RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.jns.org/israels-brilliant-handling-of-the-flotilla-affair/

It was supposed to be a grand act of defiance—another headline-grabbing spectacle in the ongoing campaign to vilify the Jewish state. Instead, it became a floating punchline.

The so-called “freedom flotilla” set sail earlier this month from Sicily, bound for Gaza, carrying meager amounts of food and other forms of aid. Aboard the lone boat, the British-flagged schooner Madleen, was a small cast of sanctimonious “humanitarians.”

Chief among them was Swedish climate crusader Greta Thunberg. Joining her was French Member of the European Parliament Rima Hassan and another 10 or so activists trying to make themselves relevant.

What they billed as a noble mission was actually a farce. Wasting no time in exposing the charade, the Israeli Foreign Ministry mockingly christened the vessel the “selfie yacht.”

And with good reason.

From the moment the motley crew departed, the journey resembled an influencer retreat more than a relief operation. Social media lit up with snapshots of a gleeful, keffiyeh-clad Greta and her companions beaming with self-congratulatory pride.

Responding with neither alarm nor outrage, Israel chose an approach that blended humor with restraint and just the right amount of ridicule. When the ship was some 120 miles away from its destination, Israeli naval forces intercepted and boarded it—bearing refreshments.

Yes, really.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/israel-is-committing-genocide-in-gaza/

Let us examine the lunacy of that statement: Israel is Committing Genocide in Gaza:

1- If there was an actual genocide in Gaza, Hamas would return the hostages and surrender. Then the “Genocide” would end.

2- Which leads us to the next point. Has there ever been a genocide in history that the victim could end the second they wanted to? The answer is no. If they can end the fighting by simply returning our people and they choose not to, then it’s not genocide.

3- If Israel wanted to commit genocide, why not just bomb from the air and flatten Gaza? Why send in foot soldiers and risk their lives?

4- If Israel wanted to kill all Gazans, which is what genocide would mean in this context, why would Israel drop pamphlets to let civilians know where they’ll be attacking and when?

5- If Israel wanted to commit genocide, why would it send millions of tons of aid into Gaza?

6- Even if you believe Hamas’ ridiculously inflated numbers, in fact, double them, how are there not millions dead, or at least a million given Israel’s military superiority, if Israel wanted to commit genocide?

7- If Israel wanted to commit genocide, why use precision weapons and not just bomb the whole place?

8- If Israel wanted to commit genocide, why would it have agreed to multiple deals to end the fighting, all of which were rejected by the “victim” of the genocide, Hamas?

9- If Israel wanted to commit genocide, why would it treat Gazans in its own hospitals, including Sinwar himself whose life Israel saved when he had a brain tumor.

10- If Israel wanted to commit genocide (and ethnic cleansing. Don’t forget that insanity.) how is it that the population of Gaza has grown over the past 70 years by hundreds of percentages?

Bonus point: If there was a genocide in Gaza, why won’t Hamas let civilians hide in the miles and miles of tunnels they created? Why not give them the tons and tons of aid stored in warehouses in Gaza? Why prevent them from leaving?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21674/hamas-wants-to-sacrifice-palestinians

Like most senior Hamas leaders, [Khalil] al-Hayya and his family members live outside the Gaza Strip, having fled the Gaza Strip before the October 7 attack on Israel. These Hamas leaders are leading safe, often resplendent lives in Qatar, Lebanon, Algeria, Turkey and other comfortable countries.

Hamas, [these Palestinians] say, has decided to sacrifice tens of thousands of Palestinians to please its patrons in Qatar and Iran.

