RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.spiked-online.com/podcast-episode/the-great-lie-of-the-gaza-genocide/

Natasha Hausdorff – barrister and legal director at the UK Lawyers for Israel Charitable Trust – is the latest guest on The Brendan O’Neill Show. Natasha and Brendan discuss Bob Vylan’s vile chants at Glastonbury, the horrors Israel faces in Gaza and how the Holocaust is now weaponised against the Jews.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/what-would-a-palestinian-state-be-like-for-jews/

What would happen to Israel’s nine million Jewish inhabitants if Israel were destroyed and a “Palestinian” state were established on its land? What if some of the Israeli Jews managed to survive the genocide that would almost certainly follow the collapse of the Jewish state, and the wholesale murder of Jews elsewhere that the left and its jihadi allies would indulge in even after Israel were gone? What would become of those surviving Jews?

Whatever became of them, they would not be allowed to live in a new “state of Palestine.” A former Jordanian MP, Muhammad Abd Al-Qader, made this clear in a 2012 interview in which he emphasized that not only would Muslims prohibit any Jews from living in the former Israel, but would destroy everything the Jews had built there (as they did when they took over Gaza in 2005): “When the Jews sense security and stability, which are provided by the ruling regimes around them, [they initiate] security, economic, and political enterprises. They build skyscrapers. That time, [their punishment] will be worse, and [their enemies] will ‘visit with destruction all that fell into their power.’ In other words, the Muslims will destroy these security and economic enterprises, as well as these buildings, until not a single Jew can hope to remain on this sacred land, and until not a single Jew living outside this sacred land can hope to come here.”

This was not just the opinion of Muhammad Abd Al-Qader. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also said in July 2013 that no Jews would be allowed to live in the future Palestinian state, which he envisioned as encompassing all of the present State of Israel: “In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli — civilian or soldier — on our lands.” Palestinian Authority diplomat Saeb Erekat reiterated this in January 2014: “Anyone who says he wants to keep settlers in the Palestinian state is actually saying that he doesn’t want a Palestinian state. No settler will be allowed to stay in the Palestinian state, not even a single one, because settlements are illegal and the presence of the settlers on the occupied lands is illegal.”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/unrwa-israel-hamas-gaza

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has long played a counterproductive role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The agency has perpetuated the crisis by redefining refugee status exclusively for Palestinians—keeping alive the notion of a “right of return” that many interpret as a path to Israel’s destruction—and by distributing educational materials that glorify terrorism against Jews.

Recent revelations have exposed the extent of UNRWA’s involvement not just in inciting violence but in facilitating it through Hamas-linked affiliates in Gaza. Israeli intelligence reports indicate that UNRWA staff directly participated in the October 7 attacks, including hostage-taking and the abduction of dead bodies. On social media, some of the agency’s teachers celebrated the attacks, and its facilities reportedly housed Israeli captives. Most alarming, UNRWA infrastructure—funded by international donors—was allegedly used to support Hamas’s tunnel networks and command centers.

Victims of the UNRWA-Hamas alliance have filed suit in U.S. federal court, seeking redress from the agency for allegedly aiding and abetting Hamas before, during, and after the October 7 attacks. Under U.S. law, federal courts are authorized to hear civil cases brought by noncitizens for injuries resulting from violations of international law or U.S. treaties, as long as some element of the violations occurred on American territory. But Siman Tov v. UNRWA, a case filed in 2024, raises a novel and disturbing question: What happens when violations of international law are committed not by a rogue actor but by an agency of the United Nations itself? The case underscores the unprecedented nature of UNRWA’s alleged entanglement with Hamas—and the legal and moral challenges that follow.

UNRWA moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming immunity under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which gives the UN “immunity from every form of legal process” unless explicitly waived. The Biden administration filed a statement supporting the immunity claim. Though the Trump administration has been rhetorically tough on UNRWA, it has yet to reverse the government’s stance.

http://bit.ly/4eIrJAf

The US position on the proposed Palestinian state – just like on any other issue – should be driven by US interests, and not by pro-Israel or pro-Arab sentiments, nor by an honest broker state of mind.  

Would a Palestinian state advance, or undermine, US interests?

*The US State Department’s deeply rooted attachment to the proposed Palestinian state – just like Western conventional wisdom’s attachment – has been largely a derivative of the Palestinian Authority’s peaceful talk, when communicating with Westerners. However, the moderate talk is replaced by (anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli and anti-US) hateful talk when the Palestinian Authority communicates with its own school children and mosque worshippers as well as with audiences in Arab countries. While communications with Westerners represents a 1,400-year-old dissimulation (Taqiyyah) tactic aimed to mislead the West into advancing the Palestinian strategic position, the Palestinian school curriculum and official mosque sermons constitute the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian worldview.   

