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.

This isn’t a film about heroes or villains. It’s about process.

watch the trailer.

Then watch how carefully it makes you look.

Every war has fighting on the ground. And then there’s the other one. The war of images. The clips that go viral. The numbers that sprint ahead of verification. The headlines written while the dust is still very much in the air.

How to Film a War is a documentary I produced, directed by Idan Knochen, about how modern conflicts are turned into stories — and how those stories are shaped, edited, and amplified in real time.

This isn’t a film about heroes or villains. It’s about process.

How footage gets chosen.
How timelines quietly collapse.
How translations bend just enough to change the meaning.
How a few seconds of video can harden into a global narrative before anyone asks the obvious questions.
What happened before?
And what didn’t make the cut?

The trailer gives a sense of the film’s approach:
calm. forensic. deliberately unflashy.

No shouting.
No slogans.
No instructions on what to think.

Just close attention to how war is filmed — and what happens once those images leave the battlefield and land in your feed.

If you’re curious about
how stories are built under pressure,
how certainty gets manufactured,
and how persuasion works best when you don’t notice it happening —

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.

Israel has struck back. Because when a terrorist group keeps firing rockets and sending murder squads, doing nothing isn’t restraint—it’s abdication. Hamas doesn’t fight like a conventional army; it fights like a disappearing act. Tunnels under cities, command nodes near hospitals and schools, munitions cached in civilian areas—every engagement is designed to booby-trap the moral scoreboard.

The result is a grimly predictable loop. Israel targets military infrastructure embedded among civilians. The footage is horrific—because urban warfare is horrific—and the outrage machine spins to full volume. Marches, hashtags, and think-pieces appear overnight, insisting there must be a magic alternative where terrorists are neutralised without anyone getting dust on their shoes.

Let’s be clear about aims. Israel’s objective is to degrade Hamas’s ability to attack: commanders, launchers, tunnels, stockpiles. Hamas’s objective is different: survive, rearm, and weaponise civilian suffering for propaganda value.One side is trying to end rocket fire; the other is trying to make sure every counter-strike looks like a crime scene on camera.

So yes—Israel is striking back. Not because it enjoys it, but because the alternative is waiting for the next “surprise”while commentators audition for sainthood on social media.

The ugly geometry is this: if you don’t hit Hamas, they keep hitting you; if you do hit Hamas, they hide behind civilians and the world cries “injustice”. That paradox isn’t an accident; it’s the strategy.

“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children; we cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.”
— Golda Meir (often attributed)

HAMAS is ISIS. Same playbook: massacre civilians, hide among civilians, then perform outrage when civilians are harmed. Different acronyms, identical contempt for human life.

Bottom line: Israel’s strikes are a response to ongoing attacks, and the optics are engineered to make self-defence look like aggression. That’s not a moral riddle; it’s a PR trap set by terrorists—and too many people keep stepping in it.

That is not a trivial footnote. Genocide is the most serious crime in international law. It requires a very specific legal state of mind—dolus specialis, intent to destroy a protected group as such. Not intent to win a war, not intent to destroy an enemy’s capacity to fight, not even reckless indifference to civilian harm. The bar is not melodrama; the bar is intent to destroy. And intent is proved in a court—where witnesses are cross-examined, evidence is tested, translations are challenged, and quotes are read in full sentences, not clipped into tweet-sized grenades.

But we no longer live in an age of long attention spans and careful process. We live in the era of genocide by press release, adjudication by headline, and the moral satisfaction of a pushed notification. Enter the BBC’s international editor, sermonising about a “blunt indictment” and “man-made famine,” delivered in that confident tone that implies the score has been agreed and anyone asking about key signatures is being tedious. The formula is familiar. Quote the commission as scripture. Reduce the Israeli position to a flat denial in a single paragraph after a page of rubble and calamity. Nudge the audience toward the idea that “growing international condemnation” is the same thing as proof. Counting retweets becomes a form of law.

