Hola, soy palestino. 🇵🇸
Y como la honestidad es poco común en mi política, permítanme confesar algunas cosas.
1947. La ONU me ofreció un estado. Junto a Israel. Fronteras, independencia, reconocimiento. Dije que no. Mis líderes prometieron que la guerra "arrojaría a los judíos al mar". En cambio, lo perdí todo y lo llamaron catástrofe. No porque no me ofrecieran un estado, sino porque lo rechacé.
1948–2025. Los estados árabes podrían haberme integrado, dado derechos, pasaportes, dignidad. En cambio, me encerraron en campos de refugiados durante generaciones, para que siguiera siendo un arma contra Israel. Construyeron palacios para ellos y cárceles para mí. Me usaron como propaganda, no como personas.
1967. Tras otra guerra perdida, podría haber construido un estado en Cisjordania y Gaza. En cambio, insistí en "ni paz, ni reconocimiento, ni negociaciones". Tres noes. Cincuenta años después, sigo sin Estado. Resulta que el rechazo no paga el alquiler.
Oslo, década de 1990. Israel dijo: «Intentémoslo». Me dio autonomía. Armas para la policía. Miles de millones en ayuda. ¿Qué hicieron mis líderes? Robaron el dinero, armaron milicias y lanzaron una intifada. Atentados suicidas en lugar de escuelas. Cohetes en lugar de fábricas.
Gaza, 2005. Israel se fue por completo. Sin colonos, sin soldados. Tuve la oportunidad de convertir Gaza en un Singapur mediterráneo. Voté por Hamás. La convirtieron en Mogadiscio junto al mar. ¿Miles de millones en ayuda? Túneles, cohetes y palacios para sus líderes, mientras mi gente come comida enlatada en la oscuridad.
¿Democracia? No he tenido elecciones en casi 20 años. Hamás mata a los disidentes en Gaza. Fatah los encarcela en Cisjordania. Mis líderes cancelan elecciones porque están demasiado ocupados luchando por el poder.
Religión. En lugar de construir un futuro, pongo a clérigos en televisión enseñando a los niños a odiar a los judíos. Glorifico a los "mártires" que hacen estallar autobuses. Crío a mis hijos con canciones de sangre y fuego en lugar de libros y ciencia. Cambio la esperanza por la guerra santa.
Mundo árabe. Los regímenes árabes me llaman "hermano". Pero pregúntenles cuántos palestinos pueden vivir libremente en Líbano, Siria, Egipto o Kuwait. Me excluyen, pero celebran mi muerte, porque mi muerte es su excusa.
Absurdo. Sigo diciendo que quiero "construir un estado". E irónicamente, justo al lado está Israel: el vecino que construyó una democracia próspera, una potencia tecnológica, granjas en el desierto, ciudades de polvo. Sin petróleo, sin riqueza infinita, solo coraje. Podría haber aprendido, copiado, colaborado. En cambio, elegí la envidia y la rabia.
Obsesión antijudía. Podría haber aceptado a los judíos como vecinos. Podría haber dicho: "Dos naciones, dos estados". En cambio, repito: "Del río al mar". En lugar de exhibir el honor, la hospitalidad y la rica cultura árabe, mostré solo la cultura de la espada: la ira, el extremismo y la sangre. En lugar de gritar salaam (paz) a los israelíes, grité muerte a los judíos. Y luego finjo sorprenderme cuando los israelíes no confían en mí, cuando están enojados, decepcionados y convencidos de que no quiero coexistencia en absoluto.
Responsabilidad. Culpo a Israel de todo. Siempre. ¿Mis líderes roban miles de millones? Culpa de Israel. ¿Hamás dispara cohetes desde hospitales? Culpa de Israel. ¿Glorifico la muerte más que la vida? Culpa de Israel. La responsabilidad no es mi fuerte.
Soy palestino.
Podría haber construido una nación, muchas veces. Elegí el rechazo, la corrupción y la guerra sin fin. Podría haber vivido en paz con Israel, pero elegí vivir a la sombra de su destrucción.
Así que sí, soy una víctima. Pero con demasiada frecuencia, soy víctima de mis propios líderes, de mis propias decisiones y de mi propia negativa a abandonar el odio.
Y esa, querido lector, es la tragedia que nadie quiere admitir.
Hey @grok, is it true that more Palestinian women in the West Bank have been killed by other Palestinians in "honor killings" than by Israeli security forces?
