effie

[effie @EffieTweet]

@elicalebon You are so right, so right that it hurts! Thank you for staying strong

[effie @EffieTweet]

@JakeWSimons https://t.co/a61mn5pNao

[effie @EffieTweet]

@mariekehoogwout Wat ik niet begrijp: als mensen als van Rossem en Pieter Klok migratie zo omarmen, waarom zetten we dan geen AZC naast hun huis? COA koopt overal panden op, dus dat moet lukken. Wrm anderen dwingen ermee te leven en wegzetten als xenofoob terwijl zij het blijkbaar prima vinden?

[effie @EffieTweet]

@Repelsteeltje21 Bijzonder hoeveel verdraaiingen en complete verzinselen er in zo’n korte stuk gepropt kunnen worden. Terwijl wat ze zouden moeten doen is oude kranten archieven napluizen, bijv

[Captain Allen @CptAllenHistory]

This real-time 1948 article from The Economist completely destroys the modern “Nakba” narrative that was invented decades later as political propaganda.

Straight from British eyewitnesses in Haifa, October 2, 1948:

“Jewish authorities urged all Arabs to remain in Haifa and guaranteed them protection and security ... However, of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa, not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained.

The most potent factor was the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive, urging the Arabs to quit ... those who remained and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”

They didn’t flee because of “Zionist ethnic cleansing.”
They fled because Arab leaders ordered them to get out of the way so their armies could “drive the Jews into the sea.”

Then they lost the war they started — and spent the next 77 years rewriting history to blame the Jews.

The “Nakba” you were taught? Pure revisionist fiction.

[effie @EffieTweet]

@realMaalouf I really hope he’ll go to visit there…

[effie @EffieTweet]

@mariekehoogwout niets is nog mild geformuleerd. De wereld heeft zich uitgesloofd om Hamas overeind te houden terwijl Israël systematisch werd tegengewerkt en beschimpt

[effie @EffieTweet]

@JacquesMonasch @_NIW_ Zo pijnlijk, omdat het o zo waar is! Sinds 7 okt echoot deze vraag idd ook in mijn hoofd : kun je bij iemand onderduiken of niet?

[effie @EffieTweet]

@Repelsteeltje21 Fijne vakantie, Maaike!

[effie @EffieTweet]

@mariekehoogwout En ik wil ze ook niet meer horen over internationaal recht…

[effie @EffieTweet]

@Alma00011 Dagelijks roepen ze op straat voor hun Palestijnse ‘broeders’ …wat blijkt, de gehele ‘umma’ houdt de deur potdicht en wil ze niet…. Broeders….

[effie @EffieTweet]

@bertbrussen Zo te horen is Rob al halverwege zijn sollicitatie als ayatollah

[effie @EffieTweet]

@BartNijman En het wrange? Ze komen niet uit Gaza, maar uit Egypte , Jordanië enz. En ik dacht dat het ‘broeders’ zijn….

[effie @EffieTweet]

@SanderSassen @MartienPennings @hannekevdwerf @D66 waar is je aandacht @hannekevdwerf voor de rapporten over de marteling, uithongering en seks.geweld dat de gijzelaars (waaronder kinderen) door Hamas hebben ondergaan?Of valt het buiten je interessegebied? dit bloedsprookje meteen delen ,msch eerst onderzoeken of het waar is

[effie @EffieTweet]

@claudiavz Superrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

[effie @EffieTweet]

@chris_stoffer @JacquesMonasch €40k is wsk alleen het bureau. Waar zijn de kosten van alle ambtelijke uren, ‘brainstormen’ , overleggen , communicatie etc. In de praktijk loopt het veel hoger op. TK moet volledige transparantie eisen!

