliver medicine? Did they verify conditions? Did they resist becoming part of the captor’s theatre?

If not, their intentions may be admirable, but admiration is not aid.

The lesson of Auschwitz is not merely that evil exists. We knew that already. The more disturbing lesson is that respected institutions can stand remarkably close to evil and fail to recognise it, confront it or speak clearly about it.

The lesson of the hostages is that this danger did not disappear in 1945.

We should respect institutions when they earn respect. But we should never confuse a logo with morality, neutrality with courage or an official statement with action.

The Red Cross did not murder the Jews at Auschwitz. It did not kidnap the Israelis taken into Gaza. But when Jews desperately needed the world’s most famous humanitarian organisation, it failed to reach them.

Twice.

Perhaps the third apology will be excellent.

Apparently the “root cause” has learned how to use reinforced concrete.

Imagine if this had been discovered under London, Paris or New York. It would dominate every front page for weeks. In Jerusalem? It’ll probably get less coverage than someone’s pronouns.

This is why Israel carries out security operations. Not because Israelis enjoy checkpoints. Not because soldiers wake up thinking, “How can we inconvenience people today?” They do it because terrorists keep digging tunnels instead of foundations for schools.

Thank God for the men and women of Israel’s security forces. The best counter-terrorism stories are the ones that never become mass funerals.

I know. Apparently that’s not allowed anymore.

These days, if you criticise Hamas, you’re told you hate Palestinians. That’s the level of sophistication we’ve reached. It’s like saying if you oppose the Mafia, you hate Italians.

No. I don’t hate Gazans.

I don’t hate anyone. Hatred is exhausting. It’s like drinking poison and expecting somebody else to get a stomach ache.

I do, however, criticise evil.

And Hamas is evil.

That shouldn’t be controversial. It should be somewhere between “water is wet” and “don’t set fire to your own house”.

Hamas massacred people, kidnapped civilians, turned suffering into a strategy and built an entire political identity around death. Then a remarkable thing happened. A significant number of educated people in the West looked at this death cult and thought, “Yes. I shall wear its slogans on a tote bag.”

Mad.

I keep hearing, “Free Gaza.”

Fine.

Let’s do it.

Free Gaza from Hamas.

Free Gaza from rulers who seem to love dead Palestinians more than living ones. Free Gaza from leaders who had years to build a prosperous society but somehow ended up with tunnels, rockets and propaganda departments.

And free Gaza from Western activists who have decided Palestinians possess no agency whatsoever. Apparently Palestinians are heroic resistance fighters and helpless children simultaneously. It’s an impressive trick.

And here’s another lie you’ve been sold.

That Israelis hate Palestinians and want endless war.

Most Israelis don’t hate Palestinians.

Most Israelis want peace.

They’re tired. They’ve buried friends and family. They’ve lived through buses exploding, rockets raining down and people being dragged from music festivals and their homes. They don’t dream of conquering Gaza. They dream of not having to run to bomb shelters.

You have been lied to.

You’ve been told Israelis wake up every morning plotting how to oppress Palestinians. Most wake up worrying about whether their kids will get home safely from school.

Normal people.

Like everyone else.

The tragedy is that ordinary Palestinians and ordinary Israelis want exactly the same things: safety, dignity and a future.

But peace requires leaders who value life.

And Hamas doesn’t.

I don’t hate Gazans.

I don’t hate Palestinians.

I don’t hate Muslims.

I hate lies.

I hate fanaticism.

I hate people who turn dead children into political marketing.

And I hate the moral confusion that has convinced millions that opposing Hamas is somehow anti-Palestinian.

It isn’t.

The opposite is true.

If you genuinely care about Palestinians, then wanting them liberated from a corrupt, authoritarian, antisemitic death cult shouldn’t be controversial.

It’s the bare minimum.

So yes.

Free Gaza.

From Hamas.

For most of my life, antisemitism belonged in history books. It sat alongside the Black Death, witch trials and other things civilised societies were supposed to have grown out of. The Holocaust. Pogroms. The sort of horrors people point at and say, “Never again”, before getting on with their day.

Then I started paying attention.

What I discovered was not that antisemitism had disappeared, but that it had adapted. It had changed its clothes. The language became more sophisticated, the branding improved, but the fixation remained strangely familiar. The double standards. The conspiracy theories. The obsession with Jews behaving in ways no other people are expected to behave.

Over the last several years I have spent thousands of hours researching antisemitism, anti-Zionism, media bias, and the way Israel is portrayed in public discourse. I have interviewed academics, historians, journalists, activists and ordinary people. I have travelled, filmed, read, debated and, perhaps most importantly, challenged my own assumptions.

The deeper I dug, the less comfortable the picture became.

I found that many people who would never tolerate prejudice against any other minority seemed remarkably relaxed when it came to Jews. I watched ancient stereotypes reappear dressed up as political analysis. I saw misinformation travel around the world at the speed of a tweet while corrections limped behind carrying a walking stick. I saw propaganda treated as journalism and journalism treated as propaganda, depending entirely on whose side it appeared to support.

And I kept asking myself the same question.

Why are the rules different here?

I am not Jewish. I was not raised in Israel. I have no family connection to the conflict and no personal reason to care more about antisemitism than any other form of hatred.

Yet here I am.

Not because I think Jews are uniquely virtuous. No group is. Humans are humans. Give any of us enough power and enough certainty and we become unbearable.

But I do believe that truth matters. Facts matter. Context matters. And prejudice does not become noble simply because it has attached itself to a fashionable political cause.

Too often, people imagine bigotry arrives wearing a swastika and shouting slogans. History suggests otherwise. It usually arrives convinced of its own moral virtue. It tells itself it is different. That this time the hatred is justified. That this target deserves it.

That is why I make films about these issues. That is why I speak out.

Not because it is easy. Not because it is popular. And certainly not because it wins you many friends at dinner parties.

I do it because history teaches a simple lesson that every generation seems determined to relearn the hard way:

When decent people decide that prejudice against someone else is none of their business, it eventually becomes everyone’s business.

These tunnels are deliberately embedded beneath civilian infrastructure so that sanctimonious useful idiots, Peter Tatchell being a particularly exhausting example, can shriek that Israel “murders children” while obediently laundering Hamas propaganda into respectable conversation. An arrangement so cynical it would almost deserve admiration if it were not built on corpses, camera crews, and activist narcissism. Hamas’s documented use of civilian infrastructure and human shields as part of its military strategy has been extensively discussed in both research and testimony.

Naturally, Tatchell repeats lines such as “Israel’s mass killing of Palestinian civilians (mostly women & children)” despite the obvious and repeatedly documented problem that casualty figures in Gaza routinely fail to distinguish between civilians and Hamas combatants. Even major analytical studies examining the war have raised substantial concerns about casualty counting methods, manipulations, and the reliability of combatant-versus-civilian classifications. The slogan itself functions less as analysis and more as emotional theatre for people who confuse moral panic with intellectual rigour. Verification, apparently, is now considered a form of oppression.

The Nazis, particularly Joseph Goebbels, would probably marvel at Hamas’s achievement. Historically, propagandists had to pay people to distribute messaging. Hamas managed to create an ecosystem where Western activists, influencers, academics, and parts of the media perform the labour voluntarily, often while believing themselves morally heroic for doing so. Quite efficient, really. Grim. But efficient.

Hamas spent years siphoning Palestinian money and resources into digging hundreds of kilometres of tunnels beneath Gaza, marketed as essential to “protect the resistance”. Yet the post October 7 war exposed something awkward: most senior Hamas figures killed by Israel were not discovered heroically commanding operations from underground bunkers. They were hiding in civilian areas, tents, flats, schools, hospitals, crowded neighbourhoods, ensuring that whenever Israel struck them, Palestinian civilians would die alongside them. Research examining the war specifically highlights Hamas’s embedding of military infrastructure beneath and within civilian areas as a central tactical doctrine.

Yesterday’s strike on Izz al-Din al-Haddad follows the same pattern seen with Mohammed al-Deif, Marwan Issa, Yahya Sinwar, Ismail Barhoum, Salah al-Bardawil, and others. The grand mythology of the tunnels increasingly resembles a grotesquely expensive fraud: billions poured into underground concrete labyrinths while Gaza above ground remained economically shattered. Digging holes, it turns out, was easier than building a functioning society. A bit like student politics, really. Lots of slogans, very little plumbing.

In practice, many tunnels appear to have served primarily as storage networks, military transit systems, and prison cells for some hostages kept in horrific underground conditions, while numerous other hostages were held above ground with Hamas linked families or embedded among civilians in homes, markets, schools, and medical facilities. Which, strangely enough, rarely appears in activist Instagram infographics. Funny that.

And this is the central obscenity of the entire thing: Hamas’s strategy depends on civilian suffering. The deaths are not simply collateral to the strategy; they are part of the strategy. The more civilians die, the louder the outrage abroad becomes, the more pressure mounts on Israel, and the more useful idiots in London, New York, and university campuses perform outrage on Hamas’s behalf. Even academic discussions around antisemitism and anti Zionist rhetoric increasingly note how anti Israel discourse often collapses into narratives portraying Israel as uniquely evil, genocidal, or Nazi-like.

Gaza cannot rebuild while the tunnel network remains intact. Every surviving shaft is effectively a ready made sanctuary for Hamas to store weapons, move fighters, regroup, and sabotage any future administration attempting to stabilise the territory. Leaving the tunnels untouched while demanding reconstruction would be like trying to rebuild a house while politely agreeing to keep the termites. Very compassionate. Very progressive. Utterly insane.

The only problem is… he hasn’t.

Because when you look for this “overwhelming evidence”, you find something a bit less overwhelming and a lot more… airy. Testimonies filtered through NGOs that already think Israel is guilty of everything from colonialism to climate change, plus an “analyst” citing anonymous guards. Anonymous guards are doing heroic work here. They exist just enough to support the claim, but not enough to be checked, questioned, or—God forbid—proven wrong. It’s journalism’s version of an imaginary friend.

And from this, Jones builds a full-blown narrative of systematic dog-rape as state policy. Not a rogue incident. Not an allegation needing scrutiny. A system. A programme. Presumably with a training schedule and a PowerPoint.

You’d laugh—if it wasn’t being presented as fact.

A proper journalist would hit the brakes. Big claim, thin evidence. You’d start with doubt. You’d foreground the gaps. You’d say, “We don’t know.” But Owen Jones isn’t interested in journalism. He’s a propagandist with a column, a wannabe reporter playing dress-up in the language of facts while doing the exact opposite.

This is how it works: replace evidence with emotion, replace verification with repetition, and if anyone asks awkward questions, treat them like they’ve just defended the crime. Not mistaken—morally compromised. It’s not reporting. It’s narrative enforcement.

And Jones is very good at it. Not at finding truth—but at packaging outrage.

Because the accusation is the point. The more grotesque it is, the less people feel allowed to question it. You don’t need proof if you can generate enough disgust. You just need volume, certainty, and a straight face.

Try running his method anywhere else. Imagine accusing any other group of something this medieval based on anonymous sources and hostile intermediaries. You’d be laughed out of the room. Or sued. Probably both. But here? It’s “brave”. It’s “important”. It’s Owen being Owen—confidently wrong, loudly so, and somehow still invited back for more.

We’re already in a culture where calling Israel “genocidal” or “Nazi-like” is treated as a respectable opinion. Disagree, and suddenly you’re the problem. So why stop there? Why not escalate? Add something more shocking. More lurid. Dogs, rape—why not? If the goal is maximum outrage, subtlety’s just getting in the way.

And that’s the real story here. Not what Israel is or isn’t doing, but what people like Owen Jones are willing to say without evidence if it fits the narrative they’ve already decided is true.

Because let’s be honest—this isn’t journalism. Journalism asks questions. Journalism tests claims. Journalism is supposed to be allergic to certainty without proof. What Jones is doing is the opposite. He starts with the answer and works backwards, cherry-picking whatever fragments he can find to hold it together.

It’s not investigation. It’s confirmation bias in a nice jacket.

Now, the obvious point—because apparently it needs stating: if any Israeli soldier committed anything like this, investigate it. Properly. Transparently. Punish it if proven. That’s what real accountability looks like.