The UN system is perfectly built for this kind of performance. It is a club in which many members are not liberal democracies, yet they queue up to lecture one. The Human Rights Council keeps a permanent agenda item for Israel as if it were God’s favourite bingo ball. Countries that jail poets, hang protesters, and make journalists disappear glide through the chamber to the sound of spa music. But when Israel is on the docket, the orchestra swells, the lights dim, and everyone remembers their lines. If obsession were a metric, Israel would be the only country on earth; everyone else would be a rounding error. It’s not that Israel is above criticism—heaven forbid—but that the choreography is impossible to miss: a micrometer for Israel, a blindfold and a yardstick for tyrannies.

And the symbolism. A minute of silence for Tehran’s butcher. Red carpets rolled out for clerical bullies. Smiling photo-ops with strongmen who treat human rights as a novelty item, brought out for guests and then shoved back in the drawer. Yet the pantomime villain is always Israel, the inconvenient democracy fighting a terrorist army that embeds itself under hospitals and schools and then begs the world to mistake civilians for camouflage. “Human shields” is not a phrase dreamed up by spin doctors. It is the explicit, documented tactic of the enemy Israel is fighting. Every serious soldier, lawyer and analyst knows what that does to proportionality assessments, targeting decisions, and casualty counts. But that doesn’t look as good in a caption as a black-and-white photo of a collapsed tower at magic hour.

Which brings us to how the commission treats “intent.” Wartime rhetoric, blood-hot and ugly in every conflict, is served up as the decisive proof of genocidal purpose. A handful of quotes, shorn of the circumstances in which they were uttered and the paragraphs that followed, are treated as the Rosetta Stone of Israeli policy. Meanwhile, the conduct that undermines the genocide story—evacuation corridors, text alerts, phone calls, leaflet drops, mapped safe routes, pauses for aid convoys—gets folded into the haze of “they say they tried.” You’d never guess from the headlines that the very same UN system has repeatedly acknowledged that only courts determine whether genocide is happening. That rather important principle gets the footnote treatment, because it slows the rhythm and dulls the dagger.

Even where the narrative tries to look empirical, it often rests on trembling foundations. The pre-war “500 trucks a day” mantra—so beloved in commentary—was not the real baseline; 2022 data put the daily average closer to 291 total trucks, of which roughly 73 carried food. During substantial periods of the war, daily food-truck averages rose above that pre-war food level. A serious, data-driven estimate has shown that about 82 food trucks a day would match pre-war caloric supply; for long stretches, the flow met or exceeded that. That doesn’t mean distribution was smooth or theft non-existent—Hamas diverted aid and fought over it, and war shatters logistics. It does mean that the automatic equation “x fewer trucks, therefore deliberate starvation policy aimed at physical destruction of the group” is not a syllogism; it’s a slogan. It is also striking that the most catastrophic famine projections did not materialise in the mortality data the way modellers insisted they would. You’d expect the keepers of “only reasonable inference” to be a touch more cautious with their inferences.

The forensic record matters too. Allegation by allegation, incident by incident, the pattern does not show systematic, close-range executions of civilians or a policy of massacre by Israeli forces. There are disturbing cases that demand robust criminal investigation—no serious person denies that. Accountability is not a dirty word. But the plural of allegation is not genocide, and the patterns you would expect to see if the policy were extermination are simply not in the verified forensic record. To say this out loud is not to demand a gold star for Israel; it is to insist that the charge of charges be anchored in evidence that can survive an adversarial test. That used to be called justice.

Meanwhile, casualty figures and famine declarations are leaned on as if they were delivered on tablets from Sinai. The Gaza Health Ministry is not a neutral statistics bureau; it is embedded in a regime that has a vested interest in the optics of suffering. International agencies rely on it because it is often the only available pipeline—but reliance is not canonisation. Distinguishing combatants from civilians in a war where one side refuses uniforms and sets up shop in apartment blocks is not straightforward; classifying the dead is not a matter of counting heads and adding emotion. The point is not to deny tragedy; it is to deny that tragedy equals genocidal intent. That leap is political, not legal.

