Daniel Chalkin

[Steve Loftus @LoftusSteve]

Politicians are intentionally deluding themselves into thinking this isn't organic.

Normal people have had years of being told a million immigrants a year is good actually, and if you don't agree you're a nazi. All while being taxed into oblivion, not being able to afford a house and, if they are lucky to work, watching their earnings stagnate.

Then they turn on the news or social media and see Pakistani rape gangs, Sudanese beheading attempts and asylum seekers blowing up concerts with bombs paid for by benefit fraud.

And if they have the temerity to complain, they risk 6 officers showing up at 4am to have a stern word, search thier PC and log a non crime hate crime.

These rioters feel no different to most people, they are just the ones with the least to lose by acting. They certainly aren't being inspired by anyone, in the same way BLM rioters weren't, they are naturally angry.

The social contract is broken and it's getting worse, but those in charge show no interest in fixing it. They don't even want to acknowledge it exists.

[Claire Coutinho @ClaireCoutinho]

South Wales Police has instructed officers to log comments they feel are beyond "legitimate" criticism of Islam.

This is, exactly as I warned, a blasphemy law through the back door.

Nobody voted for this.

My letter to the Chief Constable👇🏾

[Hen Mazzig @HenMazzig]

A visibly Jewish man checks into a hotel in London.

The TV greets him with a customized message of "Free Palestine."

This comes a mere day after a hotel in Bavaria told customers that Jews were not allowed to stay with them.

If it happens again tomorrow do we finally get to call it antisemitism?

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

The facts are clear. Jewish people are disproportionately represented in media, finance, law, academia and the arts relative to their share of the population. That is documented and not disputed. The reason is documented too. Centuries of exclusion from land ownership, guild membership and state employment channelled Jewish communities into the professions that remained open to them. The result is disproportionate representation in certain fields, not control.

Control implies a coordinated agenda. The major UK media organisations are owned as follows. News UK by Rupert Murdoch, not Jewish. DMG Media, which owns the Daily Mail, by Lord Rothermere, not Jewish. Reach Plc, which owns the Mirror titles, by shareholders, not Jewish controlled. The Guardian by the Scott Trust, not Jewish. The Telegraph by the Barclay family, not Jewish. The BBC is a public broadcaster funded by the licence fee. Sky News is owned by Comcast, an American corporation. Not one major British media organisation is Jewish owned or controlled. The conspiracy theory dissolves on contact with the actual ownership structure.

The proprietors, editors, journalists and executives who happen to be Jewish do not share a unified political position, do not operate as a bloc and do not produce uniform output. Jewish media figures hold wildly divergent political views and their work reflects those divergences, not a shared agenda.

The Policy Exchange poll documented the prevalence of the Jewish control conspiracy theory among a specific community in Britain. The purpose of citing it was not to validate it. It was to name it as a public policy problem that the word Islamophobia is deployed to prevent discussing. Your question has illustrated that point rather neatly.

[Dan Salt @Danjsalt]

If Burnham makes it to Downing Street, everyone will say how much better he is at communication and then a few weeks later they will grasp that he's a void who has no analysis about why we are here

Shortly after that Labours polling will start collapsing again as the public really gets angry at their time being wasted and the failing British political system / broader state

The whole early election question is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if they have one or if they win because the fiscal situation is worsening rapidly

At some point that reality is going to impact fully with a PLP which is deeply unserious and is unfit to manage a McDonald's let alone a G7 economy and when it does it will likely collapse the government and maybe finish off the party

It's why I can't even be bothered to discuss the leadership contest - I'm currently away with friends on holiday who are politically engaged and it's not even come up once - zero interest in it

If the politically engaged don't care then I doubt the rest of the country gives a toss about which sub par loser is leading the intellectual black hole which is the modern Labour party

[Kosher @koshercockney]

Wow! Spanish authorities are battering the Gaza flotilla terror supporters.

I can tell you now. We will not see the same international condemnation we saw politicians give Israel

Why? Because no Jews, no news. If they can’t blame the Jews they don’t care

[Rachel Maclean @redditchrache]

I'm not surprised that the author had to use a pseudonym. Teachers who have spoken to me have said they have given up talking to their colleagues about this issue as the ideas are so all pervasive and its become sacriligeous to question them.

Simply asking the question about why there is a significant rise in children with SEND and EHCPs especially based on neurodiversity makes you a target for abuse as I've found out since I've been asking it.

And no, I've still not got a good answer.

I don't care about the abuse, but I do care about a generation of children being failed by the system.