But if you’re going to claim it’s systematic—policy, doctrine, something organised—you don’t get to base that on anonymous whispers and ideologically convenient testimony. You need evidence that holds up when someone actually looks at it. Documents. Forensics. Corroboration. Not vibes.

Without that, you’re not exposing a crime. You’re inventing one.

And Owen Jones, in this case, looks less like a journalist and more like exactly what he accuses others of being—a propagandist. A wannabe reporter who’s mistaken outrage for evidence and clicks for credibility.

It’s embarrassing. It’s irresponsible. And worst of all—it’s effective.

Because somewhere out there, someone’s reading this and thinking, “Well, if Owen says it…”

That’s the problem. Not just that it’s stupid—but that it spreads.

It starts the way these things always start in Wokestan’s capital: not with a bang, but with that particular London soundscape—sirens, shouting, and the faint wheeze of civic hypocrisy tightening around your throat like a “community safety” lanyard.

A crowd gathers outside a foreign embassy. Not Parliament. Not Downing Street. Not the BBC canteen. An embassy. People aren’t there to smash British institutions, burn cars, or cosplay revolution as a weekend hobby. They’re there to shout one very basic demand at the British state: stop cosying up to the Islamic Republic’s enforcers; treat the IRGC like what it is; stop treating monsters like “stakeholders.”

And then—because this is Londonistan—British policing swings into action with the kind of ferocity normally reserved for:

1. people who refuse to clap for the correct cause, and

2. anyone who looks as though they might still believe in the concept of a nation-state.

The line forms quickly. A thick wall of helmets and shields. Kettling begins. People try to move away—normal human behaviour, last I checked—and get shoved back in. The vibe is less “public order” and more “we’ve been waiting years to try this kit on someone harmless.”

And here’s the first tell that something is rotten: the speed. The competence. The sudden, almost touching enthusiasm. “Suddenly they’re very competent. Suddenly they’ve been trained properly. Wow.”

Yes. Exactly. Funny how the Met can locate its spine when the target isn’t going to bite back—when the crowd isn’t protected by fashionable intimidation, political cover, or that sacred London pass: the right ideology.

Because in this city, everyone knows there are protests… and then there are protected protests.

Two-tier policing isn’t a conspiracy. It’s a business model.

In Londonistan, the police don’t “police.” They curate. They manage reputational risk. They weigh up whose outrage matters, whose intimidation will make the wrong headlines, whose lawyers will go nuclear, whose friends sit on panels, and whose supporters can turn a high street into a no-go zone with a megaphone and a moral licence.

So what happens when the crowd isn’t the usual protected species? When it’s not the march that gets a sympathetic BBC package and a “community leaders call for calm” follow-up? When it’s not the protest that can scream, threaten, intimidate—and be treated like a delicate cultural flower that bruises if you enforce the law too loudly?

What happens is: the batons come out.

That detail matters, because even the people on the ground are shocked by it. “I genuinely have seen the police in the UK using batons in a very long time,” one voice says, reaching back to rare public moments when the Met last acted like this.
Not because batons are mythical objects. But because London’s modern policing strategy is selective courage. Soft where it’s dangerous. Hard where it’s safe. It’s not bravery. It’s bullying with a pension.

And if anyone dares call it out, the response is always the same: How dare you politicise policing?

As if policing hasn’t been political since the first copper decided “public order” means “order for the public who matter.”

The “free press” moment: when the Met decides journalism is a contact sport

One of the most grotesque details of the night isn’t even what happens to protesters. It’s what happens to someone doing the one job that’s meant to keep power honest: filming.

A journalist is pushed. Threatened. The camera is struck. Not once. Not “a misunderstanding.” Repeatedly. “They basically hit [the] camera,” someone says, incredulous at the audacity. Another moment catches the same theme: “What happened to free media, free press?”

That question lands like a brick because it isn’t rhetorical anymore. Londonistan doesn’t need censorship laws when it can do something cheaper: make filming physically unpleasant and legally risky.

The message is simple: don’t record this. Don’t show people what “public order” looks like when the wrong group shows up.

Because “community cohesion” is much easier to maintain when the footage doesn’t go viral.

And you can practically hear the double standard humming underneath it: If this were the BBC being shoved around, the Prime Minister would apologise in a heartbeat.
But a smaller outlet? A less protected journalist? In Londonistan, that’s just “operational necessity.” That’s “don’t interfere with my officers!”

Translation: Don’t interfere with the narrative.

The elderly man: the moment Londonistan stops pretending

Then comes the part you don’t get to hand-wave away with policy jargon.

An elderly man goes down. Seventy, according to voices at the scene. Not a “young football hooligan,” as one person points out—because London’s establishment always likes its victims to be unsympathetic. It’s much easier to justify bruises when you can call someone “far-right” and go home feeling virtuous.

But an elderly man? That’s awkward.

And yet the night keeps moving with that same cold momentum: more bodies, more shoves, more chaos. Someone says people injured and arrested skew older and female—again, inconvenient demographics if you’re trying to sell this as “necessary force” against “threatening extremists.”

There’s mention of a head injury—blood. There’s a leg—possibly broken. There’s panic and disbelief and the sort of helpless rage that hits when the state turns its strength on someone who clearly isn’t a threat.

And then, insult piled onto injury: where’s the ambulance?

Repeated again and again. The question isn’t poetic. It’s logistical. You batter people, you get them help. That’s the minimum a civil society owes its own citizens, even when it arrests them. Especially then.

But Londonistan has priorities. And tonight, those priorities appear to be:

• protect the embassy building,

• dominate the optics,

• and make sure nobody records too much of it.

“Who gave the order?”

That question appears in the air like smoke. Because this doesn’t feel like random scuffling. It feels directed. “There was an order… we have to find out who from the top.”

That matters. If this is “policy,” then it isn’t a bad apple. It’s a bad orchard.

And this is where Sadiq Khan becomes unavoidable, because London’s political class has designed a structure where accountability is like a bar of soap: always slipping away, always landing somewhere else’s responsibility.

The mayor will do the usual dance: operational independence.
The Met will do their standard line: we acted proportionately.
The Home Office will do its favourite trick: we’re monitoring the situation.
And the public will be expected to swallow all of it while watching footage of batons, kettling, and an elderly man with a bleeding head.

But let’s be honest: Londonistan doesn’t run on independence. It runs on incentives. On what will be tolerated, what will be rewarded, and what will be punished.

And tonight, the incentive structure is screaming.

Because nobody in power is genuinely afraid of these protesters. The voices on the ground even say it out loud: the crowd is unarmed; the protest is peaceful; the focus is the embassy, not British buildings.

This isn’t a mob hunting strangers down Oxford Street. This isn’t a crowd stamping towards a synagogue with “globalise the intifada” energy. This is a group that can be pushed around without triggering the political class’s fear reflex.

So they get pushed around.

That’s two-tier policing in one sentence.

London’s magical resource problem: always broke, except when bullying is available

Londoners are constantly told there aren’t enough officers. Not enough resources. Not enough capacity to deal with theft, stalking, assaults, grooming gangs, knives, burglaries, the slow-motion collapse of basic order.

Then a crowd appears outside one embassy and—miracle of miracles—there are suddenly loads of officers. “The number of police officers out tonight in one area… they keep telling us they don’t have enough police officers to catch criminals… suddenly they have enough resources.”

It’s like watching a council claim it can’t afford potholes, then unveil a £4 million “inclusive pavement experience” made of recycled feelings.

Londonistan always finds money and manpower for the things that protect the narrative. It’s almost inspiring, if you like your inspiration dipped in contempt.

The contrast London refuses to discuss: Jews, intimidation, and the “wrong kind” of victim

Now, let’s address the thing everyone in polite society tiptoes around like it’s a puddle of acid: how London treats Jews.

Because the reason two-tier policing feels so obscene isn’t just that one group gets hit and another doesn’t. It’s that the group that reliably gets left exposed—again and again—are Jews.

This isn’t theoretical. There are examples in the record of exactly how casual and normalised this intimidation becomes.

A Jewish Chronicle reporter describes a London bus incident in Golders Green: Jewish schoolchildren on board; a man shouting “Get the Jews off the bus”; threats to “burn the bus” and “burn the Jews”; the driver lets the man back on; the police response—initially—amounts to: if the driver doesn’t stop, we can’t send police.
Read that again. Children. Threats of burning Jews. And the system’s first instinct is procedural shrugging.

Or take the “boycott” theatre that so often slides into direct hostility. A London coffee shop displays a sign: boycott Israeli goods—then edits it into the classic British cop-out: “We are not anti-Semitic, but anti-fascist. Jews are as welcome here as anyone else.”

Translation: Jews are welcome, but only the kind of Jew we approve of. Please leave your identity at the door with your coat.

And when activism turns from slogans into vandalism, it’s still Jews who pay. A Birmingham supermarket ends up removing kosher items after BDS demonstrators burst in and damage kosher products.

So the “activists” don’t punish a government. They punish people buying matzo ball soup mix. Because, in this worldview, Jewish life is always collateral.

That’s the atmosphere Londonistan has been marinating in for years: where anti-Israel mobilisation provides cover for intimidation that just happens—mysteriously—to land on Jews.

So when people say “Hamas supporters are allowed to harass Jewish businesses,” they aren’t pulling it from thin air. They’re describing a pattern London keeps normalising: the conditional belonging, the intimidation, the casual threats, the institutional reluctance to confront it with force.

And then, on a night where the crowd isn’t fashionable enough to be protected, the Met deploys a level of physical aggression that Jews in this city could only dream of seeing directed at the people who menace them.

That’s the sickness.

“How come the riot police are never out for the Muslims?”

That question is voiced openly at the scene. It’s raw, it’s blunt, and it’s politically radioactive—which is why London’s commentariat will pretend it wasn’t asked.

But it doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes from watching London’s policing calculus in real time:

• If a protest comes with the potential for being labelled “Islamophobic” if policed firmly, the Met suddenly develops a passion for “facilitation.”

• If a protest comes with the potential for real backlash—social media storms, community pressure, political headaches—enforcement becomes interpretive dance.

• If a protest comes from people who don’t have those levers, the Met becomes “robust.”

That isn’t “community policing.” It’s risk management. It’s policing as PR.

And the ugliest truth is this: Londonistan’s leadership would rather offend law-abiding protesters than risk offending the people who have proved they can turn intimidation into a weapon.

The embassy as sacred ground, the British public as disposable

There’s another line that sits beneath everything: the idea that the embassy is treated like sovereign ground—protected, prioritised, guarded with zeal.

Fine. Embassies get protection. That’s normal.

But here’s what isn’t normal: treating British citizens like the enemy in their own capital, while acting as bouncers for an Islamist regime’s outpost.

The crowd’s demand—stop supporting terrorists, designate the IRGC, deport the regime’s operatives—should not be outrageous in a country that claims to take extremism seriously.

And yet the response is: kettling, batons, assaults, arrests, and a hostility to filming that screams discomfort with scrutiny.

Londonistan has developed a warped hierarchy of whose safety matters. The building matters. The optics matter. The narrative matters. The people? Optional.

Sadiq Khan’s London: diverse, inclusive, and weirdly tolerant of intimidation

Khan’s defenders will do what they always do: recite “diversity” like it’s a magic spell that prevents civil decline. But “diversity” is not a substitute for law. It’s not a replacement for equal protection. It’s not a licence for selective enforcement.

And what’s happening under Khan is not multicultural harmony. It’s a kind of anxious appeasement where the state bends towards the loudest intimidators and compensates by over-policing the safer targets.

That’s not “progress.” That’s a city being trained—slowly—to accept that intimidation works.

If London feels like it’s slipping, it’s because it is. Not into sharia fantasies or tabloid nightmares—but into something more banal and more British: a bureaucracy so terrified of accusations that it stops enforcing norms evenly.

And once even-handed enforcement dies, everything else follows. You don’t get trust. You get factions. You don’t get cohesion. You get rival mobs learning the same lesson: the state only respects pressure.

The final insult: the media silence

There’s a recurring expectation that this won’t be covered properly, if at all. “This won’t be on mainstream media… exclusively being reported by us,” goes one line of commentary.

And whether or not that’s hyperbole, it points to something real: the way London’s gatekeepers filter violence through ideology.

If police act aggressively against a fashionable cause, it’s front-page moral crisis. If police act aggressively against an unfashionable cause, it’s “complex,” “contextual,” “a difficult night for officers.”