Start with yes or no.
My prediction is this.. Dave has been a useful idiot. A Gay, Jewish useful idiot. He will lose the Holborn election and be thrown out as leader to resume his talents growing women’s boobs. Mothin Ali will take control. The Greens will become the Islamic Party of Great Britain 🇬🇧 - they will gradually throw out every non Muslim and every LBGTQ useful idiot who has supported them thus far. This is full blown sectarianism. It is BEYOND dangerous and we have allowed it to happen !!
new research reports that cats vocalize more when greeting male owners. researchers say this is because cats have apparently learned that men require additional explanation when provided with basic communication.
i don't like the idea that cats are judging me this accurately.
Every glib, arrogant, virtue-signalling celebrity who’s broadcast the lie that kids will kill themselves if not allowed to transition deserves to have this read aloud to them non-stop through a megaphone for a year.
Man preaching from the Bible is accused of "homophobic and racist" remarks by two officers. They admit they don't know what he said. A third appears and says they are gathering evidence to determine if a hate crime or public order crime has been committed and that it doesn't matter if the words are from the bible.
She says intentions mean nothing and it's how the person listening feels.
This is insanity.
Bill Maher: “A little strip of land that was not part of the original Israel, but which they won in a war launched against them, but then gave back, as a peace gesture. Did they tell you that part on TikTok, kids? And the people who run Gaza, Hamas, who you celebrate as a liberation movement, but are really a terrorist mafia gang… only ever used it to stage attacks on Israel. I think McLemore spoke for all clueless celebrities when he said, ‘I know enough to know this is a genocide.’ Actually, you don't know sh*t. It's not.”
“It's not a genocide. It's a counterattack in a war. A war that's been waged on Israel since 1948, based on the ridiculous premise that Jews don't belong in the one place on Earth they are indigenous, and indisputably their ancestral homeland. Hey, geniuses, they're the Indians in this scenario.”
I see that Stella Creasy is accusing me of leading a pitchfork mob against her, because I opined that she is less likeable and more hypocritical than the wild parakeet she mistook for an escaped pet.
For those who don’t know, Creasy is an elected politician and self-proclaimed ‘old-fashioned feminist’ who is ‘still fighting the patriarchy’. She’s more than once publicly defined herself against me (and my reaction was not to accuse her of leading a mob, even though I was probably averaging a dozen death threats a day at the point when the article below appeared.)
I thought it might be instructive for those of us who don’t share Creasy’s brand of ‘feminism’ to examine her campaigning record, so we can learn to do better.
Creasy wants women admitted to the male-only, exclusive, London-based private members Garrick Club, a change that would benefit rather privileged women like Creasy. Creasy is a mother who wants better accommodations for working mothers, a change that would benefit Creasy. Creasy takes selfies at a men-only Muslim march because that reminds everyone how non-racist she is, which benefits Creasy. Creasy asserts that ‘trans women are women’, which keeps her in good odour with her party’s most aggressive activists, and benefits Creasy.
However, keeping cross-dressing heterosexual men out of nurses’ changing rooms doesn’t benefit Creasy, because Creasy has never had to mop up other people’s piss, blood and vomit at work. Challenging the notion that a male basketball player becomes a girl if he says he is doesn’t benefit Creasy, who has no sporting ambitions. Speaking up against the patriarchy as practised by non-white men doesn’t benefit Creasy, who wants those selfie-opportunities. Criticising an ideological movement that persecutes, harasses and openly threatens women who don’t believe some women have penises wouldn't benefit Creasy, because she's already fully-signed up to self-id, where any man who says he's a woman must be taken at his word.
As the late Gloria Steinem said: ‘“Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere.’
Creasy the patriarchy-challenger is provably more than happy to cosy up to men and misogynist movements when it suits her public profile and career advancement, no matter the harms those men might be causing less privileged women. By Steinem’s definition, what Stella espouses is not feminism, but Creasyism, and I suggest the emblem for this brave new rights movement should be an indignant parakeet with severely ruffled feathers.
https://t.co/8lvktG2vI6
Bethany Hutchison – one of seven nurses who successfully challenged their employer over its policy to allow biological males to share a changing room with female nurses, and who is now president of the Darlington Nursing Union – agrees that more legal action might be the only way forward. “It is profoundly disappointing to see NHS trusts still refusing to comply with the Supreme Court ruling,” she says.