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

Price Controls. 1970s Answers. A Government That Has Run Out of Road.

Rachel Reeves has a proposal. Supermarkets should cap the price of bread, milk and eggs. In return, the government will suspend some of its own regulations. Not permanently. Not because they were wrong. Temporarily, as a transaction, in exchange for retailers absorbing costs the government has imposed on them and cannot now bring itself to remove. This is what the end of the road looks like.

The British Retail Consortium has named the problem plainly. The challenge facing retailers, it said, is a combination of higher energy and commodity costs from the Middle East conflict and the soaring cost of the government's own domestic policies. Both. Not one or the other. The Iran conflict lit the match. This government built the bonfire, as I preficted when Exercise Turnstone first came to light. The war made the damage visible. It did not cause it.

The costs pushing food prices up are documented and domestic. The April 2025 National Insurance hike. The minimum wage, up 40 per cent since 2020. The net zero packaging levy, which charges retailers per tonne of materials. Business rates. Every one of those is a policy choice made in Downing Street and the Treasury. The Food and Drink Federation has said so explicitly. The retail sector has said so repeatedly. And the government's own offer confirms it: in exchange for price caps, Reeves will relax the net zero packaging regulations and delay the obesity crackdown. She is suspending her own policies because she knows they are part of the problem. She will not say so. The structure of the deal says it for her.

A retail analyst, asked to assess the proposal, cited the Soviet Union unprompted. The former chief executive of John Lewis called the SNP version of this policy the economics of a madhouse. Reeves has adopted a version of a policy that her own retail sector compares to Soviet price controls and describes as a return to the failed policies of the 1970s. These are not Conservative attack lines. They are the industry's verdict, in its own words, delivered this week.

The proposal also threatens to compound the damage it claims to address. Price caps incentivise supermarkets to source cheaper food from abroad. British farmers, already driven to the brink by NI hikes and inheritance tax changes that hit family farms directly, will face a further squeeze as retailers seek cheaper foreign alternatives to stay within the cap. The government will have used a food security crisis to accelerate the destruction of domestic food production. The instrument designed to help will make the underlying problem worse.

This is where the Callaghan parallel lands with full force. In 1976, a Labour government that had spent beyond what the bond market would tolerate reached for emergency instruments: price controls, incomes policies, interventions that addressed symptoms while the disease advanced. The IMF arrived. The humiliation followed. What is happening now is slower and more diffuse, but the logic is identical. A government that has foreclosed its own fiscal options, constrained by bond market discipline on one side and a restless parliamentary party on the other, reaching for 1970s instruments because every modern lever has already been compromised by a previous decision.

The bond market is watching. Gilt yields are already close to their highest level in 28 years. Morgan Stanley has told its clients the economy will flatline. Asset managers are advising clients to avoid long-dated gilts. A voluntary cap on the price of milk will not change any of those judgments. It will confirm them. Callaghan's ghost is not a metaphor. It is a destination.

"Reeves has adopted a version of a policy that her own retail sector compares to Soviet price controls and describes as a return to the failed policies of the 1970s."

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

The Hierarchy of Victims. And the Rule That Determines It.

Danny Cohen is a former director of BBC Television. He is Jewish. He is not hostile to Palestinian suffering and says so plainly. When he asks why pro-Gaza activists are silent on the plight of Afghans, Iranians and Sudanese, the question cannot be dismissed as right wing provocation. It is a question from inside the liberal establishment and it demands an answer.

Consider the numbers: over a million Afghans have been forcibly expelled from Pakistan in just over a year. Children as young as thirteen deported to overcrowded camps. Families torn apart. Desperate parents with no idea where their children have been sent. No mass march. No parliamentary obsession. No wall to wall BBC coverage.

In Sudan, up to 400,000 people have been killed through direct violence, starvation or disease. More than 10 million displaced. Nearly 20 million facing acute hunger. Eight hundred and twenty five thousand children under five projected to suffer severe acute malnutrition. Mass sexual violence. Ethnic cleansing. The fall of El Fasher marked by summary executions. No mass march. No union statements. No charity sector fury.

In Iran, 30,000 citizens were massacred by their own government in 48 hours earlier this year. More than 50,000 arrested, facing execution, widespread torture and denial of medical care. No mass march. No parliamentary obsession. No social media outrage from the same accounts that document every casualty in Gaza with forensic intensity.

Three simultaneous catastrophes. Three invisible victim populations. One common variable. Israel cannot be blamed for any of them.