None of this complexity slows the BBC, which has developed a kind of house style for this conflict: a sanctified voiceover, a procession of ruins, a cameo from an “independent expert” who has never met an Israeli security dilemma they couldn’t dismiss, and then a brisk declaration that “Israel denies it.” Denial, you see, is something criminals do. Making a case is something journalists are supposed to do. The difference is not subtle.

Now, watch how the double standards glow in the dark. When Israel fights an enemy that openly refuses the laws of war and makes its own people into blast vests, the phrase of the hour is “collective punishment.” When that same enemy slaughters families in their homes and kidnaps the elderly and the disabled, the mood shifts to “context.” When an Israeli president says civilians bear responsibility for not overturning their rulers, it is “incitement.” When the rulers are the state, the party and the militia rolled into one—as in the theocracies and police states that lounge about the UN chamber—it becomes “regional nuance.” Israel’s security services are expected to be surgeons during a knife fight in a blackout; the people who brought the blackout are invited to the microphone to discuss the ethics of lighting.

This would be farce if the consequences weren’t so grave. Words like genocide are not confetti to be tossed at your political enemies. They are the last stop on a very long legal road. Inflate the currency and you don’t merely smear a democracy engaged in an urban war with a terror army. You cheapen the word for the next Rwanda, the next Yazidi mountain, the next mass grave that actually is what the Convention was written for. And you teach the world a very dark lesson: that the fastest way to win a narrative war is to scream “genocide” first and dare your opponents to prove the negative while you mint hashtags.

There is also the cultural contagion to consider. As the sociologist David Hirsh has observed in other contexts, declaring Israel a pariah has become a social ritual in polite society, and disputing the ritual invites ostracism. Careers falter, grants evaporate, accusations stick like glue. In such a climate, what editorial meeting at a mainstream broadcaster is going to risk saying, “Hang on—are we absolutely certain this meets the legal bar?” Much safer to ride the wave, write the obituary for nuance, and let the audience mistake volume for virtue.

Underneath the fog of headlines lies an awkward truth about the institution making so much of the noise. The UN is a flawed necessity in theory and a disastrous performer in practice. It is not a parliament of free nations; it is a stage where the free and the unfree are handed the same script and the unfree are given more speaking roles. Its Human Rights Council is a case study in capture: abusers policing the abused. Its commissions of inquiry are born with their conclusions pencilled in the margins; their footnotes may be careful, but their press releases rarely are. Even the UN’s own officials are moved to say, when cornered by a microphone, that it’s “for the court to decide.” But those sound bites, the ones that would sober the room, come after the crescendo, by which time nobody is listening.

The minute of silence for Tehran’s butcher was not an administrative hiccup; it was a tell. The red-carpet treatment for the bearded satraps who run Iran was not a scheduling accident; it was a worldview. Israel is an eccentric planet in this system: too democratic to bully, too stubborn to join the ritual self-abasement, and too frank about the failure of international structures to deter those who want the Jewish state dead. That frankness is interpreted as insolence, and insolence must be punished. The punishment is narrative—endless, lugubrious, accusatory narrative, in which a nation that fights under the same laws the UN claims to revere is recast as the world’s monster.

So what would a grown-up approach look like? First, an end to the obsession. Scrap the permanent agenda item and replace it with universal standards. If you can’t do that because too many members would find themselves in the dock, say so plainly and stop pretending you’re a court with a choir. Second, stop the farce of letting serial abusers chair human-rights talking shops. It is not “inclusive” to put the arsonist on the fire brigade; it is grotesque. Third, separate law from loudness. If you have evidence, bring it to a court—where the standards are high and the stakes are honest. If you are not a court, say so in a banner large enough that even a newsroom in a hurry can’t trim it to fit the mood. Fourth, decouple data from polemic. Publish baselines, methods and error bars with the same gusto you publish adjectives. If your famine models miss reality by a mile, tell the world how and why, and stop laundering forecasts into “facts.”