And if the victims are Jews? Too often it’s a brief mention, a quiet stat, and a plea not to “inflame tensions.”

As if Jewish safety is an optional extra that might upset the aesthetic.

Londonistan isn’t being “controlled.” It’s being managed into submission.

So here’s the real question behind all of this—bigger than one night, one embassy, one police line:

Who controls London?

Because it doesn’t feel like the ordinary public does. It doesn’t feel like equal law does. It feels like the city is run by a coalition of bureaucrats, risk-averse politicians, and ideological enforcers who decide—case by case—who gets rights and who gets a baton.

And when people say “two-tier policing,” they don’t mean a grand conspiracy with a villain stroking a cat. They mean the lived reality of Londonistan:

• Some crowds get “facilitated.”

• Some crowds get “robusted.”

• Some communities get told to keep their heads down.

• Some communities get treated as untouchable.

That’s not policing. That’s a social contract being rewritten without a vote.

And if that sounds dramatic, tell it to the elderly man on the ground. Tell it to the journalist being shoved away from the truth. Tell it to the people asking—over and over—where the ambulance is.

Londonistan is learning, in real time, what happens when a state loses the courage to be fair: it compensates by being cruel—selectively.

And the longer this continues, the more the city will resemble the places it claims to be morally superior to. Not because of immigration. Not because of diversity. But because of cowardice in power.

Cowardice dressed as “sensitivity.”
Cowardice disguised as “community relations.”
Cowardice enforced with a baton.

That’s the London settlement now: the wrong people get policed hard, because the right people have become too scary to police at all.

And Sadiq Khan can keep smiling for the cameras while London’s reality fractures underneath him. In the end, history doesn’t care about slogans. It cares about whether the state treated its citizens equally—especially when it was inconvenient.

Right now, Londonistan is failing that test.

That word we usually reserve for Bowie, Monty Python, or at a push a perfectly poured pint. Not, you’d think, for a day that involved the mass murder of civilians, families butchered in their homes, women raped, children dragged away, and bodies paraded like trophies. But here we are.

According to Tony Blair’s sister-in-law, a Muslim woman who has publicly converted to Islam, 7 October, the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history, was “legendary”. She went further than political framing. She invoked the Qur’an, praised Allah, and described the day as something “great for Muslims”.

That is not a neutral observation. It is not analysis. It is religiously framed praise for an act of mass civilian slaughter.

Which is quite a statement. One that reframes murder, rape, and hostage-taking not as crimes, but as something to be admired. A moral judgement reached not through facts or empathy for the victims, but through ideological and religious alignment so rigid that atrocity itself becomes secondary to the cause it is claimed to serve.

Let’s pause for a moment and admire the gymnastics.

Calling a massacre “legendary” isn’t just offensive, it’s impressively empty-headed. Calling it great for Muslims, while invoking scripture, adds something darker. It takes an act of terror and places it in a sacred frame, where criticism can be waved away as ignorance, hostility, or bigotry. Violence is no longer just justified. It is sanctified.

This is the point where politics stops being about people and turns into a football chant. Your side scores; therefore atrocities are vibes. Add a religious gloss, and suddenly the victims don’t just disappear, they become irrelevant.

This is the bit where we’re told it’s “contextual”. Or “complicated”. Or that outrage is selective. True enough, but not in the way its defenders think. Because when civilians are butchered by people we dislike, it’s a tragedy. When civilians are butchered by people we’ve decided are fashionable revolutionaries, or spiritually aligned, it becomes content. Or worse, a moral victory.

There is something uniquely grotesque about the comfortable Western radical, sipping a flat white while romanticising mass murder from several thousand miles away. No risk. No cost. Just slogans, religious references, and the quiet thrill of feeling morally elevated while cheering barbarism from the safety of Zone 2.

Let’s be clear about something else.

This is not an attack on Islam. Faith does not require celebrating slaughter. The Qur’an does not demand that civilians be butchered and hostages taken. Millions of Muslims would find the praise of such acts abhorrent.

But when a Muslim public figure explicitly frames a massacre as good for Muslims, invoking religious language to do so, that framing matters. It turns terror into testimony. It discourages moral scrutiny. It dares critics to speak, knowing they will be accused of attacking faith rather than condemning violence.

And let’s also be clear: this isn’t about criticising Israel. Criticism is legitimate. Governments should be criticised. Policies debated. Power scrutinised. None of that requires calling a pogrom “legendary”. None of it requires describing mass murder as spiritually uplifting.

That word doesn’t mean anti-imperialist. It means you’ve lost the ability to distinguish between resistance and slaughter.

Imagine, for a moment, someone describing 9/11 as “great for Christians”. Or the Bataclan as “a proud day for Catholics”. We wouldn’t debate context. We wouldn’t nod thoughtfully. We’d recognise it instantly for what it is: moral rot dressed up as belief.

But apparently, change the victims, add activist language and selective scripture, and suddenly the bar for basic human decency sinks straight through the floor.

This isn’t radicalism. It isn’t courage. It isn’t solidarity. It’s the luxury belief of people who will never face the consequences of the violence they applaud, wrapped in religion to make it harder to challenge.

So no. 7 October wasn’t legendary.
It wasn’t great.
And it wasn’t something to be proud of, for Muslims or anyone else.

It was murderous. It was sadistic. It was a reminder of how easily human beings can be reduced to symbols, and how quickly cruelty can be excused when it flatters ideology or faith.

If that offends you more than the massacre itself, congratulations.

You’re exactly the problem.

Let’s not beat around the organic, locally-sourced bush: the Green Party is no longer just about bees and bicycles. It’s morphed into a sort of ethical Ponzi scheme—where moral outrage is endlessly recycled, but never actually composted into anything useful. And somehow, between banging on about climate collapse and banning plastic straws, they’ve made space in their manifesto for cosying up to Hamas, slagging off Israel, and side-eyeing Jews like they’re responsible for the price of quinoa.

And leading this clown caravan? Zack Polanski. Jewish. Vegan. Hypnotist. (No, seriously.) This is a man who once offered to make women’s boobs bigger using hypnosis. Now he’s applying the same technique to Britain’s Jewish community: “You are getting sleepy... you no longer care that your local councillor is retweeting Hamas propaganda.”

Polanski claims he’s “really proud of being Jewish.” Of course he is. He reminds us every third sentence. It’s his political AirTag: you can’t criticise him, because look, he’s Jewish. Except that doesn’t mean anything when you’re turning a blind eye while your party gives Hamas a free PR campaign.

Let’s be clear—I’m not Jewish. So this isn’t “one of us” talking. It’s one of the many who think antisemitism isn’t something to be cleverly rebranded with a soy-based slogan. You don’t need to be Jewish to see what’s going on—you just need a working moral compass and eyes that haven’t been composted.

Polanski has decided that Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis—the actual Chief Rabbi—doesn’t speak for Jews. Nah. Apparently the man who leads Britain’s largest Jewish denomination just doesn’t get it. The real voice of British Jewry? Zack Polanski. Actor. Hypnotist. Politician. Man of a thousand tweets and absolutely zero shame.

He says Mirvis is “clearly speaking in the interests of defending the Israeli government.” That’s his smoking gun. In Zack’s world, standing up for the only Jewish state on the planet when it’s under siege by medieval head-choppers is controversial. But singing kumbaya with Na’amod? That’s community work.

Meanwhile, his deputy, Mothin Ali, is doing his best impression of a Hamas TikTok influencer. On October 7, while Israelis were being raped, butchered, and set on fire, Ali hopped online to blame... white settler colonialism. Which is woke-speak for they had it coming. He called the terrorists “indigenous people fighting back,” which is only technically true if “fighting back” includes strangling babies.

And this paragon of peace followed it up by labelling a Leeds rabbi—a guy who dared to do IDF reserve duty—as a “creep.” The rabbi had to go into hiding. Ali, meanwhile, got promoted.

The Greens ran an investigation. In the same way OJ Simpson ran a search for the real killer.

Ali eventually coughed out a non-apology. You know the type: “sorry if people felt offended.” Then he posted a video shouting “Allahu Akbar” and dedicated his council seat to Gaza. Well done, Leeds. Your local government now includes someone whose idea of peacemaking is retweeting Hamas memes and calling it nuance.

The Only Green Thing is Their Name

The Green Party loves to say they’re not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist. Right. That’s like saying, “I don’t hate gays, I just don’t believe they should vote, speak, or exist in public.”

This is a party that calls for ceasefires while one side’s openly screaming death to Jews. Who knew Hamas’s PR team moonlighted for the Greens?

Polanski, for all his self-congratulatory social justice fluff, has made it his mission to sideline the mainstream Jewish community and lift up the fringe. He hangs out with Breaking the Silence—the NGO that sells hearsay as holy writ. He breaks bread with Na’amod, a group so fringe they make Corbynistas look centrist. He dismisses Labour antisemitism under Corbyn as “pockets,” like it’s just a bit of eczema. Meanwhile, the Equality and Human Rights Commission was screaming “fire!” and Zack was asking if anyone had marshmallows.

And of course, he says the Chief Rabbi is too political. Imagine being that allergic to Jewish leadership you’d rather get moral clarity from Twitter threads and a fringe activist group that thinks BDS is too moderate.

The Chief Rabbi Doesn’t Speak for Him – But Hamas Apparently Does

Let’s linger a moment on Polanski’s Chief Rabbi saga, because it encapsulates the Green Party’s moral drift. Polanski effectively accused Chief Rabbi Mirvis of being an Israeli government mouthpiece. The Rabbi’s sin? He dared to condemn the unprecedented Hamas pogrom on October 7 and the rising anti-Semitism that followed.

Polanski said Mirvis “certainly” doesn’t speak for him or “the wider community.” Cheers for that. Apparently British Jews are all wrong, and the hypnotist from Manchester is their new oracle. All hail!

The Board of Deputies called it what it was: outrageous. The Jewish Leadership Council joined in. But in Zack’s head, he’s being brave. Standing up to the Chief Rabbi! Man of the people! Or at least the people who think chanting “From the river to the sea” is just edgy poetry.

You’ve got to admire the brass neck. He whines about being called a “Jew-hating Jew” (which, for the record, no one’s said) while defending a deputy leader who called Hamas “indigenous.” It’s the political version of farting in a lift and blaming the person next to you.

Mothin Ali: Green Deputy or Hamas Spokesman?

Mothin Ali has the subtlety of a sledgehammer. On October 7, while normal people were reeling in horror, he was polishing his anti-colonial hot takes. Hamas? Just indigenous fighters. Israeli victims? Collateral inconvenience.

This wasn’t old stuff. This was live tweeting a massacre. But the Greens thought, hmm, potential leadership material. He got a promotion.

He also labelled a rabbi a “creep.” That rabbi then received threats and had to hide. Ali claimed he was just being critical. Of course. And Charles Manson was just misunderstood.

Hypocrisy in High Places

The Green Party will screech about the arms trade, lecture you about eco-racism, and cry if you step on a daisy. But when it comes to Jewish civilians being hunted like animals, suddenly they’re confused. Suddenly it’s all very complicated. “Context,” they say, while waving their hands like a second-rate stage magician. “It’s about colonialism.”

They don’t critique policy. They deny Israel’s right to exist. And they wrap it all in language so sanctimonious it could be used as insulation.

They tell us not to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism—while defending people who literally cheered on a terrorist massacre. This isn’t criticism. It’s apologia.

Never Again – Means Never Again for All of Us

This isn’t just about Jews. It’s about Britain. It’s about whether we allow a political party to excuse terrorism and call it justice. Whether we tolerate antisemitism rebranded as “solidarity.”

Vote for who you want. But know this: the Green Party is no longer a party of progress. It’s a sanctimonious bin fire where moral clarity goes to die.

Never Again doesn’t mean “unless it’s inconvenient.” It means never again. Even when the bigots use reusable bags.

I expected better from Benedict Cumberbatch.
Paul Simon too, although he’s been in a creative drift since Graceland so perhaps this is on me. Mark Ruffalo — predictable, bless him. Tilda Swinton — ethereal, eccentric, seems permanently halfway through a séance. But Stephen Fry? Sir Ian McKellen?