Cohen makes the observation that British Jews already know why. The singular focus on Israel, at the expense of attention to so many other humanitarian tragedies, tells us that something else is going on. The target is not the Israeli government. The red triangle associated with Hamas is paraded freely. The chant is from the river to the sea. The target is Jewish people.

The BBC observation in his piece deserves particular attention. The corporation has made an editorial choice to cover Gaza wall to wall while giving comparatively little time to three simultaneous catastrophes affecting vastly more people. This is not a resource question. Resources follow editorial priorities. The same institution that suppressed gender critical reporting, that was described by its own former director of news as a sea in which we all swam, has decided which suffering is newsworthy and which is not. The hierarchy of victims is not accidental. It reflects the hierarchy of values of the people making the editorial decisions.

Selective outrage is not passion misdirected. It is passion precisely directed. The directing principle is not the scale of suffering. It is not the vulnerability of the victims. It is not the availability of a remedy. It is whether the cause can be used to indict the West and delegitimise Israel. That principle is applied consistently because the people applying it share a common ideological formation. They were educated in the same captured universities, employed by the same captured institutions, and now control the editorial desks, the union structures and the parliamentary priorities of a country that still believes it is being governed in the national interest. The progressive capture of those institutions, documented from the BBC newsroom to the Cabinet, has produced a class that decides which suffering is newsworthy, which victims deserve solidarity and which catastrophes can be safely ignored. The Afghans, the Sudanese and the Iranians failed that test. They always will because their suffering is not useful.

[Moshe Emilio Lavi @MosheELavi]

Much has been written about @NickKristof's latest NYT opinion column over the past 24 hours, most of it focusing on the specific claims and their sourcing, but what I think deserves most attention is something broader: how this kind of journalism, whatever its intentions, ultimately makes accountability harder to achieve rather than easier, and harms the very people it claims to champion.

The principle that Israeli abuses should be investigated and condemned is not in dispute, and nobody serious is arguing otherwise. Israel is not above scrutiny, and in fact it operates under more intense international scrutiny than almost any country on earth, routinely held to standards applied nowhere else.

The problem here is something different entirely: the complete collapse of evidentiary standards the moment Israel is the subject.

This piece reads less like rigorous reporting and more like a catalogue of hearsay, unverifiable allegations, and activist claims stitched together into a sweeping moral indictment. Its sourcing leans heavily on Euro Med Human Rights Monitor, an organisation repeatedly criticised over extremist ties, disinformation, and deeply questionable methodology, yet treated throughout as a credible authority while its leadership openly engages in pro Hamas propaganda on X.

Worse, the same ecosystem of activists and self appointed “experts” that amplifies Euro Med’s claims online increasingly feeds narratives into more established organisations and media outlets, laundering deeply contested allegations into the appearance of institutional credibility.

The most severe claims are anonymous, uncorroborated, and presented in the emotional register of established fact rather than allegation, despite lacking meaningful evidentiary backing. Yet Kristof largely adopts them without serious scrutiny, publishing the piece in the Opinion section because even the already diminished evidentiary standards often applied to reporting on the Israeli Palestinian conflict would likely not suffice for it to pass as straight news reporting.

This approach doesn't strengthen accountability, it actively destroys it. When every allegation is immediately inflated into systematic rape and "standard operating procedure" before any serious verification, genuine investigation becomes harder rather than easier.

Real abuses, if they occurred, get buried beneath maximalist narratives so extreme that large portions of the public simply stop trusting any of it, and the people who actually suffered pay that price.

It also alienates the vast majority of Israelis and Jews worldwide, including the many who are perfectly capable of criticising Israeli policy and supporting investigations into misconduct, but who understandably recoil when accusations begin resembling modernised blood libels dressed up as human rights reporting. The framing matters enormously, and so does proportionality, and so does evidence.

Nor does any of this serve Palestinians. Atrocity inflation entrenches both sides deeper into defensive tribalism, and every dubious claim amplified by a prestigious outlet makes legitimate criticism easier to dismiss when it actually matters.

The timing compounds everything. On a day when documented reporting on Hamas sexual violence was again circulating, the NYT chose to run an opinion column built substantially on unverifiable anonymous testimony asserting that Israelis are conducting systemic rape campaigns, not as a rigorously evidenced investigative report but as an opinion piece with the imprimatur of the paper of record.