“As nurses, this isn’t an abstract legal debate. It’s about the basic right to work in an environment on the front lines of the NHS that respects women’s basic safety and dignity, and the law.
“We haven’t fought this three-year legal battle for fun, and will not stop until NHS trusts comply with the law. Women affected deserve more than statements – they deserve accountability. The longer trusts delay compliance, the more serious the consequences will become.”
Thank you @JournalistJill . See the full article https://t.co/dHT3wZeiEj
Girl Guides and the Single Sex Question: What Child Development and Safeguarding Tell Us
(longish post)
Girl Guides exists as a single sex organisation for a reason grounded not in prejudice but in developmental science. The research on adolescent girls consistently shows that dedicated single sex environments support confidence, risk taking, and identity formation in ways that mixed environments do not, particularly during the years when girls are navigating the social pressures of puberty and early adolescence. Removing the single sex character of those spaces does not leave them neutral. It changes them in ways that the developmental evidence suggests are meaningful.
The safeguarding concern is straightforward and does not require any claim about the intentions of individual children. Safeguarding frameworks are designed to manage risk at a population level, not to make judgements about individuals. Single sex overnight environments, changing facilities, and residential trips carry specific safeguarding protocols that depend on the single sex character of the group. When a child who is biologically male is included in those environments on the basis of a self reported gender identity, those protocols are compromised in ways that any competent safeguarding review would flag. The 2025 UK Supreme Court ruling, which confirmed that woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to biological sex, reinforces the legal basis for maintaining those boundaries.
The developmental harm to girls at this stage of their lives is not incidental. It goes to the heart of what single sex provision is for. Adolescence is the period in which girls are forming their understanding of themselves as female, navigating the physical changes of puberty, developing the capacity for intimacy and trust with peers of the same sex, and beginning to construct the adult identity that Erikson describes as the central developmental task of this life stage. The research on single sex environments consistently finds that girls in those settings show greater willingness to take intellectual and social risks, report higher levels of comfort with their own developing bodies, and demonstrate stronger peer relationships built on the specific solidarity of shared female experience. Those benefits depend on the space actually being what it presents itself as being.
When a biologically male child is present in that space, the girls in it are placed in a position that the developmental literature does not support and that safeguarding guidance does not anticipate. They are asked to manage the presence of a biological male in changing rooms, on overnight trips, and in the intimate social environment of a group that exists precisely to give them respite from mixed sex social pressure. They are asked to do this at the developmental moment when bodily privacy, peer trust, and the consolidation of a female identity are most significant. And they are asked to do it without their consent having been sought, and frequently without their parents having been informed. The schema formation argument drawn from Bem's work is relevant here: girls at this stage are actively constructing their understanding of what it means to be female, and an environment that systematically blurs the boundary between female and male does not loosen those schemas in a liberating way. It introduces confusion into a developmental process that requires clarity and safety to proceed well.
There is also a relational dimension that deserves attention. Bowlby and Fonagy establish that the capacity for secure peer attachment depends on environments that are predictable, boundaried, and safe. An environment in which the boundaries of membership are uncertain, in which girls may not know whether a peer is biologically male or female, and in which raising a concern is socially costly, is not an environment that supports secure attachment or genuine peer intimacy. The harm is not dramatic or visible. It is the quieter harm of a developmental environment that has been subtly but significantly altered at a moment when its character matters most.
The developmental concern for the boys themselves is less often discussed and deserves equal attention. Erikson and Marcia show that identity formation is a developmental achievement of adolescence requiring a genuine period of exploration and moratorium. A boy who is socially affirmed in a cross sex identity from an early age, placed in environments that reinforce that identity, and supported by institutional structures that treat the identity as settled, is a child whose developmental moratorium has been foreclosed before it properly began. The desistance literature, reporting resolution rates of sixty to ninety percent in pre-affirmation era cohorts depending on cohort and methodology, suggests that the majority of children expressing cross sex identification would, given time and space, arrive at a different understanding of themselves. Institutional social affirmation in single sex spaces of the other sex is not a neutral accommodation. It is an active intervention in a developmental process that the evidence suggests should not be foreclosed.
There is also the Winnicottian dimension, and it deserves more than a passing reference. Winnicott's account of the False Self describes a developmental pattern in which a child, faced with an environment that makes belonging conditional on performing a particular identity, learns to present that identity fluently and consistently. The performance does not feel like performance. It feels entirely authentic, because the child has no access to the True Self that the compliance dynamic has suppressed. The False Self is not a mask the child knowingly wears. It is a structure the child has built in order to survive an environment that could not tolerate what lay beneath.
