Dublin Salon

Everything begins with debate

[Pete North @FUDdaily]

It bores me (as much as it bores you) to have to write about the Israeli conflict, but I am sick to death of the "Free Palestine" death cult. The reason you can tell Palestine supporters are antisemitic, is because they can muster obscure details about what happened in the region in 1916, 1949 and 1967, but couldn't tell you the first thing about any other regional war or post-imperial injustice - of which there are many. They are simply opposed to Jews having a homeland.

What you also notice is that they tend to be far leftists who don't even believe in borders and dispute anybody's right to a homeland (unless they fit the preferred victim criteria). It enrages them that Arabs were driven out (after the war they started), but don't care if Brits are made a minority in Britain. They are as much anti-civilisation and anti-West as they are anti-Israel.

I'm not interested in protracted debates about how Israel came about. Most of it was decided and pretty much settled before I was even born. What exists now is a functioning first world democratic state. The troubles there now are the same ones that have been bubbling throughout my lifetime, over what should be done about the Arab enclaves.

There are been several opportunities to formalise a state, but each time the hand of compromise has been slapped away by Palestinians, preferring instead to wage a pointless genocidal war of terror on the Jews. Consequently, I have no sympathy for their plight. Gaza could have thrived as a city sate - but they chose death instead.

I sometimes think people don't really know what war is. It's that thing when you set out to destroy your enemies. There are several ways of prosecuting a war, but it's usually inadvisable to start one unless you can win it.

On that basis, you might think Hamas was pretty dumb to provoke one of the most effective armies in the world, but Hamas aren't stupid. They understand that propaganda is also a weapon of war, by which you can leverage the gullibility and idiocy of people against your enemy.

This is quite a costly strategy in that provoking Israel to such an extent was always going to result in a sustained and uncompromising reply. Hamas, of course, knew this but they simply didn't care. They were prepared to sacrifice tens of thousands of their own people, playing the long game, in the somewhat plausible belief that they could turn international opinion against Israel.

That has worked a number of times in several wars, and its part of the reason the West could not sustain wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is different though, because for Israel, it is not a war of choice. It is a fight or die equation where the opinions of others don't come into it.

For a time, though, Israel had reason for concern. International public opinion was turning sour - which is still dangerous for them. But I think that's probably over now because we can see Palestine supporters for who and what they are. Every single one of them has outed themselves as a first order moronic bigot who latches on to every other moronic cause.

We also see, in Britain particularly, supporters of this cause are also people who would do to us what Hamas did to Jews on 7/10 if they could - and have a track record of trying. It's the same people who've been grooming and raping teenage girls across England.

While pro-Palestine demonstrations have been large - often comprised of foreigners and subversives, they are still a minority. Most are just gullible students who will grow out of it eventually when they learn how the real world works. The vast majority of people in the UK don't care all that much. I certainly don't.

What Gazans are living through is exactly what they asked for, and far less than they deserve - especially after cheering on the psychopaths who paraded the corpses of the women they raped. One can only admire Israel's restraint. In the end, the war is one of civilisation versus Stone Age barbarism.

[John Spencer @SpencerGuard]

Bullsh*t to your bullsh*t.

1) Israel and IDF have throughout the war given estimates of combatants killed such as of over 24,000 combatants killed in Gaza (https://t.co/4sMfaTIDTQ), Prime Minister of Israel over 16,000 in May 2024, even the U.S. President “greater than 25,000” (October 2025) 2) Hamas won’t even say many civilians they’ve killed (their rockets, their killing of opposition or innocent civilian in Gaza trying to get to food) which is a part of the 73,000 you repeat and then say Israel has killed “enormous”/too many civilians. 3) Hamas won’t even say how many of their fighters have died which is a part of the 73,000 you repeat and then say Israel has killed “enormous”/too many civilians. Killing the enemy’s fighters in a war is not unlawful or immoral, it is one of the goals. 4) There is no legal requirement for Israel to say how many civilians or combatants have died in Gaza. It is a legal requirement for Israel to not target civilians (there is no evidence of Israel targeting civilians), not conduct indiscriminate attacks (no evidence of Israel conducting indiscriminate attacks), conduct proportionality assessments when targeting combatants (assess military value against incidental harm to civilians and take measure to minimize civilian harm – lots of evidence of Israel doing these assessments and taking historical civilian harm mitigation measures).