“Khalil al-Hayya’s statement of sacrificing Gaza isn’t a slip of the tongue – it’s the mask coming off. When he says Gaza ‘offered itself as a sacrifice,’ what he means is that the people of Gaza were handed over…to foreign capitals and thrones… Gaza wasn’t ‘offered’- it was ‘traded.’ Traded for relevance in Tehran, applause in Doha, and invitations to summits where men in suits congratulate themselves for their loyalty [to Iran and Qatar] while entire neighborhoods [in the Gaza Strip] are flattened. What al-Hayya revealed – with disturbing pride – is that Hamas has never seen Gaza as a society to build or protect, but as a tool to elevate themselves in the eyes of unelected monarchs and ideological overlords…. to secure long-term contracts of power and protection from the patrons they truly serve….. [f]or the Qatari ruling elite who fund the fire from a safe distance, then host the [Hamas] arsonists as statesmen. Hamas offers Gaza as a sacrifice … because they know that a Gaza in ruins keeps them relevant, funded, and feared.” — Hamza Howidy, a Gaza-born peace and human rights advocate, X, June 6, 2025.

“[O]ur lives have been stolen. People in Gaza… are furious. They’re asking: how dare he (Khalil al-Hayya) speak in our name while he lives safely abroad with his family in Qatar? His words echo something even more horrifying once said by the late Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh: ‘We need the blood of children and women to awaken the spirit of revolution within us.’ What kind of ideology is this? What twisted logic allows men living in comfort to turn the suffering of an entire people into a slogan? I can’t describe how infuriated I feel right now. I want to smash my head against the wall.” — “Alaa from Gaza,” X, June 5, 2025 [Emphasis in the original].

“Khalil al-Hayya’s statement of sacrificing Gaza isn’t a slip of the tongue – it’s the mask coming off. When he says Gaza ‘offered itself as a sacrifice,’ what he means is that the people of Gaza were handed over… Traded for relevance in Tehran, applause in Doha…” — Hamza Howidy, a Gaza-born peace and human rights advocate. Pictured: Al-Hayya speaks on Al Jazeera, in June 2025. (Image source: X.com/Osint613)

On the eve of the Islamic feast of Eid al-Adha (Festival of Sacrifice), Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayya — in charge of the negotiations to release the hostages and reach a ceasefire agreement with Israel — delivered a speech in which he said: “Gaza has offered itself as a sacrifice for the Muslim ummah [nation] and deserves its full support in return.”

Al-Hayya’s statement triggered a wave of angry reactions and condemnations from many Palestinians, especially those from the Gaza Strip who have been facing death and destruction since October 7, 2023, when Hamas and thousands of “ordinary” Palestinians invaded Israel and murdered 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals. Another 251 people were kidnapped to the Gaza Strip, where 55 – dead and alive – remain in captivity.

https://www.jns.org/corrupt-case-netanyahu-trial-politically-driven-legal-experts-say/

Now in its fifth year, the cross-examination of Israel’s prime minister began this week with Benjamin Netanyahu taking the stand in the Tel Aviv District Court on Tuesday.

While the trial continues, legal experts tell JNS the case has collapsed from an evidentiary point of view. Netanyahu had been right, they say, the case is politically driven, something more and more Israelis have begun to understand.

“Having followed the case closely from its initiation until now I have no doubt that Netanyahu’s claim from the outset that this is political persecution is correct,” Talia Einhorn, professor of law and a titular member of the International Academy of Comparative Law, told JNS.

Haim Shain, an attorney and legal lecturer at Shaare Mishpat College in Hod Hasharon, concurred, explaining to JNS that Israel’s political opposition realized it couldn’t win back the parliament so it focused on taking control through non-electoral means, namely the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office, the press and academia.

“What they failed to do in elections, they are doing through the judicial system, with the backing of academia and the media. For some time, we have understood that these are phony cases,” he said.

Netanyahu faces corruption charges in three separate cases—Cases 1000 and 2000 (the charge is “breach of trust” in both instances), and Case 4000 (bribery, fraud and breach of trust).

This week’s cross-examination began with Case 1000, led by prosecutor Yehonatan Tadmor. Each case has its own team of prosecutors. (Analysts say the trial will cost the state many millions in legal costs.) Yet despite the resources invested, the prosecution has conducted itself in a negligent and unprofessional manner, experts say.

For instance, in Case 1000, the prime minister is accused of taking valuables over the course of three years, mainly in the form of hundreds of thousands of dollars in cigars and champagne from two wealthy businessmen, Australian James Packer and Israeli Arnon Milchan.