The boy who joins Girl Guides as a girl is in precisely that environment. His belonging is conditional. It depends on the sustained presentation of a "female identity", affirmed by the institution, reinforced by every interaction within it, and socially costly to question or relinquish. The longer that environment persists, and the more significant the attachments formed within it, the more firmly the False Self structure is consolidated. The child is not being helped to discover who he is. He is being helped to become more fluent in a presentation that the institution requires.
What makes this particularly serious from a developmental perspective is that the harm is invisible from the outside and unfelt from the inside, at least while the compliance dynamic holds. The boy will report that he is comfortable, that he belongs, that the identity is real. That is exactly what Winnicott's model predicts. The False Self is a successful adaptation. It works. The cost is paid later, when the True Self, having been suppressed through the years in which identity formation should have been occurring, eventually reasserts itself, often in the form of the acute distress that characterises detransition accounts. Those accounts, which describe not simply a change of mind but a profound sense of having been absent from one's own development, map with considerable precision onto the clinical picture Winnicott describes.
None of this requires hostility toward any individual child. The appropriate response to a boy experiencing gender related distress is compassionate, thorough clinical assessment, careful attention to the possibility of underlying anxiety, attachment difficulties, or social factors, and the kind of watchful, patient support that allows development to proceed at its own pace.
Placing that child in a single sex environment organised around an affirmed female identity does not provide that support. It provides the conditions in which a False Self consolidates, development forecloses, and the reckoning is deferred to a point when it will be considerably harder to bear.
NEW: Brazilian politician Fabiana Bolsonaro performs blackface to show trans people that putting dark foundation on her face doesn't make her black, just like changing your body doesn't make you a different gender.
The incident was reportedly a protest against the appointment of federal lawmaker Erika Hilton, a trans woman.
"I am painted black on the outside. I identify as black. So why can't I preside over the anti-racism commission? Why can't I take care of this agenda? Because I am not black."
Labour doesn’t seem to realise that offering failed asylum seekers £40,000 to leave creates a £40,000 incentive to come to Britain to be a failed asylum seeker
BREAKING: Live look at western university campuses after they learned that over 12,000 unarmed Iranian civilians have been massacred by the Islamic Republic.
Spent a week in London & Paris — two great cities — for meetings on the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran & Israel.
My takeaway: if the British & French don’t replace their feckless leaders with those who will confront Islamism decisively, both nations will be gone in a decade.
People seam to have no idea how hard it was for me to walk away from this inquiry.
I have fought for this my whole adult life.
I had my children removed from me for 54 weeks by Bradford council 2 years ago to stop me fighting for this and try to silence me. I stood my ground and they returned them but the trauma from that will never leave me and my family.
I have put my heart and soul into fighting for this. Been on every single news chanel and news paper since 2019 calling out the grooming gang scandal amd cover up.
I spend every day trying to help other survivors off my own back just to try and make a difference.
Realising this inquiry still wasnt going to give us the truth and was set up to fail from the get go was heart breaking.
16 years of my life this scandal has stole from me. I thought this inquiry finally would be the the moment that we all got proper justice and answers and could finally move on with our life's.
Instead, left to run in the direction it was, it would of just been another white wash and another failing to add to the long list of failings.
16 years ive held strong in this fight against every system that tried to stop me and ive stayed hopeful. Sunday night that hope was finally killed in me.
So no this wasnt politically motivated. Or what ever else im being accused of. This was a devastating and extremely difficult decision that I would of never of made unless I absolutely had to.
I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this, so I want to make a couple of points.
I'm not owed eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created. The idea is as ludicrous as me checking with the boss I had when I was twenty-one for what opinions I should hold these days.
Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them.
However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created.
When you've known people since they were ten years old it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently, I hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gently coaxed through their dialogue in a big scary film studio. For the past few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the Witch Trials of JK Rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said.
The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's 'all witches' speech, and in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a postscript that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me, which contained the single sentence 'I'm so sorry for what you're going through' (she has my phone number). This was back when the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness.
Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is. She'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her 'public bathroom' is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who's identified into the women's prison?
I wasn't a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women's rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges.
The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me - a change of tack I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was - I might never have been this honest.
Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother. Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.