These are people who normally wait for facts before signing things. People who read books with spines. People you imagined could tell the difference between Nelson Mandela and a bloke who organised shooting sprees at gas stations.

And yet here we are: more than 200 cultural darlings, creative titans, intellectual peacocks — all proudly attaching their signatures to a petition demanding the release of Marwan Barghouti, the man affectionately rebranded by the PR department of Fantasyland as “Palestine’s Nelson Mandela.”

Mandela must be whirling in his grave like a political blender.

You don’t often witness this level of moral rot from people who drink turmeric milk and hashtag about justice. This is performative ignorance wearing ethical drag. It’s the intellectual version of joining a gym and then spending all your time in the smoothie bar.

So today, let’s dissect this absurdity.

The Petition: An Ode to Self-Inflicted Embarrassment

The letter, signed by a who’s-who of the “I care deeply as long as it’s fashionable” brigade, expresses “grave concern” about Barghouti’s imprisonment.

Grave concern.
Not mild worry. Not a raised eyebrow. Grave concern.

I imagine them signing it in candlelight, sipping something organic, gazing into the middle distance like old Bolsheviks lamenting the fate of the revolution.

They describe Barghouti as:
a “powerful symbol of unity”
a “longtime advocate for freedom and dignity”
someone “illegally held by Israel”

— and then, with the narrative subtlety of a sledgehammer dipped in quinoa, they imply he’s basically Nelson Mandela with better cheekbones.

This is not just ignorance.
It’s a curated stupidity.
Stupidity with an agent and a publicist.

Because the truth — the real, boring, uncool truth — is that Barghouti is serving five life sentences plus 40 years for organising attacks that killed innocent people during the Second Intifada. Not for poetry. Not for resisting oppression with a sunflower.

For murder, backed by evidence, witnesses, and court proceedings that would make most Western systems blush with envy.

He was no Mandela. He wasn’t even the Mandela you order on Wish.

The Real Barghouti: Terrorism’s Most Overrated Influencer

Let’s go through his CV, since the petitioners evidently didn’t.

1. 12 June 2001 — Ma’ale Adumim Road

Gunmen obeying Barghouti’s command opened fire on a car. They thought it held Israelis.
They were wrong.
It held a Greek Orthodox monk, Father Georgios, who was killed.

Mandela spent 27 years in prison for fighting an apartheid regime without deliberately targeting civilians.
Barghouti’s boys killed a monk on his way home.

Spot the difference.

2. 15 January 2002 — Givat Ze’ev Gas Station

A Tanzim cell loyal to Barghouti shot and killed Yoela Hen while she was stopping for petrol.
Imagine popping out for fuel and meeting terrorism instead.
But don’t worry — to Western celebs, Barghouti is still “the bridge to peace.”

3. 5 March 2002 — Tel Aviv Seafood Market Massacre

A terrorist under Barghouti’s authorisation walked into a restaurant, opened fire, stabbed people trying to flee, and murdered three: Eli Dahan, Yosef Habi, and Salim Barakat — a Druze police officer who died trying to stop the killer.

Mandela sabotaged infrastructure to avoid killing civilians.
Barghouti sabotaged civilians.

But sure — same thing, darling, same thing.

4. The Attempted Jerusalem Mall Car Bomb

A car bomb meant to murder dozens fizzled prematurely.
By sheer luck.
Not mercy. Not restraint.
Luck.

It’s hard to imagine Fry and McKellen reading this and still concluding:
“Yes, this is the man the Middle East needs.”
Unless they skimmed the petition between rehearsals and assumed it was about freeing a misunderstood playwright.

The Trial: Fair, Public, and Inconveniently Legitimate

One of the most insulting claims in the celebrity letter is the insistence that Israel is illegally detaining Barghouti.

Right.
Because nothing screams “illegal detention” like a multi-month civilian trial in open court with evidence, witnesses, appeals, and an acquittal of 20 charges due to insufficient proof.

Israel’s courts didn’t rubber-stamp anything — they did what actual justice systems do: they separated facts from fiction, evidence from noise.

Meanwhile Barghouti himself refused to participate, declined to cross-examine witnesses, and ignored the proceedings entirely because he wanted to delegitimise the court.

A bit like announcing you’re boycotting theatre because the reviews were mean.

When you don’t show up to defend yourself, that’s not a sign of innocence — that’s a PR strategy.

The Mandela Comparison: Please Try Not to Laugh

Comparing Barghouti to Mandela is like comparing:
A vegan smoothie bar to the Normandy landings
Cats to quantum physics
Russell Brand to chastity

There is no overlap.
Not morally. Not historically. Not politically.

Mandela fought one of the most racist regimes on earth.
Barghouti orchestrated shootings at restaurants.

Mandela rejected targeting civilians.
Barghouti’s entire portfolio depends on it.

Mandela left prison calling for reconciliation.
Barghouti left his courtroom declaring, “As long as Israeli mothers cry, Palestinian mothers will cry too.”

This is not the heart of a peacemaker.
It’s the script of a Bond villain who thinks he’s profound.

Even his own Fatah colleagues praise him not as a man of peace but as “the leader of the Intifada.”
A militant hero. A war-time icon.
The Palestinian Che Guevara without the literacy.

So when Western celebrities hold him up as a Mandela, it’s not solidarity — it’s intellectual cosplay.

It’s activism as performance art:
Get your signature in before the hashtag goes cold.

The Victims: The Inconvenient People Who Don’t Get Documentaries

Here’s the part the petition never mentions — because it ruins the myth.

Father Georgios.
Yoela Hen.
Eli Dahan.
Yosef Habi.
Salim Barakat.

Actual human beings.
Not symbols.
Not narrative extras.

Their stories disappear the moment you accept Barghouti as a freedom fighter.
They are the collateral embarrassment for celebrities desperate to feel “on the right side of history” before their next red carpet.

And isn’t it interesting how Western progressives demand empathy for Palestinians but can’t muster a teaspoon of empathy for Israelis?

Maybe empathy stops working when you need to know geography.

The Moral Rot of the Cultural Elite

Let’s be clear:
This isn’t about Palestine.
This isn’t about human rights.
This is about status-signalling dressed up as political conscience.

It’s the same rot we see on Western campuses, where shouting “genocide!” is treated as scholarship and denying it is treated as hate speech.

It’s the same rot we see in media that repeats Hamas press releases with the enthusiasm of unpaid interns.

It’s the same rot that makes people chant “From the river to the sea” without understanding that Barry Shaw, standing on his balcony in Netanya, can literally show you which river and which sea — and the distance is terrifyingly walkable.

It’s the rot of people who mistake ignorance for virtue because they’ve never had to bury anyone killed by the terrorists they romanticise.

Human Shields, Hospital Command Centres, and Other Facts the Petition Doesn’t Care About

It takes a special kind of cognitive yoga to ignore that Hamas and Fatah routinely hide their fighters among civilians, use hospitals as bases, and turn schools into armories.

Jonathan Sacerdoti’s analysis shows the media’s complicity — the BBC swallowing Hamas propaganda whole, presenting terrorists’ children as innocent “food influencers,” and airing a documentary so fake that even its haircuts were non-sequential.

Western activists don’t want to know this.
It ruins the aesthetic.

The truth makes activism messy.
And they prefer activism with edges smoothed down and victims airbrushed out.

The Celebrities: Useful Idiots with Good Lighting

Let’s be charitable for a moment — because I’m trying to grow as a person, allegedly.

Maybe these celebrities truly believe Barghouti is Mandela.
Maybe they skimmed one Guardian article and thought they’d uncovered apartheid 2.0.
Maybe they think “Occupation” is a simple one-word indictment rather than a word with historical, legal, and moral complexity.

But the outcome is the same:
They lend their credibility to a man convicted of murder.

They give political sugar-coating to someone whose strategy — like Hamas — has always been simple:
Make Palestinians bleed so the world blames the Jews.

Hamas uses human shields.
Barghouti uses celebrity shields.

And Hollywood, as ever, is available for hire.

Why This Matters: The Danger of Myth-making

When the cultural elite whitewash terrorists:
They normalise violence
They delegitimise legitimate self-defence
They erase victims
They encourage more extremism
They set fire to moral clarity, then meditate next to the flames

This isn’t harmless.
This has consequences.

Ask Barry Shaw, who nearly lost his wife to a suicide bomber Barghouti’s movement glorified.
Ask the people of Netanya.
Ask the families who buried loved ones after the Park Hotel massacre.

But celebrities don’t ask.
They sign.
They pose.
They post.

And then they go home to houses with security systems and talk about justice over biodynamic wine.

The Irony: If Palestinians Had a Mandela, Israel Would Be the First to Celebrate Him

Mandela sought coexistence, not annihilation.
Mandela rejected antisemitism.
Mandela believed in shared destiny, not shared graves.

If there were a Palestinian Mandela — someone who truly believed in peace, coexistence, and rejecting terrorism — Israelis would be queueing up to sign that petition.
Many have been waiting for decades.

But the West doesn’t want a Palestinian Mandela.
They want a Palestinian aesthetic.

And so they settle for Barghouti — a convicted killer with good PR.

The Conclusion: And Now… Our Collective Exasperation

Let’s summarise this farce:

Western celebrities: “Barghouti = Mandela.”
Reality: “Barghouti = master planner of civilian murders.”

Western celebrities: “Israel is the problem.”
Reality: Hamas uses hospitals as bases, hides behind children, and manufactures propaganda.

Western celebrities: “Free him to bring peace.”
Reality: Barghouti openly promotes continued violence.

This isn’t solidarity.
It’s self-congratulation with a humanitarian filter.

It’s ethical cosplay.
It’s political LARPing.
It’s the West projecting its fantasies onto a region they don’t understand.

If moral clarity were a GCSE subject, half the petition’s signatories wouldn’t get a pass mark.

And that — more than anything — is the tragedy here:
Not simply that they’re wrong, but that they’re proud of being wrong.
That they broadcast their ignorance as if it’s a badge of honour.
That the very people who claim to speak for justice are now actively undermining it.

They aren’t champions of peace.
They are patrons of confusion.

They are manufacturers of myths.
And myths built on corpses are not solidarity — they are desecrations.

Barghouti is no Mandela.
He is what Mandela fought against.

And if Western celebrities want to become foot soldiers in the propaganda machine of violent movements, they should at least have the honesty to say so.

Until then, let them enjoy the applause in their echo chambers.
The rest of us will remain here — in the world where facts matter, victims matter, and moral responsibility still means something.

And I am sure you have noticed how the guy is shaking that poor child on camera? Child abuse as a prop — all to wring a bit more emotion out of the stupid Palomas and the rest of the easily-moved-by-anything brigade.

Above ground, the rockets have mostly stopped — “mostly” being the key word — and there’s an uneasy ceasefire that no one trusts. Gaza isn’t peaceful. It’s paused. The IDF controls most of the Strip. Hamas controls the press releases. And Western governments? They control the stupidity.

Because, 768 days in, the West is still repeating Hamas’s talking points like a cult that’s lost the plot but kept the hymns.

The Echo Chamber of Compassion

You’d think two years of slaughter, lies, and manipulation might have taught Western leaders a little humility. Not a chance. They still open every sentence with, “Of course Israel has the right to defend itself,” then spend the next ten minutes explaining why it shouldn’t.

It’s a moral reflex, like apologising when someone steps on your foot.

Politicians talk about “ending the cycle of violence” while spinning the same moral carousel: Hamas attacks, Israel responds, the West panics, Hamas re-arms, and the BBC calls it “a setback to peace.” The only thing cyclical is their amnesia.

Humanitarian outrage is the new international currency — you can’t buy competence, but you can buy applause.

Qatar: The World’s Favourite Firestarter

Let’s talk about Qatar — because no one else ever does without a cheque. It bankrolls Hamas, houses its leaders in luxury, runs its propaganda channel (Al Jazeera), and somehow still manages to be everyone’s “mediator.”

Qatar is the only place on Earth where you can fund terrorism in the morning and host peace talks in the afternoon without getting confused. The West calls that “diplomacy.” I call it “accessory after the fact.”

Tom Gross said it plainly this week: Qatar’s role isn’t neutral — it’s indispensable to Hamas. Without Doha’s money and hospitality, Hamas would have to fundraise like a normal NGO: bake sales, GoFundMe, hostage merch.