Finally, accept that Israel does not owe the UN a performance; it owes its citizens security within the law. When Israel errs—and it does—investigate and punish, as the law requires. When its enemies use civilians as tactical assets and then parade the corpses for cameras, refuse the choreography. And when journalists mistake sorrow for proof and moral certainty for evidence, call them on it. No democracy ever won respect by playing along with a fixed game.

The BBC could help here, if it wanted to. The corporation still commands a level of trust that most outlets would sell their mastheads for. All it has to do is be what it tells the world it is: curious, careful, sceptical of power, including the power of a UN commission that knows, whether it admits it or not, how irresistible the word genocide is to a newsroom. Instead, we get the same humid prose, the same careful avoidance of the “not a court” admission, the same pious cadence. “Israel denies it.” Of course Israel denies it. Innocent people deny things all the time. The job is not to say they deny; the job is to show what you know, how you know it, and what you don’t know yet. That used to be called reporting.

If the UN wants authority, it should earn it. If the BBC wants trust, it should defend it. At present, both look like they’ve settled for applause. The commission performs justice without a bench; the broadcaster performs balance without a scale. And the public, who deserve better than political theatre and moral cosplay, are left with a chorus and a curtain call.

Reform the institution or retire the costume. If the Human Rights Council can’t let go of its pet obsession, if commissions can’t resist the seductions of the headline, if the choreography demands perpetual denunciation of one state while dictators waltz past the cameras, then perhaps the honest thing is to admit the show has run its course. Turn off the lights. Lock the door on your way out. The world needs an international system that protects the vulnerable and deters the violent. What it doesn’t need is an embarrassment with stationery calling itself justice.

The cold open (mind the splatter)

“Israel should just fight Hamas, but, you know, without upsetting anyone.”
Right. And I should run a marathon while sitting on my sofa, eating crisps, and pausing every mile to post a selfie about “my truth.”

The chorus keeps humming the same tune: “War should be tidy. Civilians should never be near fighters. Also, the fighters should not be close to civilians. Ideally, could they all meet in a field? Maybe with bunting.” These are the same people who think a ceasefire is a cheat code you can enter on a PlayStation controller: up-up-down-down-peace-peace.

Eyes on, not eyes closed

Here’s the adult version. A veteran British commander, Colonel Richard Kemp, has been in Israel since 9 October—not to collect Instagram reels of sirens, but to watch a real army fight a real enemy embedded in a real city. He’s studied this region for the UK government, sat in war rooms through every Gaza flare-up, and understands the difference between a slogan and a battle plan. He didn’t come for vibes; he came for facts. And like me, you don’t have to be Jewish to stand with Israel—or to keep your eyes open to facts.

How urban war actually works (spoiler: not like your favourite drama)

Urban war is a knife-fight in a crowd. The enemy doesn’t wear a hi-viz vest and queue politely. He tunnels under hospitals, launches from schools, stores weapons in flats, and turns a whole neighbourhood into a lethal booby-trap. He wants you to follow, because every metre you advance generates two kinds of shrapnel: concrete—and propaganda.

A professional military—yes, that includes the IDF—adapts with painstaking methods civilians rarely see: mapping, deconfliction, warnings, corridor creation, phased assaults, and more lawyers than you can shake a stick at. The “just be careful” brigade think they’ve said something profound. It’s like telling a neurosurgeon, “Hey, don’t wobble.”

Why Gaza Looks Leveled (What I Know)

Those aerial shots of flattened blocks get shoved in your face as “proof of genocide.” It’s stupid. Genocide is the extermination of people; photos of collapsed buildings tell you about construction materials, tunnelling, and booby-traps—not intent to murder civilians. Gaza’s grid was militarised: apartment towers doubled as access points into tunnel shafts; stairwells and corridors were seeded with chained IEDs; flats were converted into firing points and ammo stores. Under those conditions, “taking the building” means walking your soldiers into a purpose-built death maze. The honest, safer option is controlled demolition: you evacuate who you can, clear a perimeter, collapse the shafts, and deny the position so it can’t be used again tomorrow.