As I have told you before, 1) based on the history of urban warfare and comparative analysis 2) based on the HAMAS list of killed in Gaza (even with errors, natural deaths, etc) compared to the IDF/Israel statements on combatants killed throughout the war. - Israel still has a historically low civilian to combatant death ratio in urban warfare compared to any like battle or war. See the detailed analysis you refuse to acknowledge - https://t.co/bnINs3ETSI
3) It is basic math that you can do. One number minus the other.
4) You use numbers without verification or context to vilify Israel’s government and military while saying the same numbers can’t be used to state the obvious, which is the opposite of the demonizing of the IDF that you want it to be.

Your continued use of 70% rubble is also bulls*it. You are quoting Haaretz. Congrats. But like Hamas supporters you take a report and then increase it beyond even the source because you don’t know what you are talking about. Haaretz in July 2025 reported 160,000 buildings, roughly 70% of structures in Gaza had severe damage – not rubble. UNOSAT has other figures of destroyed, severe, moderate, possible. But don’t let those details get in your way of amplifying generalizations, demonization efforts as usual. Of course, there is a lot of rubble in Gaza because of the urban battles and war that has occurred after October 7th. I’ve seen it with my own eyes on 7 trips into Gaza. You have probably been invited by @jconricus at least 7 times to see it yourself but won't go. You just want to keep up with your bulls*it

[Natasha Hausdorff @HausdorffMedia]

In light of the grotesque misrepresentations about me, and misquotes arising from an in-conversation in Melbourne the other week, I am taking the opportunity to publish the audio recording of my response in full.

A self-described journalist (lying toad) in Australia purported to claim on the basis of this response that I supposedly acknowledged I couldn’t explain the legal nuances why settlements are not illegal and why Judea ought not to be ethnically cleansed of its Jews. What a joke. When they lose the argument, this is what they resort to.

Thank you again to Melbourne for such a wonderful, warm Australian welcome.

[Dublin Salon @DublinSalon]

@RachelMoiselle The point about fragility is well-expressed. There is a thin-skinned, brittle conformity in Irish culture that profoundly fears independence of thought, and wants to punish it. The mass mob idiocy of contemporary antisemitism is a perfect fit for us, sadly.

[Andrew Fox @Mr_Andrew_Fox]

The two-state solution is dead. Banging on about it helps nobody. Sanctioning Israel doesn’t help a single Palestinian. Britain needs a policy with a chance of working. We need to de-recognise “Palestine” and start over from first principles.

1. Accountability for Palestinian hate preaching, antisemitic education, and pay-for-slay. Not a penny in aid or a step forward without that.

2. Back Palestinian emirates: local leaders with residents’ consent, willing to recognise Israel. No imposed puppets.

3. Fund jobs and schools that teach coexistence. Bring willing Arab partners in to share the bill.

4. Insist on genuine Palestinian self-government and reliable movement. Israel must ease restrictions on those areas as security improves.

5. Build community by community. Give Palestinians something worth protecting from militants who would wreck it.

6. Help Israel and Jordan cut Iran-linked arms routes. Protect Palestinians prepared to cooperate. Stop letting their would-be murderers dictate everyone else’s future.

Forget about a two-state solution. Israel is not going to commit national suicide just because Ed Miliband wants them to. Time for something else instead that might actually work.

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?

Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?

That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?

That men don’t belong in women’s sport?

That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?

That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?

That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?

That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?

That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?

That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?

That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?

That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?

That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?

Let me have your thoughts.

[Dublin Salon @DublinSalon]

@JakeWSimons @DouglasKMurray @kinsellawarren These are great reading recommendations - thanks for posting this video!

[Dan 🇮🇪 ✡️ @danielthemate]

This comment on r/Ireland should be injected straight into the brain of our political and media class.

It's obviously written by someone irish and non Jewish, who is getting an outside perspective into the how people are getting radicalised here!

[Dublin Salon @DublinSalon]

@RachelMoiselle The bourgeois D4/D6 boomers are the worst bigots you will encounter. Puffed up on their own righteousness, ignorant beyond belief and absolutely obsessed with Israel.

[Dublin Salon @DublinSalon]

Very tight analysis of the abuse of jurisprudence (and truth) necessary to lend credence to the genocide blood libel.

[𝔼𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕥 𝕄𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕟 @ElliotMalin]

Hi @DovWaxman, I'm extremely thankful that you took the time to respond to this because when you first made the accusation I tried to engage in a good faith conversation with you and even privately messaged you.

Let's discuss this, shall we? A blood libel is something that is libelous because it is objectively false and meant to cause harm to the Jews, often physical harm. The genocide accusation is objectively false if you understand what the requirements for genocide actually are (we will get to those and why they are inapplicable here and why the circular reasoning of "academics" is harmful), and it has caused actual harm to Jews. In fact, I can think of at least two people murdered because of the accusation in Washington, D.C., another in Boulder, a synagogue attack in Michigan, another on Yom Kippur in the UK, for example.