*The State Department and Western conventional wisdom have also forged their position on the proposed Palestinian state based upon speculative alternate reality – an ostensibly reformed Palestinian government.  This position has been systematically frustrated, since the 1993 Oslo Accord, by Middle East reality. This reformed Palestinian government would, supposedly, refrain from terrorism, hate education and incitement. It would, allegedly, embrace peaceful coexistence, adhere to democracy and human rights, abide by good-faith negotiation, and abandon its intrinsic ideology, which predates the 1948 and 1967 wars. This ideology has focused on terminating the existence – not the shrinking the size – of the Jewish State, mandating the elimination of “the infidel and illegitimate Zionist entity” from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea.

*However, contrary to the State Department, Arab leaders take lightly the Palestinian talk. They are aware of the fact that in the Middle East one does not pay custom on words, and therefore, there has been an unbridgeable gap between Arab talk and Arab walk (especially on the Palestinian issue). Therefore, Arabs pay much attention to the Palestinian intra-Arab walk, which has become the role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, ingratitude and treachery.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/07/01/the-myth-of-israels-killing-fields/

Andrew Fox is a former British Army officer and an associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, specialising in defence and the Middle East.

You do not need to invent facts to spread propaganda. You only need to stretch them.

Haaretz’s latest ‘exposé’ on Israeli military conduct in Gaza is a prime case in point. This week, the Jewish State’s oldest daily newspaper reported that soldiers belonging to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had ‘deliberately fired’ at Palestinians as they tried to access aid-distribution centres. Since May, these distribution centres have been operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation – a private, American-run organisation that is supported by the IDF. Haaretz’s reporting has been repeated, without question, by an almost ubiquitously anti-Israel media.

It is a grim, morally explosive accusation. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Israel Katz say it is ‘malicious’ and ‘designed to defame’. The IDF says it is investigating the allegation, but rejects any claims soldiers were instructed to fire at Palestinians accessing aid.

While the facts aren’t always easy to discern in the fog of war, there are a number of problems with the Haaretz report. The most significant is that the original Hebrew version of the article says something quite different to the widely reported English version. It reports that soldiers were ordered to fire toward crowds, not at them. This is not a subtle difference. ‘Toward’ is what soldiers call warning shots. It is a common practice for militaries, and one the British Army frequently used in Afghanistan. ‘At’ is to fire at a crowd or an individual – in other words, ‘at’ is the preposition you would use if you wanted to accuse the IDF of war crimes, instead of employing a common tactic.

The report has other flaws – flaws that should not be hard to pick up on, even for the untrained eye. The anonymous soldier quoted by Haaretz claims that the IDF has used machine guns, grenade launchers and mortars on unarmed crowds queuing for aid. Yet, according to the source, this ‘killing field’, in which soldiers use ‘everything imaginable’, results in around ‘one [to] five’ deaths a day. One to five deaths a day, in the middle of a war zone, involving thousands of people and countless flashpoints, from the heaviest weapon systems any infantry can bring to bear? That is not a ‘killing field’, unless the IDF are the worst shots in military history. This is clearly not the number of deaths you would expect to see if one of the world’s most advanced militaries had been instructed to target crowds of unarmed civilians with ‘everything imaginable’, as the source does.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/07/let_s_talk_about_proportionality.html

“But it’s so disproportionate!” Comment from an Israel loathing liberal.

It’s not often that you have a ready answer for people with whom you disagree.  Usually, you think of the perfect comeback when you wake up at two in the morning.

But as it happened, I simply had the cold, hard facts on my side, so it was almost shooting fish in a barrel to answer this Jew-hating, Israel-loathing liberal.

Do You Remember?

My response to her came in a series of questions.

“Do you remember,” I asked her, “when we watched the entire Iraq War — from 2003 to 2011 — on TV, for years?  And the endless articles and commentaries and news coverage, all day and all night?”

“Of course,” she responded.

“Well, even before that, going back to the sixties, do you remember the years-on end coverage of the Vietnam War — from 1964 to 1973 — and the morning and afternoon and nightly news coverage and commentaries the impassioned anti-war demonstrations across the country protesting this war?”

“You know I do.  I was on the frontline of those protests.  I was with the so-called traitor Jane Fonda all the way!”

“How about the Korean War in the 1950s, which wasn’t covered so extensively on TV — TV was relatively new in that decade — but which a million articles were written about, not to mention the extensive radio commentary?”

“Okay,” she said, “and your point?”

“One more question: How about World War II in the 1940s, when we dropped the bombs, and 140,000 died in Hiroshima and 74,000 died in Nagasaki?”  And that is not to omit the massive, overwhelming loss of life from that war — 70–85 million deaths.

“Stop with the statistics, already!” she blurted out.  “What is your point?”