Plain-English cycle, minus the romance:

1. Find the hive. ISR, human intel, and ground contact indicate a tunnel mouth or weapons cache inside or beneath a block.

2. Warn and clear. Evacuation routes, messages, time windows. Sometimes it works; sometimes the enemy forces civilians to stay.

3. Test the box. Engineers probe for tripwires, pressure plates, and “daisy-chain” explosives primed to go sympathetic.

4. Choose life. Breaching into a wired kill-zone = coffins. Controlled demolition with combat engineers and heavy kit (yes, including D9s) = rubble instead of coffins, plus a sealed tunnel.

5. Prevent reuse. Collapse galleries, fill shafts, remove the position from tomorrow’s map.

That’s why whole blocks can go: interconnected tunnels run under multiple addresses; once one node blows, adjacent structures are compromised or rigged in series. Levelling stops the chain reaction being triggered against your troops a street away.

And please spare me the outrage theatre over rubble photography. Dresden looked like the surface of the moon in 1945. No one waved those pictures and cried, “Aha—legal proof of genocide!” The question is targeting and intent. In Gaza, the target set was the enemy’s embedded military infrastructure. The tragic civilian harm flowed from the enemy’s decision to turn civilian space into a fortress—not from some cartoon desire to smash buildings for fun.

Newsflash: the UK military actually knows this stuff

British soldiers are not confused by Gaza. They’ve fought similar enemies and terrain. They recognise the pattern, the tactics, the ethics, and the impossible trade-offs. Quietly, they also recognise something else: the UK benefits massively from Israeli know-how—armour protection that keeps British troops alive, anti-armour tech that stops our lads being turned into scrap, and intelligence links so close they probably qualify for couple’s therapy. The exchange is real, and we often get more than we give.

Our American cousins send generals to study Israel’s innovations like it’s a postgraduate seminar in staying alive. Britain should be doing the same in the open. Instead we whisper, terrified that learning from the most battle-tested Western-aligned force on the planet might make us look “too supportive.” Imagine shunning a first-rate medical school because the head surgeon is unpopular on Twitter.

Political theatre, now playing to a crowd near you

Here’s where the pageantry begins. British politicians stand at lecterns and purr, “Israel must take maximum precautions”—as if the IDF were casually lobbing ordnance for sport until Westminster discovered ethics last Thursday. The people saying that know better. We have attachés on the ground and detailed briefings at home. But gestures feed crowds. And crowds vote.

So we get talk of “partial arms embargoes” and sanctioning officials of a democratic ally currently fighting on multiple fronts. It’s not law. It’s electoral spreadsheets. And it’s dangerous, because every performative throat-clear in London echoes as permission in the heads of antisemites on UK streets.

Iran: the pretend line in the sand

Our leaders keep saying, “Iran must not get a nuclear weapon,” in the same tone you use to say “I must stop eating biscuits.” If they meant it, they’d help Israel remove the threat, not tut from the sidelines. An Iranian bomb doesn’t just endanger Israel; it sets the Middle East on a hair-trigger and puts Britain and Europe on a shorter fuse than a budget firework. This is the moment for backbone, not bromides.

Media: when the headline writes itself (and it always does)

Ask why genuine military expertise vanishes from British airwaves the minute Israel is the topic. A seasoned commander who’s been invited on for years suddenly becomes persona non grata—because he’s inconvenient to a cherished narrative. On the rare days he is allowed on, the “gotcha” isn’t about facts; it’s about identity. One presenter even tried the “You’re Jewish” angle as if that settles the argument. He isn’t. He replied he didn’t have the honour. And like me, you don’t have to be Jewish to stand with Israel—or to keep your eyes open to facts.

If you wonder why half the country now thinks a Hamas press release is breaking news, look at the editorial reflex: Israeli statements are “alleged,” terrorist claims are “reports,” and context is that thing we lost behind the sofa cushions.