[effie @EffieTweet]

@widtvoet Dus IRGC slacht Iraniërs af, maar dit was niet gebeurd als er een Pales.staat was? Kan het nog absurder? Wat hij vooral laat zien is nul empathie voor Iraniërs, nul commentaar over hun leed maar o o zo begaan met het leed van Palestijnen … zijn drijfveer is overduidelijk

[effie @EffieTweet]

@gerrieickhof Ben Gvir is een idioot. Overduidelijk. Maar misschien toch eerst even je huiswerk doen voordat je dit soort onzin de wereld in slingert, als een ex-‘journalist’

[Amit Segal @AmitSegal]

Last night, Internal Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s law mandating the execution of terrorists convicted of murder passed 62–48. Ben-Gvir attempted to propose a toast, but before he could pop the cork on his champagne, the Knesset speaker demanded he stop, and the ushers confiscated the bottle. The stunt was much like the law itself: all style, no substance.

Contrary to much of the rhetoric, Israel has had the death penalty for nearly 70 years. The original law was designed to execute Nazi war criminals but can technically apply to anyone who commits similarly genocidal crimes. Every prosecutor can request the death penalty, and under certain circumstances, judges may grant it. That’s why Ben-Gvir advertised his law as forcing left-wing prosecutors to request the penalty and left-wing judges to grant it for terrorists—particularly the Nukhba forces, who invaded Israel on October 7.

In reality, it does neither. The law explicitly excludes Nukhba terrorists from receiving the death penalty and provides no evidentiary infrastructure or procedural framework to secure convictions. Its wording actually helps judges avoid the penalty, mandating only “death penalty or life imprisonment” for convicted terrorists.

Those hoping this law would change the calculus of hostage deals should think again. Not only does it fail to reduce the number of terrorists in Israeli prisons, it does not abolish the president’s power of pardon—the primary mechanism for releasing terrorists in deals. Even if Ben-Gvir somehow manages to secure a death penalty, the law does nothing to prevent the conviction from being overturned or the terrorist from being handed over.

The law does more than fail in its objectives—it actively backfires. Despite being marketed as targeting Palestinian terrorists (raising its own legal problem of discrimination), it explicitly allows for the death penalty for Jews. The law defines terrorism as acts “to negate the existence of the state,” a definition that could apply to groups such as extremist Haredi factions and violent members of the “Hilltop Youth” (which Ben-Gvir supports).

Its most glaring flaw is that it mandates carrying out a sentence within 90 days—an explicit violation of the Geneva Convention’s mandatory 180-day waiting period. As a signatory, Israel could expose IDF officers to international lawsuits, with no tangible benefit. The IDF warned Ben-Gvir, but he disregarded their advice.

Its blatant illegality gives the Supreme Court clear grounds to strike it down, returning Israel to square one while damaging the country’s international reputation.

Had Ben-Gvir managed to keep his champagne, I would have proposed a toast—to a self-destructive law that makes Israel look terrible, benefiting no one but Ben-Gvir himself. L’chaim.

That said, while Ben-Gvir’s law is essentially a campaign stunt, a more responsible law is making its way through the system. Proposed by MKs Simcha Rothman and Yulia Malinovsky, the law establishes the practical mechanisms—procedural and evidentiary—to secure convictions of Nukhba terrorists, after which the death penalty could be imposed.

The Rothman–Malinovsky law was developed in consultation with all relevant authorities. The Shin Bet, IDF, and National Security Council have expressed similar concerns about Ben-Gvir’s law and consulted on this alternative.

The death penalty is a complex issue. Personally, I support executing terrorists who attempt to murder civilians—especially the monsters of October 7. Currently, these terrorists face one of two outcomes: spend the rest of their lives in prison at Israel’s expense, or eventually be released in a hostage deal and likely return to terrorism. Neither option is good for Israel.

What we can all agree on is that this issue demands a serious, responsible approach—one that prioritizes the security and best interests of the country over personal electoral ambitions.