The Humanitarian Theatre

Meanwhile, Gaza’s humanitarian industry is booming. There’s a full-time economy in outrage — the NGOs, the UN agencies, the influencers with ring lights and tear ducts on command. They’ve all mastered the art of looking heartbroken on camera while ignoring how the aid trucks they send end up in Hamas warehouses.

Israel’s released hours of footage showing food convoys crossing into Gaza. You’d think that might count for something. But no — Western media see what they want: Israel withholding aid. Hamas could hijack a UNICEF truck live on television, and the BBC headline would be “Israeli Policies Drive Desperation.”

This is the part of the film where you’d scream at the screen: “The villain’s right there!” But the West is too busy narrating the tragedy to notice who’s writing the script.

The Ceasefire that Saves Nobody

We’ve had so many ceasefires I’ve lost count. The latest one, supposedly “holding,” is about as stable as a vegan at a barbecue. Hamas uses every lull to reload; the West uses every lull to lecture Israel.

Tom Gross hit the nail on the head: a ceasefire that leaves Hamas breathing isn’t peace, it’s procrastination. Every “pause in hostilities” is really a chance for Hamas to update its tunnels, restock its rockets, and print new T-shirts for the next march in London.

The West keeps insisting on ceasefires as if stopping Israel mid-fight will magically end the war. It’s like interrupting a surgeon halfway through a heart operation and saying, “Haven’t you cut enough?”

The Media’s War — Facts Optional

If Hamas had a marketing department, it would be headquartered at the BBC. You could make a drinking game out of their Gaza coverage — take a shot every time they say “militant” instead of “terrorist.” You’d be unconscious by paragraph three.

When Hamas blew up its own hospital car park back in 2023, the BBC blamed Israel faster than you can say “editorial standards.” That lie triggered riots across the Middle East, cancelled diplomatic meetings, and fuelled antisemitic attacks worldwide. And when the truth came out — that the rocket was Hamas’s own — the correction got less airtime than the weather.

Even after being caught, they doubled down. Their “Children of Gaza” documentary was pure propaganda: staged shots, a kid with three different haircuts supposedly filmed “in one day,” and a lead character who turned out to be the son of a Hamas politician. It was like watching a soap opera directed by Goebbels’ intern.

Jonathan Sacerdoti called it what it was: complicity. Western journalism didn’t just report Hamas’s lies; it recycled them, gave them subtitles, and sold them to the public as empathy.

The Performance of Outrage

Of course, no Western tragedy is complete without the influencers. They’re still out there — weeping on TikTok, chanting on campuses, waving signs that say “From the River to the Sea” because it rhymes and fits neatly on a tote bag.

They used to shout “Ceasefire now!” Now it’s “Israel’s breaking the ceasefire!” — same melody, different verse. They’ve built an entire identity around being professionally outraged, convinced the IDF spends its weekends bombing for sport. Hamas fires first, hides underground, and these people still manage to blame the only army that actually stopped shooting. They’re not activists anymore — they’re Hamas’s unpaid PR interns, still clocking in long after the war moved on.

David Hirsh nailed it: on Western campuses, calling Israel genocidal isn’t radical anymore; it’s a networking opportunity. Say “Israel’s defending itself,” and you’re cancelled. Say “Israel’s committing genocide,” and you’re invited to keynote Gender Studies Week.

These activists don’t want peace; they want an aesthetic. They like their revolutions photogenic — slogans, scarves, and a villain you can pronounce.

The Politicians: Saints on Payroll

Western governments still haven’t recovered from their own virtue binge. For nearly two years, they’ve condemned Israel with the enthusiasm of people who think hashtags win wars.

They fund the same UN agencies that employ Hamas sympathisers, then pretend shock when those agencies turn out to be, well, employing Hamas sympathisers. UNRWA — the humanitarian body that couldn’t tell the difference between a school and a weapons cache — is already back in business, because bureaucracies never die; they just rebrand.

Every statement from London, Brussels, or Paris reads like a competition entry in “Moral Posturing Monthly.” The tone is always identical: “We are deeply concerned… we urge restraint… we call on all sides…” They could save time by making it a macro.

Meanwhile, Hamas reads these statements from its tunnels and laughs. Why wouldn’t they? The same people funding Gaza’s reconstruction funded their last arsenal.

The Moral Inversion

Let’s be clear. It wasn’t Israel that starved Gaza. It was Hamas — by stealing aid, hoarding food, and taxing flour like it was gold dust. It wasn’t Israel that bombed hospitals; it was Hamas, by turning them into military bases. It wasn’t Israel that kept the war going; it was Western governments, by mistaking moral confusion for diplomacy.

The Begin–Sadat Center’s report from September shredded every “genocide” claim. There was no deliberate starvation, no systematic bombing of civilians. The casualty figures parroted by the UN came straight from Hamas’s “health ministry” — the world’s only medical office with a PR department.

And yet, the myth survives. Because for the Western conscience, Hamas’s narrative feels better. It flatters the ego. It lets them play saviour without understanding a thing.

Gaza’s Reality Check

Here’s what Gaza actually looks like right now: ruins, yes — but also relief. Aid finally reaches civilians without disappearing into tunnels. Shops are reopening in Khan Yunis. Kids are going back to school in tents that don’t double as armouries.

It’s fragile, messy, and real. But it’s not the dystopia the West keeps imagining. Hamas’s leaders in Doha might still dream of “resistance,” but Gazans themselves are just dreaming of normal life — which is precisely why Western activists can’t stand it. Peace ruins their business model.

Israel hasn’t declared the war over because it isn’t. Hamas hasn’t surrendered because it can’t. The world hasn’t learned because it won’t.

The West’s Greatest Talent: Self-Deception

We’ve now reached the philosophical stage of idiocy where Western elites think compassion is measured by how much you hate Israel. Every think tank, newsroom, and dinner party in London seems to have the same unwritten rule: “If in doubt, blame the Jews.”

Barry Shaw called it the sickness of Western civilisation — the need to feel morally superior to the people actually fighting evil. It’s the same syndrome that makes people tweet “All lives matter” when it’s convenient and “Death to Zionists” when it’s trendy.

Western governments, media, and activists have turned Gaza’s suffering into a virtue-signalling theme park. They feed Hamas’s narrative, starve Gaza’s truth, and then pat themselves on the back for their “nuanced understanding.”

The Punchline

After 768 days, Hamas is cornered underground, Gaza is on life support, and the West is still arguing over adjectives.

Here’s the reality: repeating Hamas propaganda doesn’t save lives. It just buys time — for terrorists. Every sanctimonious headline, every influencer’s crocodile tear, every government statement that “urges restraint” prolongs the war they claim to want to end.

If you genuinely care about Gazans, stop treating them like props. Stop feeding the monster that devoured them.

Because the truth — the one nobody in Westminster, Brussels, or the BBC wants to admit — is that Western compassion didn’t shorten this war. It fed it.

It fed Hamas.

And it starved Gaza.

Let’s begin with the headline numbers because yes, they matter.

According to the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR), in its poll conducted from 1-4 May 2025, some of the following emerged:

• Support for the Hamas decision to launch the attack of 7 October 2023 has declined—standing at 53 % overall, with 59 % in the West Bank and 44 % in Gaza. PCPSR

• On the same poll: support for disarming Hamas is still extremely low—just 18 % in the West Bank and 44 % in Gaza would back that. PCPSR

• Another earlier poll (No. 95) noted that while support for the October 7 attack has dropped, an “overwhelming majority” remains opposed to Hamas being disarmed and does not believe that releasing hostages will end the war. PCPSR+1

• A separate December 2023 poll found that “almost three in four Palestinians believe the October 7 attack was correct.” Reuters

So here’s what we learn: yes, support for the attack and for Hamas is dropping. But still—dropping from very high levels. The idea that “it was only a tiny minority” just doesn’t match the data.

To put it another way: the claim that “Hamas are extremists but the people are moderate” looks increasingly strained when over half of the population in some areas historically endorsed the attack, and still a large majority oppose being disarmed. Some “minority,” yes; but also far from marginal.

If you keep saying “but they’re victims too” while ignoring these figures, you’re comfortable with selective blindness.

The Hostages, the Bodies, the Public Spectacle

Now let’s go to the human element—because facts aren’t just numbers. They sting. They leave scars.

Consider the case of the Shiri Bibas family. On 7 October 2023, militants from Gaza abducted the family from their home in the kibbutz Nir Oz: Shiri (age 32), her sons Ariel (4 yrs) and Kfir (nine months), and husband Yarden. Reuters+1

Fast-forward to February 2025:

• On 20 February, four coffins were handed over from Gaza to Israel as part of a cease-fire/hostage deal. They were supposed to include the bodies of Shiri and her two young sons, plus another hostage, 83-year-old Oded Lifshitz. Reuters+3Reuters+3Reuters+3

• Israeli investigation found that the bodies of Ariel and Kfir were indeed identified; but the fourth coffin was notShiri’s body—it was an unidentified woman. Reuters+1

• The situation: Hamas claimed she and her boys died in an Israeli air-strike; Israeli authorities say the boys were “brutally murdered by terrorists in captivity.” The Washington Post+1

• A public spectacle was made of the hand-over: black coffins staged, media presence, thousands of Israelis lining the streets for the funeral procession of the Bibas family. The Guardian+2Reuters+2

• Meanwhile in Gaza, the release of hostages and bodies was accompanied by crowds, a narrative of “victory” and “martyrdom,” trumpeted by militant groups. (See UN and Red Cross concern over the dignity of the handover.) Reuters+1

In other words: the hostages were abducted. Some of them were murdered in captivity. Their bodies were used in public ceremonies for propaganda. The crowds reacted. The joy, the chants, the photos—they were not hidden. They were part of the show.

Dehumanisation or Self-Dehumanisation?

Now let’s be crystal: when people cheer the captors of hostages, when bodies are paraded, when massacres are celebrated and then backed by significant portions of the population—what do we call it?

• Some will object: “You’re dehumanising Palestinians!”
• My response: they’re doing a pretty good job of dehumanising themselves.
• Yes, it’s shocking language. But facts don’t care about feelings.

The narrative of “a peaceful people oppressed” is increasingly unsustainable when the measurable indicators point to support for violence, public celebration of it, and popular rejection of disarmament.

I am not saying every Palestinian is a monster. I am saying that broad social and political behaviour of Palestinian society as measured reveals deeply troubling patterns. You cannot simply kiss it away with “context matters,” “occupation,” “victimhood.” Context matters, yes—but not when it excuses collective endorsement of atrocity.

Let’s draw a metaphor: imagine a brand of corporation that consistently profits from deadly accidents, celebrates them publicly, and polls show the majority support the model. You would not say “only the company leadership are criminals; the workforce innocent.” You’d call it a criminal enterprise. A system. A culture.

That’s where we are. The captors are not just a fringe; the support apparatus is broad. The culture of martyrdom, killing, parade-of-bodies propaganda isn’t some aberration—it is embedded.

The Good News? (Yes, there is a sliver)

Yes, there is a sliver of good news—and keep in mind, even a small shift in these sands is meaningful.

The PCPSR poll shows that support for the October 7 attack has dropped significantly, especially in Gaza, where it now stands at 44 %. PCPSR+1

Also, the poll notes that “about half of Gazans support the anti-Hamas demonstrations and almost half want to leave the Gaza Strip if they could.” PCPSR+1

These are cracks. They suggest that even within the enclave of control, fatigue, disillusionment, collapse of the myth are happening.

But here’s the punch line: even with the decline, the baseline support remains very high. And that means the claims that “the people are all peaceful victims” remain hollow.

So What’s Really Going On?

Let’s sketch the underlying architecture of this:

1. Hostage taking and massacre (October 7): Militants from Gaza penetrate Israeli territory, kill civilians, abduct hostages. The shock sends ripples.

2. Public mobilisation and propaganda: The abductions and killings are framed not as failures or aberrations but as heroic resistance. Hostages become trophies. Bodies become bargaining chips. Crowds cheer.

3. Mass support and polls: At its height, vast majorities of Palestinians signalled support for the attack. Support is now declining—but from a very elevated position.

4. Refusal of disarmament: Poll after poll shows that even if Gaza could be pacified, most residents reject surrendering arms.