The will to show up (and why it matters more than kit)

You don’t get through an urban crisis by ordering more gadgets; you get through it because grown-ups turn up. Picture the next “October 7th” here: some will suit up; others will book a wellness retreat; and a very loud subset will charter a dieselboat for a selfie-mission to “save Gaza,” live-streaming their virtue while the engine coughs black fumes across the Channel. Activism as cosplay: life jackets, GoPros, and not a clue.

Britain hasn’t run out of backbone; we’ve misplaced the instruction manual. The raw material’s there—smart, tough kids who can do hard things if they’re led like adults, not managed like brands. We don’t need chest-thumping; we need competence. We don’t need conscription; we need a story about service that doesn’t apologise for existing. Get that right and the line holds—practically and morally

Deterrence has a face: political will

Deterrence isn’t a gadget; it’s a message. It says: we will pay the price to stop you making us pay a worse one. Since 7 October, Israel’s leadership has shown the steadiness wars demand. You can dislike the man and still admit the method. Meanwhile, Western Europe rehearses for a future where NATO doesn’t fail with a bang but with a whimper—leaders unable to contemplate real losses, so they pre-compromise and call it wisdom.

The two-state bedtime story (expanded)

I know it’s catnip in London salons, but “two states, now” has become a lullaby for adults. Even before 7 October it failed on contact with reality: Israel would still have to retain hard security control to stop the next tunnel city, which means you don’t get a sovereign neighbour—you get Gaza 2.0 behind a new border. Gaza already answered the exam question: unilateral separation produced rockets, tunnels, and a massacre. Exporting that model to the West Bank doesn’t reduce risk; it multiplies it—shorter ranges, higher ground, more Israelis inside the threat ring.

There’s also the missing partner problem. Wanting something in Westminster doesn’t conjure it in Ramallah or Gaza City. You can call it “the solution” until your throat is sore; if the other side won’t accept a Jewish state beside them and won’t enforce monopoly on force, you’re not building peace—you’re building the next war with nicer stationery.

Back to basics: urban war ethics for grown-ups

• Civilian shields are a war crime committed by the people using them, not by the army trying to reach the men hiding behind them.

• Warnings don’t always work when your enemy forces civilians to stay.

• Collateral damage is not “the plan”; it’s the horrible price of confronting those who made civilian death their plan.

• If you want fewer civilian casualties, demand the enemy stop turning cities into fortresses.

These aren’t slogans. They’re the miserable parameters within which real soldiers operate while the social-media poets demand miracles from the cheap seats.

Why the West should say the quiet part out loud

Our governments know how the IDF actually fights. Our forces train with them. Our intelligence communities partner with them. Our kit is safer because of them. So say it. Not to be “pro-Israel,” but to be pro-truth and pro-Polish, pro-British, pro-American, pro-European—pro-Western. It would calm our streets, check our liars, and remind our enemies that we still recognise the difference between a shield and a sword.

Final beat: the idiots are rising—don’t let them set the script

Bad ideas rise when adults go quiet. If you want fewer bad ideas, turn the volume up on reality. Urban war is savage, constrained, and tragically necessary when your enemy chooses your neighbourhood as the battlefield. Israel didn’t write those rules. Hamas did. And Western countries—Britain included—either relearn how to tell that truth, or we’ll live to fight by those rules closer to home.

If this helped cut through the fog, consider supporting the project. I’m a filmmaker-activist operating without institutional backing and without a salary.

Every pound goes to production, research, security, and legal. Subscribe (free) or go paid to keep this work alive.

Let’s pause…

Because beneath those headlines is a rotting, open secret everyone pretends not to know: Hamas uses hospitals as military bases. They don’t just hide in them—they operate from them, interrogate in them, store weapons in them, and yes, hold hostages in them.

Exhibit A: Nasser Hospital, Khan Younis

This isn’t theoretical. This is documented. This week’s target? Nasser Hospital. A place that, if you’ve been paying attention, should’ve been stripped of its humanitarian credentials long ago. Why?

Because back in February 2024, the IDF entered Nasser Hospital and found exactly what anyone familiar with Hamas would expect: mortars, grenades, and over 100 Hamas operatives using the hospital as a safe haven.