Because this is libelous because it is objectively false, and is being done to spin up violence and physical harm against Jews, it is a blood libel. And serious interlocutor on this would be willing to admit that.

Now you said: "Calling the accusation that Israel committed the crime of genocide in Gaza a "blood libel" implies that there is no basis whatsoever for this accusation, no evidence at all to support it, and no reason for anyone to make it besides animus against Jews."

This is factually true. There is no basis whatsoever supported by the evidence to support it.

You then said: "In reality, numerous human rights groups, including a leading Israeli human rights group, have compiled detailed reports substantiating this accusation, and numerous highly respected experts on genocide have also made this accusation."

So, here's one of the numerous human rights groups (Amnesty International's) own words (page 101 of their report) on the accusation and the legal conclusion: "However, its [the ICJ] rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations."

Now, here's the Israeli NGO you cite (B'tselem) on page 13 of their report titled "Our Genocide": This report relies on the legal definition of genocide as outlined in the UN Convention, but adopts a broader analytical framework, drawing on Raphael Lemkin's original conception as well as historical and sociological research, when examining the process that led to the genocide in Gaza and Israel's genocidal acts in the Strip."

In the UN Commission of Inquiry report that made the initial accusation of genocide they brought up Hamas' tunnel infrastructure one time, and it happened to neglect to mention that the tunnel that they specifically discuss was the tunnel that Mohammed Sinwar was killed in. This fails the legal test (we're about to get to those tests, hang with me here), and causes doubt was to the intent being genocide (again legal test coming).

So, what does the law say is required to determine genocide? It says that the accused must commit one of the five acts of genocide with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.

"Act with the intent to destroy" denotes the intent requirement we are looking for, known as dolus specialis (specific intent). It requires that the accused act with the specific intent to destroy a protected group because of their membership in the group, in whole or in part.

To make the determination of inferring intent requires that it be the only reasonable inference available on the totality of the evidence (here's why Amnesty's report fails and why they say it would PRECLUDE a finding of genocide). See: Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) para. 373: “The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly demonstrated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be that it could only point (emphasis added) to the existence of such intent.” This is known as the ONLY reasonable inference test and requires that there be no other reasonable explanation for the harm or conduct, such as the existence of tunnel infrastructure, human shielding, diversion of aid, all things that we know Hamas has done.

Now, let's look at the ICTY's test from the Tolimir decision (2012) para. 745: "Indications of such intent are rarely overt, however, and thus it is permissible to infer the existence of genocidal intent based on “all of the evidence, taken together”, as long as this inference is “the only reasonable [one] available on the evidence”. Factors relevant to this analysis may include the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership in a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts. The existence of a plan or policy, a perpetrator’s display of his intent through public speeches or meetings with others may also support an inference that the perpetrator had formed the requisite specific intent." Same test as above.

Meaning, to establish intent requires that there be no other plausible explanation for the harm. Not a single one of those human rights groups, or claimed experts has actually applied this test. One must ask why that is if they are "experts" on the law of genocide? This is besides the fact that many are not actually experts on it and are instead historians, not legal scholars.

The reason they don't apply it, Prof. Waxman, is because they know it would defeat the analysis that they are pushing and they know to be not founded in objectivity.

This is strike one for it being a blood libel.

Now, let's do the rest of this analysis and demonstrate this even further with the language from the text of "in whole or in part." In part destruction requires a substantial portion of the population be destroyed, relative to the whole, within the area of control, to threaten the very existence of the group.

To understand this requires us to look again at the ICTY chambers but this time in the Krstic decision, which will be quite a few paragraphs below:

Para. 8: "It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole."

Para. 9: "In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.” This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group."

Para. 10: "This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term “in part” contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that “the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety.” He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that “the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale.” Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group. In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that “the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group,” this formulation being the aim of the Convention.

Para. 11: "The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that “the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group.”

Para. 12: "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4."

Relevant is the Sikirica Trial Chamber (2001) decision para. 72: "For the purpose of determining the number of victims within the terms of Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c), one is, therefore, left with a number of approximately 1000-1400 Muslims out of a total of 49,351 in the Prijedor municipality. This would represent between 2% and 2.8% of the Muslims in the Prijedor municipality and would hardly qualify as a “reasonably substantial” part of the Bosnian Muslim group in Prijedor. It also needs to be borne in mind that not all the detainees at Keraterm were Muslims. (This demonstrates that about 3% is not considered substantial enough to constitute "in part" destruction).

