Blog

Antizionism is a modern incarnation of evil.

“I’m not going to stop this until I help troon Marxists and Islamists take over America because I’m a worthless sellout.” https://t.co/ZuYy7J8KWc

They literally say in this video that anyone can come and buy a home there, Jew or non-Jew. Yet Tyler still titled it “The City Where Only Jews Are Allowed to Live.” Never underestimate a grifter and his ability to bend reality. https://t.co/vOWx7pc5ef

Which is exactly his intention. Do not miss the import of him, mentioning the first amendment, which has zero to do with terrorist attack attacks. He wants to allow his little Free Frankenstein globalize the intifada DSA filth to terrorize and harassed Jewish New Yorkers https://t.co/Bl52VaVLf8

No matter whether the posts we’re seeing are real or propaganda, every one of the 2,000,000 people in Gaza, have better conditions than the 251 Israelis did when they were held captive there.

Us Jews have been busy af. We got the CEO of Nvidia fired, we shut down all flights in the USA, we hack Outlook, disabled the 911 System, all while genociding the Arabs in Gaza and ripping up olive trees in Judea and Samaria. Did I miss anything?

What we know so far: • In the UN secret ballot, 144 countries voted for Iran’s regime. • Only 39 opposed. Canada, Australia, Austria now revealed they were among the 39. It is essential that every country in the world go on the record — demand to know how your government voted. https://t.co/g9N58L9xAT

Basically 100% of their ‘errors’ are in an anti-Israel direction. Reminds me of what the judge in the David Irving case said about his ‘errors’: “In my opinion there is force in the opinion…that all Irving’s historiographical ‘errors’ converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving’s partisanship for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the…contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving.”

@LDN_pressoffice @MayorofLondon This is where the UK is heading. No ties with the Jewish state. Problematic relationships with the world’s greatest democratic nations. But Turkey? Pakistan? Qatar? They’re gonna be our new besties. https://t.co/9skZ2Y4IcS

I often ask my students to do the following thought experiment. Imagine they are not Jewish and are enrolled in an Anthropology 101 course. The professor asks them to write a research paper on this people called the “yehudim” and their relationship to place. Lo and behold, their findings produce the following. The Yehudim/ יהודים 1. Pray towards the same place: Zion 2. When they say grace after their meal, the yehudim beg God to redeem Zion 3. When they marry, they all smash a glass to remember the destruction of their temple in… Zion Oh, and the yehudim had this king who wrote all these psalms, one of which was “if I forget thee O Jerusalem [located in Zion], let my right hand wither.” So what is the relationship to place for these people? As one student told, “they are pretty obsessed with Zion.” FYI I’m fully aware I didn’t include dozens of more examples @BenMoser123

You’d think that if Israel were genocidal worse than Nazi Germany, as anti-Zionists in the West claim, you’d see at least some of them on the battlefield facing the IDF by now. Hezbollah literally controls the Beirut airport; nothing is stopping you.

Also, she was recruited by Chuck Schumer, who spent months working with her to run again. He also poured millions into her campaign. And what did Chris Van Hamas do to help? Remember, when David Pigg was thrilled that she was voted out? He must be crashing out now. https://t.co/O9Hf1IcQil

.@SecKermani @Channel4News At 2 min in, you acknowledge that a Hamas commander was killed in the IDF attack on Nasser Hospital. Then, you say that this “would NOT justify attacking a medical facility protected by the laws of war”. In fact, @ICRC says: “Medical establishments.. enjoy protection because of their function of providing care for the wounded and sick. When they are used to interfere directly or indirectly in military operations, and thereby cause harm to the enemy, the rationale for their specific protection is removed”. Source: https://t.co/ieAid92NDm

Newsflash: “Far-Left” and “Far-Right” are obsolete constructs that camouflage American civil society

Hey @BillKristol, I think the world of you, but this is utter bullshit. And beneath you. She told a roomful of Democrats that she’s a “lib” just like them. She didn’t say she’s a “classical liberal” just like them. She didn’t say she’s “defending democracy” just like them. She didn’t say any of what you say here. She said what she said. Why can’t she and the rest of you at The Bulwark just be honest and own what she said? The fact that you’re going to such lengths to defend her tells me you know she stepped in it, and you’re afraid to call her out on it. You’re not being honest.

If opposition to Israel is more important to Senator Van Hollen than America, he is welcome to lead the Democratic movement. https://t.co/MS7p8IFmZ5

When he came on the scene, only a few of us were immediately sketched-out and raised alarm. I’m glad more people are noticing. https://t.co/WZEidI8RvL

Horrific and inexcusable that in 2026, Jewish students have to hide their faith! https://t.co/MwVu4n3B2Y

Again, it appears that you lack the skills necessary to comprehend what you are reading. If something is permissible it is legal under that specific circumstance. The point of IHL is to protect civilians, that’s true, it also is meant to prohibit the abuse of civilians by belligerents — an example we can use here is human shielding. “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.” – GC IV 28. The point here is to not permit a belligerent in a conflict to become immunized by utilizing the presence of civilians to commit acts harmful to the other belligerent party. It means in that circumstance it is legal to attack the place in which civilians are present. As always and with every attack, that’s subject to a proportionality assessment and ensuring you are still distinguishing belligerent from civilian. What we try to avoid in this situation is the conduct of human shielding in its entirety and as a strategy in armed conflict. That doesn’t render all places void of protections, but it does provide us an understanding of when it is permissible, and thus legal, to conduct certain strikes. What you’re trying to argue is that these strikes are illegal as a matter of law in totality. They’re not. There are specific conditions that exist to make the strikes legal and permissible. The question should be if those conditions are met. You seem to be incapable of understanding that distinction here. By the way, when you want to discuss statutory interpretation, it’s probably best to not do that with someone who has quite literally codified some of these into statutory law. You look like a fool.

Ireland: “We will never buy Israeli technology!” Also Ireland: Quietly buys the world’s best anti-drone jammers from a Tel Aviv company for EU Presidency security because nothing else works. Oops, we accidentally bought Israeli tech 😉 Virtue-signaling is easy until the drones show up.