5. Victimhood narrative: The West keeps hearing that the Palestinians are oppressed victims, that violence is a symptom. Yes oppression exists. But a victim-narrative cannot coexist with trophy-hostages and parade-of-bodies and mass polling support for atrocity without breaking.

6. Dissonance and despair: The cracks are showing—discontent in Gaza, anti-Hamas demonstrations, desire to flee. Still, the framework of violence remains dominant.

Put simply: this isn’t just a terrorist organisation. It’s a society tolerating and in some cases celebrating atrocity. When you dare to name the social reality, you’ll get told “you’re dehumanising them.” But marking dehumanisation requires naming it where it occurs.

Why This Matters

Because if you don’t name it, you can’t fix it. If you keep saying “but you completely misunderstand the Palestinians” while ignoring the polling, the hostages, the public cheering—you are choosing to not see.

When a society:

• abets abductions,

• counts its dead hostages as propaganda assets,

• polls still register high endorsement of massacre,

• refuses to disarm under relief deals,

…it’s not merely a “conflicted society.” It becomes a threat toward itself and to others.

For Israel, the implications are obvious: you cannot negotiate peace with an interlocutor who holds hostage-parade as triumph. For the international community: you cannot treat this as “just another occupied population,” when the population’s own attitude is an active part of the violence infrastructure.

And for the Western liberal conscience: you cannot continue preaching “empathy at all costs” when you ignore the cold reality of celebration of mass murder.

My Tone? Yes, I’m Sarcastic. Because This Is Serious.

Because every time someone whispers “be kind, don’t dehumanise,” I want to spit out: But they already did.
Because every time someone says “we must understand the root causes,” I want to retort: yes, and one of the root causes is choosing to celebrate butchery.
Because every time someone says “it’s not black and white,” I say: there is grey—but it’s bordered by red pools of children’s blood.

Sure, I’m eagle-eyed, sarcasm-armed. But I’m not inventing things. I’m reading the polls. I’m watching the hostages, the bodies, the processions. I’m noting the thousands of Israelis lining the funeral procession route for the Bibas family. The Guardian+1

Final Words: You Gave Them Justice. They Gave You Chaos.

So. Here’s the takeaway in plain language:

• A significant portion of Palestinian society supported or continues to support the October 7 attack, as confirmed by reliable polls.

• The case of the Bibas family, the hand-over of bodies, the public spectacle of it: all facts.

• The refrain “it’s only Hamas, not the people” is increasingly untenable.

• Dehumanisation? They initiated the contract. They hold the pen. You are simply recording their signature.

• If you keep insisting on soothing victim-narratives while ignoring these facts, you’re not preserving empathy—you’re enabling ignorance.

Facts have no feelings. I’m only stating them.

Yesterday at Hostage Square, crowds gathered to celebrate the release of Israeli hostages — a rare moment of relief after months of trauma. And yet, here’s the BBC’s front page today: “Israelis praise Trump at huge rally ahead of expected hostage release by Hamas in Gaza” — complete with a photo that looks like people are praying to Trump himself. Subtle as ever. It’s not news; it’s a mood board for mockery. Because if the BBC can frame a moment of national gratitude as a cult meeting, they will — anything to make Israelis look foolish and keep the Trump-hate engagement flowing.

The Case of the Vanishing Rockets

On September 16, the IDF announced it had found a rocket in the West Bank village of Kfar Ni’ma, just northwest of Ramallah — the administrative heart of the Palestinian Authority, not some rogue outpost in the wilderness. Three days later, the army released footage of its launch, followed by the arrest of the terror cell responsible.

Inside their little DIY weapons lab, Israeli forces discovered enough explosive toys to make Guy Fawkes look like a hobbyist: dozens of rocket parts, two nearly finished models, piles of explosives, and a lathe for shaping metal casings. Translation: this wasn’t a kid’s science project gone wrong — it was an organised, well-resourced rocket workshop operating under PA jurisdiction.

Then, on September 23, another rocket turned up near Tulkarem. And by October 1, interrogations led the IDF to yet another stash — rockets and drones — in Beitunia, a short drive from Ramallah.

So, three separate finds, all in territory supposedly policed by the Palestinian Authority. You’d think the BBC might raise an eyebrow, or at least adjust its moral compass. Instead — radio silence.

Meanwhile, at BBC News Headquarters…

While rockets were being assembled, launched, and seized, the BBC was busy publishing fifteen — yes, fifteen — stories about the diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state. They found time for earnest think-pieces, moving human-interest angles, and field reports from Jenin and Ramallah, but somehow none of their correspondents tripped over the rocket debris lying practically at their feet.

Lucy Williamson filed from Jenin on September 21, waxing lyrical about “the seeds from which statehood would grow.”
She didn’t mention that Hamas has previously used Jenin as a rocket-production hub, or that the IDF had to roll in tanks earlier this year to deal with it.

Two days later, Tom Bennett reported from Ramallah, solemnly intoning that Israel had “tightened control” and “displaced many people.” Fair enough — but not a peep about the nearby terror squad building long-range missiles. Perhaps the rockets were hiding behind the nuance.

Journalism by Selective Vision

Here’s the absurdity. When it suits the narrative, the BBC can locate a dust particle in Gaza from orbit. But when a fully-assembled rocket turns up in an area run by the PA — the very institution Western governments are rushing to recognise as a “state” — the corporation suddenly develops night blindness.

To be clear, none of this is new. Attempts to fire rockets from Judea and Samaria have been happening for years. What’s new is the timing — simultaneous with global photo-ops proclaiming Palestinian “statehood.” In that context, omitting the story isn’t just bad journalism; it’s malpractice. The British public funds the BBC precisely to get information that contextualises government decisions. Instead, they get soft-focus diplomacy and zero mention of the actual rockets that might be flying once that state is born.

Why It Matters

This isn’t about nit-picking. It’s about honesty. If the Palestinian Authority is allowing, or simply failing to prevent, rocket factories in Ramallah and Tulkarem, then “recognising Palestine” isn’t a gesture of peace — it’s endorsing a weapons programme.

And yet, not a word from the world’s most trusted broadcaster. Not a line, not a push alert, not even a polite cough in the back row of the newsroom.

So yes, the BBC can tell you how recognition matters, but it can’t tell you that rockets were literally being built under the same jurisdiction they’re advocating to legitimise. That’s not journalism — that’s PR with subtitles.

The Takeaway

While the IDF digs up rockets in PA territory, BBC News digs itself deeper into denial. Their correspondents stroll through Ramallah interviewing officials about “statehood” while actual rocket lathes hum a few streets away.

It’s almost poetic — the broadcaster that once prided itself on “balance” now balancing a moral see-saw where one side holds the facts and the other holds the narrative, and guess which one keeps hitting the ground.

If you ever wondered how misinformation spreads, here’s your case study: truth wasn’t suppressed; it was simply ignored. And the next time a rocket lands on Israeli soil, remember — the BBC had the story first. They just decided it wasn’t newsworthy.

Bottom line:
When journalists go blind to rockets but develop X-ray vision for Israeli bulldozers, it’s not reporting — it’s performance art. And somewhere in Ramallah, a freshly welded rocket shell is laughing its head off.

The BBC isn’t just failing its audience; it’s fueling a global lie. It’s responsible for shaping how millions in the UK and abroad come to hate Israel — drip-fed through selective headlines, theatrical empathy, and the illusion of “balance.” And the worst part? Every major newsroom, NGO, and human rights “activist” parrots their narrative as gospel.

I can’t help but assume the BBC has long since slipped under the influence of money and ideology — whether that’s Qatari funding, Islamist pressure, or sheer cowardice in the face of it. What was once the world’s most respected broadcaster now behaves like a PR arm for the people firing rockets and crying victim at the same time.

So yes, it falls to people like me — filmmakers, activists, and witnesses — to do what the journalists won’t: expose the rot, document the truth, and remind the world that facts still matter.

I’m now in Israel, standing where they refuse to stand, because someone has to bear witness when the so-called “truth-tellers” have abandoned the job. I feel the obligation — not out of choice, but because this is what dark times demand.

And after what just happened in Manchester, the darkness isn’t only in Israel — it’s spreading everywhere.

Shame on them.

The Day the Masks Slipped

Since 7 October, London has learned to plan its weekends around marches. The banners change, the slogans don’t. “Globalise the Intifada.” “From the river to the sea.” It’s billed as peace, sold as justice, and performed like street theatre — with a real body count offstage.

For British Jews (and anyone with a pulse), the point landed fast: this wasn’t a policy debate; it was a celebration. Not “stop the war”, but “finally, the Jews are getting it.” The discovery of a curious new British liberty followed: you can be “openly Jewish” and still be told to move along “for your own safety”. We’ve invented the right to be removed before someone else breaks the law. Marvels of modern policing.

Meanwhile, the narrative clicked into its favourite groove: Israelis as cartoon villains, Palestinians as eternal infants, and Western institutions as referees who can’t tell a mugging from a match.

Manchester: When Rhetoric Meets the Real World

Three days after a car-ramming and knife attack outside a Manchester synagogue — worshippers targeted during services, people left injured, two civilians killed — Peter Tatchell posted a cheery X missive declaring that “Israel & UK are the real criminals” and praising Palestine Action as guardians of law and conscience. Tasteful timing, that.

No, Tatchell didn’t “cause” the attack. Terrorists own their crimes. But words from public figures shape the permission structure — the moral weather — in which those crimes gestate. Branding Jewish fear a “disgraceful smear,” laundering a shock-tactics network as the rule of law incarnate, and then pointing at Britain and Israel as “the real criminals” within days of a synagogue attack isn’t dissent; it’s dereliction. It normalises the idea that Jewish targets here are merely extensions of a foreign battlefield, and that those who intimidate them are engaged in righteous “resistance”. That’s how you turn communal fear into communal flight.

If Tatchell had wanted to be brave, he’d have started with four sentences: “What happened in Manchester was an antisemitic terror attack. Full stop. Protests must be lawful and nowhere near synagogues or Jewish hubs. Solidarity with British Jews is non-negotiable.” Then — only then — talk law. Instead, we got placards, sloganeering numbers, and a recruitment poster for people who confuse vandalism with virtue.

The Numbers No One Wants

Let’s be clinical for Aunt Linda and the policy nerds alike. Israel estimates roughly 14,000 Hamas combatants killed. Even if you swallowed the original, highly elastic civilian tallies pushed by Gaza’s health authorities (an institution under Hamas control, not a Scandinavian audit firm), the civilian-to-combatant ratio sits close to 1:1. In modern urban warfare, the global average hovers near 9:1 — nine civilians for every fighter killed.

Israel’s ratio is historically low; “unheard of” isn’t rhetoric, it’s arithmetic. Yet the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor still managed to copy-paste the blood libel that Israel is “wilfully starving” civilians and “deliberately” killing them — while hundreds of aid trucks rolled in, many promptly hijacked, hoarded or resold by Hamas. Gazans themselves filmed it. Hamas’s black-market takings since 7 October? Astronomical. That’s how food becomes both a weapon and a revenue stream.

The lie works because it’s tidy: Israelis as malevolent geniuses, Palestinians as featureless victims, and the West as eternal sermoniser. It’s a morality play with the set nailed down.

Lawfare Is Not Peace — It’s Paper

International human rights law was born after genocide, drafted (in part) by people who knew pogroms weren’t bedtime stories. The aim was noble. The execution? Over time, catastrophically political. Tyrants do not respect moral memos. Putin didn’t pause at Mariupol to consult Strasbourg. Xi did not ring Geneva before crushing Uighurs. Assad wasn’t deterred by a stern letter from a committee chaired by… well, insert your favourite kleptocracy here.

Courts float; nations carry weight. If you don’t anchor law in a particular demos — a people, a culture, a Parliament that can be sacked by voters — you create a free-floating priesthood of judges who are remarkably easy to capture by fashionable dogma. And guess what the fashion is? The Jewish nation-state as original sin.

So we replace the hard, necessary business of defending free societies with the soft tyranny of process. It’s performative restraint for people who outsource risk — right up until the rockets land.

The United Nations: Hall Monitor to the Mob

The UN is many things. “Impartial” isn’t one of them. The Human Rights Council’s permanent obsession with the Middle East’s only liberal democracy would be funny if it didn’t fuel real-world violence. Resolutions pile up against Israel while actual butchers hold the gavel. Call it Theatre of the Absurd, sponsored by regimes that jail poets and disappear journalists.