So, we can discuss this now. When Amnesty made their accusation about 43,000 people (still a lot) had reportedly been killed. At the time it was estimated that number included about 20,000 combatants. In Gaza that would have constituted about 1.9% of the pre-war population; and under the totality of control: 0.78% of the Palestinian population. Amnesty's argument included both Gaza and the West Bank but hinged on Israel trying to destroy the Palestinians in whole in Gaza and thus in part of all of what would be considered Palestine. This argument falls apart on its face.

B'tselem's report never addresses this issue, nor does the UN COI or any other accuser, why would that be?

Today the destruction of the Palestinian population in Gaza is about 73,000 out of the 2,230,000 pre-war population. That's about 3.28% of the pre-war population (and this does not account for live births which we also know have outpaced deaths per the Palestinian MoH). So, we can look towards the decision in Sikirica and see a similar death rate in which the ICTY chamber determined that it was not substantial enough to constitute genocide.

This is important because we are now almost three years into this war and we can make a further comparative analysis on the inference of intent. In Srebrenica it was about 20-30% of the population destroyed in about 3 days (all males, which was determined to make it substantial because of the patrilineal society and difficulty in procreation). In Rwanda it was 80% (800,000+) in 100 days.

Today is day 1,036 of the war in Gaza and the population has seen 3.28% destruction not accounting for live births. If Israel was intending the in part destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza, it has not gotten to the point where it would be substantial enough to demonstrate the intent to do so, or the act to do so (more on this in a second).

This informs us that the substantiality requirement for genocide is also missing and any objective analysis would find that there is no genocidal actus reus or mens rea.

So we now have two parts of the analysis demonstrating that it is unlikely that the tests can be sustained to make a finding of genocide. This gives us strike two on it being a blood libel because a serious accusation would know this requirement and work to sustain it. They didn't and the only reason they didn't is because they know it would defeat their predetermined conclusion.

Finally, to commit genocide you must do all of the above and then act with the knowledge and predetermination to further that intent. This brings us the dolus generalis requirement. This requires, as in the preceding sentence, that the accused act with the intent to destroy the group, and you do so with the knowledge of committing the act for that purpose.

What's fascinating is that not a single accuser has done this. They make assumptions but don't test the other plausible explanations for that harm. For example, the existence of Hamas weaponizing healthcare infrastructure causes such facilities to lose their protections under the law (GC IV 19), the diversion of aid in a manner that materially benefits a belligerent and is harmful to the other belligerent permits the ending of aid (GC IV 23), the use of human shielding does not immunize those locations from being attacked (GC IV 28 & API 51(7)), the existence of hostages in certain areas permits expressly the ability to conduct war in that area (GC IV 34). If these things are true, and we know that they are true, then the harm cannot be done with the furtherance of genocidal intent. And thus, it cannot be genocide as there are other reasonable explanations for the harm.

Again, not a single accuser assesses this. Why? The only reasonable inference for this would be that they know that the determination would fail and that their predetermined conclusion would likewise fail.

This is strike three on it being a blood libel because they know that they are misrepresenting the law and jurisprudence, Amnesty and B'tselem expressly tell us this. Yet, they do it anyways. Why?

And with three strikes, they're out, they know what they are doing is libelous and false. And we know that it has caused serious and irreparable harm to people (because it has killed them). Thus, this is a blood libel.

Another substantive issue here is that when we do this, and we permit these groups and people to get away with what they are doing to degrade the Genocide Convention just so they can accuse Israel of genocide, it causes more harm to the Palestinians in Gaza. Ultimately, the goal should be to stop the harm that's happening to innocent people, all innocent people.

Hamas is culpable for that harm and by perpetuating the blood libel of genocide you negate the agency that they must have for their actions.

We know that Hamas is using human shielding, we know that Hamas has used children in combat (I just watched a child testify to this yesterday), we know that they have diverted aid, we know that they have tortured Palestinians, we know that they have committed numerous atrocities against them and if we conclude that genocide has happened in Gaza, it means that there is no other reasonable explanation for that harm, which allows Hamas to continue to get away with harming innocent Palestinians.

That's morally abhorrent, and legally unconscionable.

So, back to this in where you said: "Calling the accusation that Israel committed the crime of genocide in Gaza a "blood libel" implies that there is no basis whatsoever for this accusation, no evidence at all to support it, and no reason for anyone to make it besides animus against Jews."

Yes, this is absolutely true, as demonstrated here on every element of the crime of genocide. It is being done to perpetuate an animus against the sole Jewish state because it is the Jewish state. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the claim.

We should not let people change the jurisprudence to find Israel committed genocide as a means to perpetuate harm against Jews. And that's what you have done by allowing them to use an appeal to authority for something that they are not actually authorities on.