Then there’s the testimony from hostages, like Xiaowen Aloni. She was abducted with her children on October 7th and later held in that very hospital. Not treated—imprisoned. Locked in rooms with others, waiting hours for permission to use the toilet, vomiting from illness, and fed mouldy food. In a hospital.

And if that doesn’t clinch it, we also have the Palestinian Authority admitting—yes, even they admitted—in October 2024 that Nasser was being used by Hamas for interrogations. Just months later, the hospital’s director of nursing reported being threatened by Islamic Jihad for trying to keep the facility focused on actual healthcare.

This isn’t an outlier. This is the model.

Article 19: The Clause Everyone Ignores

International law—yes, that thing the media pretends to respect—has something to say here. Article 19 of the Geneva Convention spells it out clearly: hospitals lose their protected status if used to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

That includes stockpiling weapons. That includes interrogations. That includes using it as a command centre. That includes holding hostages. All of which Hamas did.

So by every legal and moral metric, Nasser Hospital was no longer a hospital. It was a legitimate military target.

But What About the Journalists?

Ah yes, the five journalists reportedly killed. Let’s talk about them.

One of them, Mohammed Salama, wasn’t exactly a war correspondent. He was a participant in the October 7 massacre. A journalist, sure—if you count Kalashnikovs as microphones. Another, Mariam Abu Daqa, not only contributed to Associated Press, but also taught journalism courses for Hamas’s Ministry of Information. Cute title, right? Sounds Orwellian because it is.

Others killed in the strike had posted open praise for the October 7 massacre, calling it the greatest day of their generation. If someone calls themselves a journalist and a mujahid in the same breath, you have to ask: which job came with the better benefits?

And if you’re tempted to say, "But press! But freedom of expression!"—I’d like to invite you to find me one journalist in Gaza not working under Hamas surveillance, threat, or payroll. If your cameraman is reporting from a Hamas tunnel entrance and you think that’s journalism, you’re part of the problem.

Hamas Knows What It’s Doing

None of this is an accident. Hamas uses hospitals because it knows the media will go berserk if Israel responds.

It’s a win-win for them. If Israel holds back, Hamas gets a free command centre. If Israel strikes, they get a photo-op and a press conference at the UN. Dead civilians? Great. Dead journalists? Even better. Every pixel of blood is weaponised for the narrative.

That’s why Hamas turns maternity wards into munition dumps. That’s why they base sniper teams on hospital rooftops. That’s why they store their missiles under paediatric clinics. And that’s why they take people like Xiaowen and lock them in hospital rooms.

Because they know you’ll never ask questions.

Let’s Get Real

Israel isn’t targeting hospitals because it’s fun. It’s doing it because Hamas turned those hospitals into war rooms.

You might think this war is being fought between armies. It’s not. It’s being fought between one army and one death cult that dresses its foot soldiers in press vests and hides behind incubators.

So no, Israel didn’t just bomb a hospital. Israel bombed a Hamas military installation that happened to keep its grenades next to gurneys.

And the blood of the innocent? It’s on Hamas.

Not because we say so. But because they planned it this way.

Subscribe for more brutally honest dispatches from the frontline of disinformation.

This article is based on confirmed testimony, intelligence disclosures, and open-source investigations. If you value journalism that calls out terrorism masquerading as victimhood, consider becoming a paying subscriber.

Madness Masquerading as Morality

Here’s the pattern: they bend, the world smirks, and Hamas cracks open the champagne. Israel accommodates the very people sworn to destroy it, and Western pundits call that “restraint.” That isn’t morality—it’s masochism dressed up as virtue. And the kicker? The more humane they are, the more their enemies bay for blood. Humanity doesn’t cool the hate; it fuels it.