Kristof is not a naive bystander in any of this. In 2014 he used the full credibility of the NYT to repeatedly platform Somaly Mam, a Cambodian anti-trafficking activist whose harrowing personal story he championed across multiple columns, until it emerged that her backstory was substantially fabricated and he was forced to issue a public correction. When challenged this time around on his sourcing, corroboration, and methodology, he defaulted to bad faith engagement on social media rather than addressing the underlying concerns seriously.

It is the same pattern, playing out again in a different context. Real journalism requires skepticism, corroboration, and restraint applied consistently regardless of the subject, and when those standards disappear the moment Israel is involved, what remains is not human rights reporting but narrative activism wearing a journalist's costume that does far more harm than good to everyone it claims to serve.

[Iain Mansfield @IGMansfield]

Agree with the contents or not, this is outstanding from the Tories - explicitly setting out a swathe of laws they would repeal, and new laws they would pass, if in power.

A clear determination to avoid Starmer's mistake of arriving in No. 10 without even the glimmer of a plan.

[Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch]

You may not agree with me, but you will always know where you stand with me.

Today in Billericay, a heckler tried to shout me down as I spoke about the normalisation of hatred towards Jews. I did not back down, because it needs to be said. British Jews are being targeted and too many people are pretending this is the same experience of other minorities. This lady implied Muslims are being similarly targeted. This is simply not true.

Let's be honest about what is happening. Certain groups (in particular but not solely Islamic Extremists) are creating a climate of fear and intimidation that is normalising Jew hatred. I will never stand for that. Governments have spent too long hand-wringing, making excuses and hoping it would go away. It is time to call this what it is: a national emergency in our attitude, our urgency and our response.

I will always engage with people who disagree with me. That is politics. But there is a difference between argument and intimidation. Shouting does not make a bad case good. It's done to silence others. And it certainly does not change the truth.

The truth is that British Jews have been made to feel less safe in their own country. Our country. They are being singled out, threatened and harassed in ways that should shame everyone in public life. If we do not stand up now and stop this rise in antisemitism, then why bother saying "Never Again" at Holocaust Memorial Day? Because this is how it starts.

I am not prepared to play along with the pretence that this is normal, or manageable, or just another example of tension between groups. It really is not. It is targeted hatred and it is getting worse.

So my message is simple. Not here. Not in Britain. And not on our watch. We need to stop the hand-wringing and start doing the right thing. That means standing with British Jews openly, unapologetically and without fear.

[Kemi Badenoch @KemiBadenoch]

The Conservative Party is clear: if you want to spread hatred and violence towards Jews, you are not welcome in Britain.

[Jerry Barnett @JerryBarnett]

You said nothing last year when antizionists killed a Jewish couple in Washington DC, a Jewish woman in Colorado, two Jewish men at Heaton Park synagogue or 15 Jewish people on a beach in Sydney. But you're apoplectic that somebody aimed a Nazi salute at Zack Polanski. How exactly does your moral system work?

[Aɴᴛ @AntSpeaks]

Owen Jones (I'd tag him but of course I'm blocked) is crying about a cartoon featuring a caricature of Green Party leader Zack Polanski, claiming that it's antisemitic.

Now, Jones is not one to be a hypocrite, right?

Well... On the right is an image of a Spanish edition of one of his books, released several years ago.

Here's what critics had to say about the Spanish edition of the book's cover art at the time:

"Cited by critics as examples of grotesque caricatures that some interpret as drawing on antisemitic or conspiratorial tropes about powerful elites (e.g., exaggerated features, greed symbols, or 'puppet-master' imagery common in historical propaganda)."

Jones, of course, responded to those criticisms and said that he saw the cover after publication and viewed it as a caricature of the elite system, and not of individuals in an antisemitic way.

Unfortunately for Jones, his vacuous dismissal of those criticisms doesn't save face, because the illustrator of that image was Rata Langa.

Rata Langa has long been accused of incorporating antisemitic elements into some of their work, including tropes or imagery that echo historical antisemitic caricatures.

Jones is often described as being an antisemite himself, despite his performative reporting in which he claims he's not. Is it seriously purely a coincidence that the illustrator for the Spanish edition of his book just so happens to be strongly linked to creating antisemitic imagery?

[Casey Babb @DrCaseyBabb]

I can't stop thinking about this clip with @jonsac and @MarinaPurkiss. I actually found it quite difficult to watch, not just because it's so wildly offensive and inappropriate, but because it perfectly illustrates something that Jews have been dealing with for thousands of years. Let me explain.