UNRWA, the agency ostensibly running schools and social services in Gaza, has been repeatedly accused of marinating in Hamas personnel, textbooks and tunnels. Yet the same institution is treated as gospel when tallying casualties and pronouncing blame. When numbers quietly shift — say, halving headline categories — the corrections arrive with less fanfare than a fire drill.

Build a “global arbiter” staffed by states that despise liberalism and you don’t get liberalism. You get the cartel in a blue helmet.

The West’s Split Personality

America on 8 October looked like a Hollywood reboot of moral clarity: carriers in the Med, presidential visits, the famous “don’t” said with a straight face. But the “don’t,” it turned out, was aimed at Jerusalem as much as Tehran. Don’t take out Hezbollah. Don’t risk escalation. Don’t win too fast or too decisively. Also: “Do deliver more aid through crossings being shelled, looted and cynically exploited.”

Britain, meanwhile, rediscovered the Foreign Office’s native tongue: Janus. David Cameron’s remarks — leaning into casualty narratives and aid-blocking myths — weren’t just sloppy; they were accelerants for antisemitism at home. Every time media and ministers portray Israeli intent as malign, attacks on British Jews spike. Cause, meet effect. If he doesn’t know that, he’s unfit. If he does, it’s unconscionable.

Qatar, the Luxury Mediator

Quick thought experiment: on 8 October the White House tells Doha, “You have 24 hours. Expel Hamas leadership, deliver the hostages, or the party’s over — no bases, no diplomacy, no footballing glamour.” Would the war have even started? We didn’t test the proposition because Qatar has been allowed to play both concierge and arsonist. University endowments and stadium sponsorships blur nicely into terror finance.

Real mediation starts with leverage. We’ve been role-playing it with scented candles.

Can You “Defeat” an Idea?

Hamas isn’t an abstraction; it’s a franchise of the Muslim Brotherhood with foot soldiers, payroll and tunnels. You don’t deprogramme that with TED Talks. You degrade it by destroying its capacity to murder. Islamists aren’t inspired by “despair”. They’re inspired by victory. When they smell weakness, they flood the streets. When they taste defeat, recruitment dries up faster than a Qatari apology.

Will the ideas survive somewhere? Of course. So do Nazism and Stalinism. The question is whether the people currently firing rockets and filming snuff videos can keep doing so. That’s not philosophy; that’s security.

Rafah and the “Day After” Paradox

Israel’s immediate objective in Rafah is brutally simple: dismantle the remaining battalions, kill or capture the leadership, and end the rocket-and-tunnel industry. The United States has insisted on a tempo and choreography that prioritise civilian protection — and push more risk onto young Israelis in uniform. It’s the sort of moral trade economists never price: “be precise, be slow, absorb the casualties, and, if possible, apologise before you shoot.”

What happens after? No sane Israeli wants to govern Gaza. The Palestinian Authority can’t be the answer; its curriculum teaches Jew-hatred with the monotony of a metronome, and its police have bled into terror more times than anyone cares to admit. The Americans still dream of a two-state solution as if this were about postcodes, not extermination.

Netanyahu’s “day after” talk gestures at Gazans not aligned with Hamas or the PA, under some regional umbrella with Egypt/Saudi/Emirati involvement. The neighbours, alas, are about as keen as you’d be to take in the bloke who trashed your living room and now wants to manage your building. The Emiratis are the bright spot: pragmatic, modern, and allergic to the Brotherhood. If peace comes from anywhere, it’ll ride in on the same horses as the Abraham Accords: interests, deterrence, trade.

Universalism vs. Nations You Can Actually Live In

Here’s the heart of it. The modern West caught a fever called universalism — the belief that our values are not only superior (they are) but also self-evident and transferable by sheer force of mood music and treaties. Nation-states became unfashionable; borders acquired the moral status of chewing-gum under a school desk. The result? A Europe hooked on law as if it were war, facing adversaries who practise war as if it were law.

Israel is the awkward counterexample: an unabashed nation-state, ethnic and civic at once, defended by people willing to die for the thing itself. That offends contemporary sensibilities that prefer vibes to flags. But history hasn’t retired. It simply moved to a different time zone.

The British Conservative Problem (Yes, Still)

Conservatism is not a spreadsheet. It’s the task of conserving what’s worth keeping: institutions that bind, borders that mean something, traditions that outlast a government press release. Too many Tories traded that for the cult of the market or managerial technocracy. Thatcher fixed the economy; her heirs mistook price tags for patrimony.

Brexit voters weren’t pining for spreadsheets; they wanted home to feel like home. Boris saw that for five minutes, then detonated his credibility. What remains is a party that can’t say what Britain is for, only what it might discount this quarter. The vacuum hums, and the cultural left pipes in the muzak: borders are embarrassing, tradition is xenophobia in tweed, and the future is a tribunal.

When a party billed as conservative can’t articulate why borders, shared stories and the rule of law matter, voters either stay home or find a bloke with a pint who will.

The Demography of Hope (and Why Israel Isn’t Dying)

Most Western countries are quietly vanishing. Replacement rates sit around 1.5 children per woman, and that’s on a good news day. Israel is the outlier, hovering closer to four. No, it isn’t just the ultra-Orthodox (though their numbers are part of the mix); it’s a society that knows what it is, believes it’s worth perpetuating, and acts accordingly. Women are educated and working; career gates are open. The difference is cultural: continuity is a virtue, not a punchline.

You can’t lecture a nation into higher birth rates with tax credits and hashtags. You cultivate meaning. You lower cynicism. You build a future worth being born into. Funny how that works.

Why Tatchell’s Script Fits the Bigger Play

Peter Tatchell’s post wasn’t an aberration; it was a perfect miniature of the West’s confusion:

• Victim-perpetrator inversion. After an antisemitic attack, point at Israel and Britain as “the real criminals.” Voilà: you’ve erased the victimhood of Jews at home and outsourced guilt to someone else’s cabinet table.

• Protest-brand laundering. Elevate a network notorious for criminal damage into avatars of “upholding the law,” and then fold their theatrics into the language of human rights. It’s vandalism with a veneer.

• Casualty absolutism. Decline any nuance about sources, categories or combatant ratios; declare a number and skip directly to “arrest the leaders”. Courtroom cosplay, minus the cross-examination.

• Moral outsourcing. Treat domestic Jewish safety as a public-relations inconvenience, not a civic duty. That’s how synagogues become “sites of tension” rather than houses of worship.

In miniature, it’s the same move seen at the UN, the ICC and too many Western chancelleries: outsource courage to process, emit universalist platitudes, and hope the problem politely stops being a problem. It never does.

What Serious Would Look Like

1) Name the war correctly.
It isn’t a dispute over fence lines. It’s a decades-long campaign to eliminate a Jewish state. Stop talking as if swapping a neighbourhood map will detoxify eliminationist ideologies.

2) Rebalance “law” with actual security.
Courts should restrain, not replace, democratic defence. If international tribunals can’t tell aggressor from defender, sovereign democracies must — and act accordingly.

3) Use leverage like you mean it.
Allies who incubate terror leaders aren’t interlocutors; they’re assets to be squeezed until they squeak. Qatar understands power. So should we.

4) Stop laundering Hamas narratives.
If your casualty figures come from people who hide in hospitals and stage funerals, maybe hold your headline for an afternoon. If aid regularly ends up in tunnels and on black markets, stop treating “more trucks” as theology.

5) Rebuild national confidence.
Teach Britain’s story without the ritual self-loathing. Borders aren’t racist; they’re the frame that keeps the painting from falling off the wall. Reform policing so “openly Jewish” isn’t treated as a provocation.

6) Protect Jewish life here, visibly.
Synagogues need security and space, not protest routes curated for maximum intimidation. “Not near schools and shuls” shouldn’t be controversial; it should be the law.

7) Reward family formation.
Stable families aren’t a lifestyle boutique; they’re civilisational infrastructure. Encourage marriage, make childcare sane, and stop pretending the birth-rate crisis will fix itself by Tuesday.

8) Back the coalition that actually wants peace.
The Abraham Accords weren’t a fluke; they were grown-up diplomacy. Expand them. Isolate the Brotherhood axis. Treat “aid” that feeds war as war by other means.

The Bit Where I’m Supposed to Be Pessimistic

I’m not. Not because things are rosy — they’re a bit of a dog’s breakfast — but because civilisations can pivot faster than pundits predict. Britain has pulled back from cliffs before. The West can rediscover the unfashionable virtues that built it: courage, loyalty, duty, truth. Yes, I know — very un-2025. But you can’t meme your way out of a malaise. You need leadership that speaks human, not policy brief.

Everything is still to play for. The other side is loud, not inevitable. The street looks strong because our institutions look weak. Reverse that, and a lot of the noise dies down. We won’t reach “Imagine” — we’ll reach something better: a world where free nations can defend themselves without asking permission from panels stacked with their enemies.

The future belongs to the camp that believes it has one. Israel behaves like it does. Britain should try it. Worst case, we bore fewer holes in our own lifeboat. Best case, we remember what the boat’s for — and why it’s worth keeping afloat.

If you found this useful, press subscribe. If you didn’t, press it anyway — I promise to waste your time entertainingly. Aunt Linda, yes, you can forward it; no, I won’t sign your petition about chemtrails.

Europe Is Eating Its Jews Alive

Europe always swears it’s learned from history. “Never again,” they say, while polishing Holocaust memorial plaques and posing solemnly for Instagram. But the same continent is once again turning into a carnival of Jew-hatred — only this time with hashtags, NGOs, and airline safety briefings as accomplices.

And let’s be clear from the top: I’m not Jewish. I don’t wear a kippa, I don’t light Shabbat candles, and I don’t have relatives buried in Auschwitz. Which makes it even more absurd that I, a non-Jew, feel more outrage than most European leaders who seem to treat antisemitism as a scheduling nuisance.

Liberty, Equality, and Daily Hate Crimes

France in 2025 looks less like a republic and more like a police blotter. Just one month — August into September — reads like a horror calendar:

1. 29/08 – Neuilly: Man with a knife threatens to “kill Jews” outside a synagogue.

2. 30/08 – Marseille: Woman called a “dirty Jew” outside a synagogue.

3. 30/08 – Marseille: Rabbi verbally abused outside another synagogue.

4. 30/08 – Lyon: Shoah Memorial vandalized.

5. 30/08 – Marseille: Kids leaving Selihot prayers harassed by a man screaming “Free Palestine” and “F*** Israel.”

6. 31/08 – Marseille: Posters honoring Ilan Halimi torn down; a passerby who objected was assaulted.

7. 03/09 – Toulouse: Man arrested wearing a “Kippa Snatcher” T-shirt.

8. 04/09 – Strasbourg: Woman called a “filthy Zionist” on the tram.

9. 04/09 – Nice: Pro-Hamas activists storm the Chabad House during an Aliyah fair.

10. 05/09 – Nice: Rabbi attacked.

11. 06/09 – Paris: Jewish doctor’s plaque defaced, stickers plastered over his door during a protest.

12. 07/09: Jewish-owned hearing centre vandalized with graffiti.

13. 10/09 – Paris: Jewish shopkeeper threatened: “Filthy Zionists, we’re going to slaughter you all.”

14. 11/09 – Paris: Graffiti outside a Jewish school.

15. 14/09 – Marseille: Man shouts he’ll “stab all the Zionists.”

16. 15/09 – Paris: Jewish students expelled from university WhatsApp groups: “Zionists not welcome.”

17. 18/09: 75-year-old Jewish woman beaten in her apartment and called a “dirty Jew.”

18. 19/09 – Paris: Three women assaulted at a Raphaël Enthoven book signing.

19. 20/09 – Strasbourg: Another rabbi attacked.

20. 26/09 – Choisy: Synagogue defaced.

21. 27/09 – Yerres: Jewish man wearing a kippa beaten on Shabbat.

That’s one month. One country. And anyone still insisting antisemitism in Europe is an “occasional flare-up” should probably get their head examined.