Decency as a Capital Offence

Let’s be honest—the world isn’t offended by Israeli toughness, it’s offended by Israeli decency. In a global order built on conquest and corruption, moral seriousness is treated as intolerable. They hate Israel not despite its restraint, but becauseof it. Because it insists there’s such a thing as truth. Because it refuses to play by the “all armies are bastards” rule. No other army in history has shown this much restraint in urban warfare, and for that, Israel gets condemned as the worst villain since Voldemort.

The Question Only They Ask

“But who will take them?” Israelis ask. Because they’ve been trained to feel responsible—for everyone, including people who dream of stabbing their kids in the night. Meanwhile, every other refugee relocation is celebrated as humanitarian genius. Except one. Palestinians must stay in eternal limbo—because as long as they suffer, the world can keep waving them like a bloody flag against Israel.

The Pakistan Precedent Nobody Noticed

October 2023: Pakistan boots out two million Afghans—basically Gaza’s population. The world yawns. No boycotts, no emergency sessions, no protests in Paris. But when Israel suggests civilians step aside while they dismantle a terror cult hiding in apartment blocks, the world has a collective aneurysm. Apparently Palestinians are worth more as martyrs than as resettled human beings.

Refugees by Design

Here’s the bitter truth: the “Palestinian refugee crisis” isn’t some tragic accident—it’s a business model. Arab states kept them locked in camps for decades, not out of compassion but calculation. And somehow Israel is told it must keep living next door to people indoctrinated to slit their throats. That’s not morality; that’s assisted suicide. And the UN, which has an entire machinery for refugee resettlement, suddenly can’t find the “on” switch when Israel’s involved.

Time to Hand Back the Homework

Israel should stop asking “where will they go?” The answer is simple: not their problem. Tiny Israel has already absorbed Jews from every corner of the globe. Time for the 22 Arab states and 53 Muslim ones—swimming in oil, land, and cash—to step up and show this “famous brotherhood of the ummah” they keep bragging about.

And if anyone still dares to ask, “But where will they go?” the answer after October 7 should be: “You figure it out. We tried land, aid, coexistence—even tore our own citizens from their homes. They chose murder. You raised the monster, you house it.”

Israel is the only nation on the planet expected to bankroll, babysit, and empower its sworn enemies. That’s not just a double standard—that’s a bloody parody.

That warning still burns. And today, as antisemitism surges again in the West — from university campuses to the airwaves — silence is no longer an option.

My Declaration

My name is Aro Korol. I am a Polish-born British filmmaker. I am not Jewish. Yet I know this: if antisemitism rises unchecked, history will repeat itself. Not on my watch.

I am making the documentary Mother of Hate — a film that confronts the return of the world’s oldest hatred in our digital age.

I take no wages from this work. I support myself with a full-time job so that every penny raised goes to the production. This is not about profit. This is about truth. This is my voice, my weapon of choice.

Why My Voice Matters

For centuries, Poland has been a stage for Jewish history — both its triumphs and its horrors. My homeland gave the world figures of brilliance, but it also saw ghettos, pogroms, and the camps. That history means something when told by someone who carries its soil in his bones, but not its Jewish heritage.

A Jewish filmmaker making this film is expected. A Polish non-Jew doing it? That is a statement. It says: this fight is not the Jews’ alone. Antisemitism is not their burden to carry. It’s a plague that infects us all.

Why This Film Matters

This film does not tiptoe around the problem — it names it. The BBC has become one of the greatest enablers of antisemitism in Britain today — in fact, a trendsetter for the world news media.

They rushed to accuse Israel of bombing a hospital when it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s rocket that fell short. They parroted Hamas casualty figures as if they were gospel. They aired staged footage of Gaza’s children while hiding the fact that some were the sons of Hamas officials. They refuse to call Hamas what they are: terrorists.

Mother of Hate will dissect and expose these lies. Frame by frame. Word by word. It will show how the world’s “most trusted broadcaster” has become a megaphone for jihadist propaganda — and how those falsehoods have fuelled marches, violence, and Jew-hatred across the West.

This is not just about journalism. It’s about responsibility. And it’s about holding to account those who spread the oldest hatred in new packaging.

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. My weapon of choice.

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

DONATE NOW