Throughout history, Jews have repeatedly been told two things simultaneously. First, "This is why you're hated. You do understand this, don't you? Tell us you understand and accept it." Second, and perhaps more painful, is "For us to accept you, you're going to have to prove you're a good Jew. One of the ones we like. In order to do that, you'll have to abandon a part of your identity that we'll choose for you. Nod if you understand us."

You're a communist? Don't be communist. You're a capitalist? Don't be a capitalist. You sound and dress funny. Don't do that. Be like us. Oh, you think you're one of us? You aren't one of us – don't be silly. You should be out in the open, like we are – just make sure we don’t see you. Don’t hide, though. Don’t be secretive and tribal. You people should go back where you came from. Now that you’re back where you came from, please renounce your home. It. Never. Ends.

Don't do this to us any longer. Wake up, educate yourself, open your eyes, and for God's sake, cut this out. It's disgraceful.

[Melanie Phillips @MelanieLatest]

The really terrible thing is that the lies told about Israel day in, day out have poisoned British discourse so badly that people don't want to hear about the Holocaust or Jewish suffering ever again. Monstrously, they believe Jews use these "claims" to conceal their crimes. This is a social emergency not just for Jews but for Britain itself.

[Simone Rodan-Benzaquen @srodan]

Sir Tony Brenton, former British ambassador to Russia, has written to offer the UK Jewish community some unsolicited advice: if you want antisemitic violence to stop, try being more appalled by Israel.
The argument is a masterclass in a very old move, executed with the confidence that only a certain kind of establishment figure can muster. First, you reframe the data. The surge in antisemitism after October 7 wasn’t really antisemitism, Sir Tony explains — it was “widespread popular rage” at Israeli “overreaction.” The quotation marks around “antisemitism” do important work here. They perform skepticism without having to argue for it. Then comes the throat-clearing: “This of course does not excuse the anti-Jewish outrages that have taken place since.” And then the payload: the UK Jewish community “could help to damp down the likelihood of such outrages” by making clear it is “as appalled by the brutality of Israeli policy as almost everyone else is.”
Read that again slowly. A former ambassador is telling a minority community that the best way to reduce violence against them is to publicly condemn the right people, to the right degree, to satisfy the sensibilities of - whom exactly? Almost everyone else. The unnamed, self-evident majority whose rage, we have already been told, is not really antisemitism at all.
This is a purity test. The intellectual structure would be immediately recognizable - and scandalous - if applied to any other minority. It would not be published. The premise, that a community bears responsibility for managing hatred directed at it by performing the correct ideological dissociation, would be identified instantly as victim-blaming of the most craven kind. With Jews, apparently, the formula remains available.
There is also the matter of the evidence. Sir Tony claims the post-October 7 surge was “not, or mostly not, antisemitism at all” - just political anger at Israeli policy. Yet the Community Security Trust, recorded the first antisemitic incident at 12:55pm on October 7 itself, hours after the massacre began. 31 incidents were recorded that day. The daily total peaked on October 11 at 80 , the highest number ever recorded on a single day in British history. Israel’s ground operation began on October 27. The worst day of antisemitism in modern Britain occurred sixteen days before Israel set foot in Gaza.
The perpetrators did not wait to assess the proportionality of the Israeli response. They started within hours of the massacre. Sir Tony’s framework simply cannot accommodate this fact, which is why it goes unmentioned.
What his letter actually proposes is that antisemitism be treated as a problem Jews can manage through correct political performance. Pass the test, demonstrate sufficient distance from Israel, sufficient appallment ; and maybe, just maybe- the violence will subside. This is the oldest libel in European history, updated with footnotes and published in a newspaper in the same week two Jewish men were stabbed in broad daylight in Golders Green.
Former British ambassador to Russia. The irony writes itself.

[Yael Bar tur @yaelbt]

Wow wow wow. Take a minute to watch these incredibly powerful remarks from a Rabbi in London.

I’ll add - if you’ve never had to send a loved one an “are you ok?” text after yet another attack, kindly stfu.

[Haviv Rettig Gur @havivrettiggur]

The problem with answering, Owen, is that it's long.

Because you aren't a little wrong, but spectacularly wrong in kind of evil ways.

But you told me not to evade. So let's do it.

1. “No protests in British history have been bigger than opposition to the American and British slaughter of Arabs in Iraq, so what now?”

Let's let the twitterati judge.

February 15, 2003, London. Police estimate of 750,000 participants in anti-Iraq War protest. Organizers claim as many as 2 million.

The biggest one-off protest ever held in London.