The Rabbi Bitten Like an Animal

March 2025 gave us the image no one can unsee: Rabbi Arié Engelberg in Orléans, bloodied and bruised, after being punched, kicked, and literally bitten on the shoulder in front of his nine-year-old son. Yes, bitten — like an animal marking prey. The attacker was 16. Macron condemned the act, investigations were opened, the courts processed it. And yet Jews are still getting mauled on French sidewalks.

September 29: Paris Goes Full Pogrom

Then came Paris, September 29, 2025. A Haredi man was brutally assaulted in central Paris — nose broken, orbital bone fractured, hospitalized. This wasn’t a bar fight. It was a Jew, targeted in broad daylight, in Europe’s self-proclaimed “capital of culture.” The suspect fled but was later arrested.

Germany: From Memorials to Mayhem

Meanwhile in Germany — the country that should be allergic to antisemitism — February brought something grotesque: a stabbing at the Berlin Holocaust Memorial. Federal prosecutors say the motive was radical Islamist antisemitism. Yes, at the very site meant to teach “never again.” Berlin authorities responded with the same recycled advice Jews have heard for decades: don’t be too visible.

Britain: “Openly Jewish” as a Crime Scene

Britain joined the absurdity in April 2024, when London police told an “openly Jewish” man — their words, not mine — that his kippa might provoke a pro-Palestinian march. They even threatened him with arrest. Public outrage followed, and embarrassed officials apologised twice. The Home Office clarified that no, being Jewish is not a provocation. Apparently, it had to be spelled out.

Universities: Safe Spaces for Everyone Else

On campus, Professor David Hirsh nailed it: saying Israel isn’t committing genocide is enough to ruin your career. Professors risk funding and publication; students risk harassment for holding vigils. Goldsmiths University in London formally apologised in June 2025 after an inquiry found years of antisemitic bullying so bad the Jewish Society dissolved for safety reasons.

The Arts: Cowardice on Stage

Europe’s cultural world now acts as the epicentre of moral cowardice. Film festivals boycott Israeli directors while happily screening Iranian regime-approved cinema. In Switzerland, Eurovision crowds waved Hamas flags at an Israeli singer who survived October 7. A young woman who sang her way back from trauma was heckled by people cheering throat-slitting gestures. And Europe clapped politely.

The Media: Hamas’s Press Office in London and Paris.

The BBC, Le Monde, and Al Jazeera’s European desks are busy laundering Hamas propaganda as if it were news. Jonathan Sacerdoti exposed how the BBC broadcast a Gaza documentary centred on a “child influencer” — who turned out to be the son of a Hamas politician. Another “volunteer medic” was a pre-teen whose haircut changed four times during what was supposedly one day’s footage. Either the BBC was duped, or complicit. Pick your poison.

And when it comes to casualty figures, the Genocide Debunked study makes it clear: Hamas manipulates numbers, starvation claims collapse under scrutiny, and Israel’s war conduct — while brutal because urban warfare always is — does not fit the “genocide” lie. But Europe’s media doesn’t do scrutiny. It does scripts.

Politicians: From Useful Idiots to Paid Apologists

Spain’s Podemos, Ireland’s Sinn Féin, parts of UK Labour — all too happy to parrot Hamas talking points. NGOs funded by European taxpayers promote “context” that reads like Hamas press releases. And European leaders keep writing the cheques.

Malmö, Amsterdam, and Beyond

In Malmö, the Jewish community openly warns it may vanish within years. In Amsterdam, masked mobs chased Israeli football fans through the streets after Ajax–Maccabi; five hospitalised, dozens arrested, and courts later secured convictions. In Paris this spring, the Holocaust Memorial and two synagogues were smeared with green paint in a coordinated stunt. Everywhere, the message is the same: Jews, hide or go.

The Real Message

The message is no longer coded. It’s shouted at school gates, graffitied on synagogue walls, chanted in city squares:

• If you’re Jewish and silent, maybe we’ll tolerate you.

• If you’re Jewish and visible, you’re a target.

• If you’re Jewish and love Israel, you’re marked for violence.

Europe didn’t forget its Jews. It’s driving them out again. Last time it was trains. This time it’s planes denied, rabbis bitten, doctors’ doors defaced, kippot torn off in the street. Same message.

Why I Care

Again: I am not Jewish. Which means my outrage doesn’t come from personal fear. It comes from shame that this is what Europe has become. Jews are the canary in the coal mine. If Europe can’t keep them safe, nobody’s safe. Today it’s “filthy Zionist” graffiti; tomorrow it’s your own neighbours.

Antisemitism is the world’s oldest hatred because it adapts. From “Christ-killers” to “capitalist bankers” to “colonial settlers,” the script changes, the target remains. And Europe shrugs — until it’s too late.

The Curtain Is About to Fall

History isn’t just repeating. It’s rhyming, loudly, in Paris, Berlin, London, Malmö, Amsterdam. Unless good people stop excusing, stop telling Jews to hide, stop pretending this is about “policy,” the curtain falls again.

This time, maybe rise before it does.

Besides, Hamas doesn’t want a two-state solution. He should know that, the lobotomised spineless t-word. And yes, Britain made this mess to begin with.

Law? What Law?

Palestine is not a state. Never has been. It doesn’t meet the Montevideo criteria: no fixed borders, no functioning government, sovereignty split between a terror outfit in Gaza and a president-for-life in Ramallah who is now in his 20th unelected year. But Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, has declared otherwise.

“The prime minister’s position ultimately throws international law out of the window. Remarkable and hypocritical, one might think, for a lawyer and a government that claims an undying commitment to international law.”
— Natasha Hausdorff

Recognition is not meant to be a student union motion. Yet under him it’s exactly that.

Hausdorff nailed it:

“Everybody says is not how you run a legal system. It’s how you run a lynch.”
— Natasha Hausdorff

That is what this recognition amounts to: mob law in a Commons suit.

Who Benefits?

Not Israel. Not the Palestinians. And certainly not Britain. What Starmer has done is hand a propaganda victory to Hamas and Abbas.

Hamas is clear in its own charter:

“The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!”

That is the “state” he has recognised. A group that still pays stipends to murderers and calls it welfare.

And Abbas? The “moderate” with a long record of Holocaust denial, terror funding, and threats to sue Britain over the Balfour Declaration.

“Providing him with an additional basis to pursue the UK is not in our national interest.”
— Natasha Hausdorff

Starmer has handed Abbas a shiny new legal toy.

Domestic Politics Masquerading as Foreign Policy

Why did he do it? Not for the sake of peace. Not for Britain’s national interest. But to appease his own backbenchers and five “independent” MPs who ran on Gaza-only platforms.

“This is plainly driven by politics—domestic politics, not national interest.”
— Natasha Hausdorff

This is foreign policy as student politics, designed to quiet the mob on Whitehall, not to shape the Middle East.

The Self-Harm Principle

Britain has a habit of turning its own policies into weapons against itself. The Chagos fiasco was one. Now Palestine joins the list.

“Apart from undermining the legal order and encouraging Hamas, this also has a damaging impact on the UK. It is ultimately self-harm.”
— Natasha Hausdorff

Starmer has pulled the trigger on Britain’s foot. Abbas’ lawyers will now sharpen their pencils.

Starmer’s Hidden Handshake

Just when you thought his recognition circus couldn’t get more farcical, the “Gaza files” land on the table. Documents seized in Gaza show that British Foreign Office staff sat down with Hamas officials in February 2022 – just months after the UK formally banned Hamas in its entirety as a terrorist organisation in November 2021.

And what did his man in Gaza do? Reassure them. According to the Hamas memo, the British diplomat promised Hamas that the proscription would not affect UK-funded projects and even added that “the decision to ban Hamas was made by the Home Office, not by the Foreign Office.” In other words, don’t worry lads, it’s just paperwork.

So while he struts around now, pretending recognition of Palestine is some great moral stand, his own diplomats were already breaking his country’s laws to keep Hamas sweet. He wants Israel to follow “international law” while Britain casually trashes its own terror laws.

The Foreign Office tried the oldest excuse in the book: this wasn’t a meeting, it was a “summons.” As if the difference between “we met them” and “they summoned us” somehow changes the fact that his envoy was sitting across the table from Hamas’s Interior Ministry officials and giving them political reassurance. Call it what you like — it’s still a handshake with terrorists.

Even Jewish groups in Britain were shocked. NGO Monitor said bluntly: “For years, the UK government insisted it does not talk to terrorists, but now we have the proof from these files that UK diplomatic staff did meet with Hamas officials.”The timing couldn’t be clearer — Hamas slaughtered Israelis on October 7, and three years later, his answer is to legitimise their fantasy state while quietly covering up his government’s backchanneling with them.

So which is it, Prime Minister? Either Hamas is a terrorist organisation Britain won’t touch — or it’s a partner your diplomats can meet in Gaza while you give them statehood from London. He can’t have it both ways. But hypocrisy is his only consistent policy.

Feeding the Lie

Recognition is not neutral. It is built on the blood libel of our time: that Israel is committing genocide.

David Hirsh spells out the academic climate:

“It is completely normal now to say Israel is committing genocide. If you challenge it, you’re accused of being complicit.” — David Hirsh

The Genocide Debunked study exposes the lie. More aid entered Gaza after October 7 than before. Infant mortality dropped. Life expectancy rose. There was no famine. But activists repeated the fiction until it became gospel. Starmer has now enshrined it in policy.

Empire Nostalgia

This is empire cosplay. Britain still imagines itself the arbiter of nations, the old schoolmaster with a ruler. In reality, it’s a post-imperial mid-size economy with delusions of grandeur.

Paul Johnson captured Jewish history best: the Jews are the most tenacious people in history, still in Hebron after every other civilisation has vanished. Yet in 2025 Starmer presumes to redraw Jewish destiny with a Commons vote.

This isn’t diplomacy. It’s pantomime.

Hamas’s Win, Britain’s Shame

Barry Shaw put it starkly: Hamas isn’t just Gaza, it’s the figurehead of Palestinian Jew-hatred.

Jonathan Sacerdoti showed how the BBC fuelled this circus, parroting Hamas lines on hospitals and famine. David Collier explained how the far-left and Islamists swim in the same sewer.

And now Starmer has given that sewer official recognition.

Bad Timing, Worse Optics

And just to top it all off, the timing. He made this grand gesture of “recognition” on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. While Jews worldwide prepare for prayers and reflection, Britain chose this moment to reward Hamas and hand Abbas a symbolic victory. If this was meant as diplomacy, the timing makes it look more like spite. It’s hard to imagine a gesture more tone-deaf — or more revealing of the true priorities behind his stunt.

Essex: The Logical Conclusion

So here we are. Britain, Australia, and Canada have recognised a fantasy. It will not end the war. It will not free the hostages. It will not feed a single Palestinian child. What it does is reward terror and punish Israel.

If Starmer insists on indulging in make-believe, fine. Let him recognise Palestine in Essex. Better transport links, more functioning government than Gaza, and the bins get collected.

Until then, his recognition remains what it is: a theatre of the absurd.

Subscribe now

If you value this work and want more unfiltered writing that cuts through the hypocrisy, consider becoming a paid subscriber or making a donation. Independent voices don’t run on Foreign Office grants — they run on your support.

Stand with me in making Mother of Hate.

Every donation goes directly into production.
No salaries. No frills. Just the hard costs of bringing this story to the screen.

All donors will be credited in the film under “Special Thanks.”
Major supporters will receive Executive Producer recognition and an invitation to a private screening.

Donate via PayPal

Why Now

Antisemitism is no longer whispered — it is shouted on Western streets, cloaked as “justice” for others. Hamas flags fly in London. Blood libels echo in lecture halls. Media repeat terrorist talking points.

History’s fuse is lit again. If we don’t confront the lies now, we know where they lead.

“Never Again” is not a slogan. It is a duty. And duty delayed is duty betrayed.

Closing Rally

This film must be made. Not tomorrow. Now.

It must be made by someone who knows what silence did to Europe. By someone who refuses to let it happen again. By someone who will not profit, who will not stop, and who will not bend.

I am that someone.

This is my voice.
This is my weapon of choice.

Stand with me. Subscribe. Donate. Share. Let’s make sure the world cannot look away.

DONATE NOW

It’s the same grim soap opera, endlessly rerun: demonise one side, erase complexity, and flog outrage round the clock. Because truth doesn’t get ratings, but a good scapegoat? That sells every time.