Although cigars and champagne are the items most associated with the Netanyahu trial in the mind of the public, Einhorn said that the charge is based entirely on the word of one witness, Hadas Klein. No evidence, or additional testimony supports her claim and no investigation was undertaken to corroborate it.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/06/anatomy_of_a_nother_blood_libel.html

Immediately following the Hamas atrocities in Israel on October 7, key media outlets played a significant role in fomenting antisemitism, bruiting blood libels against Israel and those who support her. Last week, the same week Jews were firebombed in Boulder, Colorado, some publications seem to have by design or bias aided Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

Background

There is no “genocide” in Gaza.

“Gaza genocide” is a lie, and the people spreading that lie are partially responsible for the crimes these three men committed.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas — an avowedly terrorist organization and the ruling class of Gaza, whose charter specifically calls for the eradication of Israel and the death of all Jews living there — engaged in an act of war. There is no doubt whatsoever that the cross-border invasion and murder of scores of innocent, unarmed Israelis was an act of war under international law. Moreover, international law from the days of St. Thomas Aquinas onward has always recognized the concept of a “just war,” and no war can be more just than waging it against terrorists from a neighboring state who avowedly seek the destruction of your own country and demonstrate the military capacity to do so.

Just wars are NOT “genocide.”

Moreover, the Israeli Defense Forces practice state-of-the-art civilian risk mitigation measures, in full keeping with the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. If you are trying to commit “genocide,” you do not follow the Geneva Conventions. You just don’t.

If you are trying to commit “genocide,” you do not provide civilians early warning that you are about to strike legitimate military targets in their midst.

If you are trying to commit “genocide,” you do not distribute robust food aid to the alleged targets of your genocide.

If you are trying to commit “genocide,” you do not provide humanitarian medical assistance to the alleged targets of your genocide.

If you are trying to commit “genocide,” you do not evacuate sick and wounded children of the alleged targets of your genocide to hospitals.

If you are trying to commit “genocide,” you do not communicate that all armed conflict will end the moment Hamas lays down its guns and stops indiscriminately shooting rockets at Israeli civilians.

No, if you are trying to commit genocide, you do not fight a just war in keeping with the Geneva Conventions. Instead, you line everybody up against the wall and shoot them in the back of the head. That is genocide, and the war the Israelis are waging in Gaza looks nothing like that.

Alleging that Israel is engaged in “genocide” is the blood libel of the modern era, on par with the claim that Jews season their matzos with the blood of Christian babies.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/07/why-the-uk-must-not-recognise-palestine/

The Palestinians don’t want a state alongside Israel. They want a state instead of it. This is what Britain would be supporting

The West Bank was never taken from the Palestinians. When Israel conquered the territory in 1967 it was from the Jordanians, who had occupied it since 1948 before trying their luck at a genocide of the Jews.

Regardless, if Jerusalem gave up the land in return for peace, it would make Israel just nine miles wide at its centre. Known as the “Hadera-Gadera rectangle”, that narrow waist holds half the population and much of the country’s vital infrastructure, including Tel Aviv. A new Palestinian state would lie just over the border.

After October 7, would you do it? The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is famously incompetent, and is currently enjoying the 20th year of the four-year term to which he was elected in 2005. He presides over a system of corruption and brutality; he holds a PhD in Holocaust revisionism from a Moscow university; and he offers cash incentives to those convicted of terror offences, with higher payments awarded for more serious crimes. Fancy the odds?

When Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005, it was in the naive belief that, from then on, even a single rocket from the Strip would meet with international condemnation, since the settlements and “occupation” were no more. So that worked out well. A two-state solution would see the same policy applied on the West Bank. What could possibly go wrong?

Sir Keir Starmer presumably thinks it’s a great idea, because in nine days’ time, Britain will join France and the Saudis in New York in talks about recognising a state of Palestine. Far easier to gamble with the lives of someone else’s children than your own, I suppose.

Worse still, perhaps, is the narrative it would create. Britain’s official policy would be to blame Israel for the lack of a Palestinian state, when the historical truth is the opposite.