To read the rest of today's newsletter click here.

https://t.co/DRwI5Ghjwz

[effie @EffieTweet]

@EylonALevy לכל אלו שמהללים פה את הסרטון הזה, ומשמיצים את איילון… זה לא קשור לעמדה שלכם לגבי החוק. אבל לחגוג חוק מוות עם שמפניות זה חולני

[effie @EffieTweet]

@wierdduk Ben Gvir is een idioot die vooral schade aanricht.
Amit Segal geeft hier wat meer context : https://t.co/4ajrBvuR1d

[Amit Segal @AmitSegal]

Last night, Internal Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s law mandating the execution of terrorists convicted of murder passed 62–48. Ben-Gvir attempted to propose a toast, but before he could pop the cork on his champagne, the Knesset speaker demanded he stop, and the ushers confiscated the bottle. The stunt was much like the law itself: all style, no substance.

Contrary to much of the rhetoric, Israel has had the death penalty for nearly 70 years. The original law was designed to execute Nazi war criminals but can technically apply to anyone who commits similarly genocidal crimes. Every prosecutor can request the death penalty, and under certain circumstances, judges may grant it. That’s why Ben-Gvir advertised his law as forcing left-wing prosecutors to request the penalty and left-wing judges to grant it for terrorists—particularly the Nukhba forces, who invaded Israel on October 7.

In reality, it does neither. The law explicitly excludes Nukhba terrorists from receiving the death penalty and provides no evidentiary infrastructure or procedural framework to secure convictions. Its wording actually helps judges avoid the penalty, mandating only “death penalty or life imprisonment” for convicted terrorists.

Those hoping this law would change the calculus of hostage deals should think again. Not only does it fail to reduce the number of terrorists in Israeli prisons, it does not abolish the president’s power of pardon—the primary mechanism for releasing terrorists in deals. Even if Ben-Gvir somehow manages to secure a death penalty, the law does nothing to prevent the conviction from being overturned or the terrorist from being handed over.

The law does more than fail in its objectives—it actively backfires. Despite being marketed as targeting Palestinian terrorists (raising its own legal problem of discrimination), it explicitly allows for the death penalty for Jews. The law defines terrorism as acts “to negate the existence of the state,” a definition that could apply to groups such as extremist Haredi factions and violent members of the “Hilltop Youth” (which Ben-Gvir supports).

Its most glaring flaw is that it mandates carrying out a sentence within 90 days—an explicit violation of the Geneva Convention’s mandatory 180-day waiting period. As a signatory, Israel could expose IDF officers to international lawsuits, with no tangible benefit. The IDF warned Ben-Gvir, but he disregarded their advice.

Its blatant illegality gives the Supreme Court clear grounds to strike it down, returning Israel to square one while damaging the country’s international reputation.

Had Ben-Gvir managed to keep his champagne, I would have proposed a toast—to a self-destructive law that makes Israel look terrible, benefiting no one but Ben-Gvir himself. L’chaim.

That said, while Ben-Gvir’s law is essentially a campaign stunt, a more responsible law is making its way through the system. Proposed by MKs Simcha Rothman and Yulia Malinovsky, the law establishes the practical mechanisms—procedural and evidentiary—to secure convictions of Nukhba terrorists, after which the death penalty could be imposed.

The Rothman–Malinovsky law was developed in consultation with all relevant authorities. The Shin Bet, IDF, and National Security Council have expressed similar concerns about Ben-Gvir’s law and consulted on this alternative.

The death penalty is a complex issue. Personally, I support executing terrorists who attempt to murder civilians—especially the monsters of October 7. Currently, these terrorists face one of two outcomes: spend the rest of their lives in prison at Israel’s expense, or eventually be released in a hostage deal and likely return to terrorism. Neither option is good for Israel.

What we can all agree on is that this issue demands a serious, responsible approach—one that prioritizes the security and best interests of the country over personal electoral ambitions.

To read the rest of today's newsletter click here.

https://t.co/DRwI5Ghjwz

[effie @EffieTweet]

@keesjemadura Deze Trees riep mij op straat ‘vuile jood’ toe, vol haat en zonder enige aanleiding. Voldoende bewijs van antisemitisme? Of valt dit ook onder ‘laakbaar gedrag’ volgens de rechters? @CIDI_nieuws