But here's what I said: "The slaughter of Arabs has never triggered anything remotely similar in scale and regularity and consistency in the history of British marches."

Because there were literally *millions* who marched over Gaza, cumulatively, week in and week out, across the entirety of the UK. And many millions more throughout the West. It was everywhere. ACLED recorded 48,000–51,000 protests from October 2023 through 2025 over Gaza, across 130 countries.

A third of the city of Amsterdam marched. Hundreds of thousands in Toronto and New York. A million in Pakistan, a million in Algiers, hundreds of thousands in Rabat and Jakarta. Countries that have no connection whatsoever to Israel, aren’t allies of Israel and don’t arm Israel saw the identical phenomenon.

And still your best analysis is “you’re a WESTERN ALLY?” Just as an analyst, you really think that encompasses the phenomenon?

And even that’s not the truly remarkable part. The remarkable part was the repetitiveness itself, the regularity, the duration and stamina of weekly protests for months and then years. There’s never been anything like it, not for any war, not in the history of Britain. Not even close.

That’s a simple fact. Denying that fact is therefore a bad strategy on your part. A better strategy would be to try to explain it.

Maybe it’s not nefarious antisemitism – or at least not *just* an obsession with Jews embedded deep in progressive and Muslim-world politics and identity. Maybe it’s because people could see the victims on their TikTok feeds, something they’d never seen at that scale from any previous war.

Maybe. I suppose we’ll know in the next war if this is a profound shift in consciousness inaugurated by changes in how we consume information – which would be a beautiful discovery, because it would mean it isn't a surge in antisemitism, and it would also mean that it will be harder to fight wars in future, because everyone everywhere will see the pain of war up close. That would be a beautiful and redemptive outcome, a huge silver lining flowing from the catastrophic tragedy of Gaza.

Or maybe none of that will happen, the only images that will ever flood anyone's feed will be of Jewish criminality, and it really is in the end just a new version of the old civilization-organizing bigotry it was of old, once again, like it always does, masquerading as righteousness.

2. “No British columnist has written more about the Saudi war on Yemen.”

Holy shit, Owen, it isn’t about you. What a strange and irrelevant claim.

Coverage and exposure for Gaza was and remains orders of magnitude – multiple orders of magnitude – larger than it ever was for Yemen or Sudan or Syria or all other conflicts underway everywhere put together in the last three years. It’s vastly greater than Yemen ever got in the darkest moments of that conflict. Even when tens of thousands of children were dying of hunger.

Not three-fold or five-fold, not even 100-fold. We're talking 1000-fold and more.

3. “There has not been a Western facilitated war on the very right of Yemenis to exist as a people going back GENERATIONS”

You think you're helping the cause of Gaza here, but you're just minimizing the evils of the Yemen war.

There has not, in fact, ever been a Yemeni campaign to erase Saudi Arabia. You notice?

Nor a pan-Arab and Iranian campaign that launched multiple annihilationist wars and built vast and sophisticated terrorist movements to destroy the entire Saudi people – which might have led the Saudis to take seriously a Houthi commitment to annihilate them.

I voted repeatedly for a Palestinian state. My own politics didn’t destroy those attempts. It was the annihilationists on the other side that did that.

Up till now you’re just hedging and wriggling and telling half-truths. Here you get kinda evil. And ironically, over the very thing you think gives you moral weight: Yemen’s suffering.

4. “the thousands slaughtered by Saudi bombs over many years in a Yemeni civil war with multiple armed actors is a) a hideous crime b) not even approaching the number of Palestinians slaughtered either in absolute or proportionate numbers, and certainly not in the time scale of Gaza. About 9,000 Yemeni civilians were killed Saudi air strikes in the space of 7 years."

Jesus Christ, Owen. The famine. The fucking man-made famine, Owen.

Once again, it isn’t about you. You know there are 377,000 dead from that war and you cherry-pick the sliver of statistics that will downplay that into nothingness just to win an argument on twitter.

Tell me again how much you cared about Yemen.

Just the deaths from military action were over 150,000. And the blockade wasn’t carried out with Western military hardware? It was, dear Owen.

“Do you agree that’s a terrible crime?”

Yes, you man-child. One of the greatest ever committed.

“(Let’s see if you even do or if you supported the Saudi war - spit it out!)”

I’m a big fan of bombing the shit of out the totalitarian, slavery-legalizing Houthis. But the famine, holy shit, man. The famine should have shaken the foundations of the world. It never did.

Because Jews weren’t involved.

Ball's in your court, buddy.