As a side note, you should ask Omer Bartov about his talk at Brown University in which he admitted that it's not genocide and didn't care.

[Daniel Sugarman @Daniel_Sugarman]

It's ok, lads, I'm sure you can land a plane in a storm navigating via your much-vaunted superior moral compass.

[Yoni Michanie @YoniMichanie]

The antisemite does not accuse the Zionist of genocide because he believes genocide occurred. He does it because he enjoys watching the Zionist turn out casualty figures, parse combatant from civilian, and defend a body count — as if precision could ever satisfy an accusation that was never about the numbers.

[Andrew Fox @Mr_Andrew_Fox]

It’s a great question. Easy answer: it took my understanding of antisemitism from being about off-colour jokes about tailors and shekels, to realising that people genuinely want Jews dead, and that a lot of those people live in my country. A seismic change in how I saw the world.

[Dublin Salon @DublinSalon]

@JamesSurowiecki (And whenever we do produce somebody who can, among other things, play with that legacy in a brilliant and subversive way, eg Cathal Coughlan, nobody is interested anyway).

[Dublin Salon @DublinSalon]

@JamesSurowiecki Because, culturally, we get in our own way too much. Everyone has to know we're Irish, all the time. Scottish (and Welsh) bands are not so insular. You can argue about post-colonial legacies, but it's an essentially humourless stance and so a death knell for playful indie.

[SK Tedeschi @skedeschi]

I'm a middle eastern historian. My own family were made refugees. And this is my honest view of the Nakba (“catastrophe”) - the displacement of around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs during the 1947–49 war surrounding the creation of Israel.

A thread. 🧵

[Donal Moloney @DonalMoloney10]

I've been studying historical genocides for an upcoming essay. All I'll say for now is that Ireland's motion to broaden the definition of genocide, thereby watering down the crime, just so it can vilify Israel, is the most morally abject thing the Irish state has ever done.

[Cllr. Jim O'Leary @jimdundrum]

The Irish political & media class is as guilty as any for this toxic antisemitic environment. Its just one park, its just one charity fundraiser in the NCH cancelled, its just one politician defamed, its just one Eurovision boycott, its just one soccer match boycott, its just . .

[Aimen Dean @AimenDean]

I genuinely don’t know whether to laugh or lose my mind anymore at this European hypocritical double standards.

When it comes to Vladimir Putin, suddenly it’s Churchillian resolve. No compromise. No dialogue. Arm Ukraine to the teeth, sanction everything that moves, wreck your own energy security if necessary - because tyranny must be confronted.

Fine. I actually respect the consistency of that … in isolation.

But then you turn around and lecture us - us - the Gulf monarchies, Jordan and Israel, about showing restraint with Tehran? About dialogue? About coexistence?

Are you serious?

For forty years - forty bloody years - this regime has been waging a shadow war across the region. Militias, proxies, sleeper cells, terror networks, destabilizing entire countries - Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen - and threatening the Gulf monarchies, Jordan, and Israel nonstop.

This isn’t theoretical. This isn’t abstract. This is lived reality.

And yet here come Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and the rest of the European choir, gently advising us to calm down, de-escalate, and - what was it again? - “give diplomacy a chance.”

Diplomacy with who, exactly? With a system that has built its entire regional strategy on plausible deniability and proxy terror violence?

You were willing to absorb inflation, energy shocks, and political backlash at home to confront Moscow. You made that choice. You said: this is the price of standing up to a tyrant.

So don’t come here and tell us - after decades of being on the receiving end - that we should just sit down, smile politely, and “coexist.”

Either you believe in confronting tyranny everywhere .. or you don’t.

Macron, Starmer, rest of EU leaders and top bureaucrats should just STFU and spare us the self righteous sanctimonious lectures!🤐🤫

[Bechara Gerges @BecharaGerges]

🚩 Peace with Israel is the single most terrifying word in Lebanese politics, not because it threatens Lebanon, but because it threatens every faction that has built its empire on the permanent absence of it.

I have watched this country for decades, and I will tell you what no one on a podium has the courage to say: the people who oppose peace are not protecting Lebanon; they are protecting their own relevance. Hezbollah cannot exist without the “enemy” at the gate. Iran cannot justify its corridor to the Mediterranean without a front line that never closes. And every warlord turned statesman who laundered a militia past into a cabinet future needs permanent instability the way a parasite needs a host.

That is why they prefer death over peace. Not Lebanese death, which has never cost them a single sleepless night, but the death of the system that feeds them. Christians watched their presidency hollowed into a rubber stamp issued from Dahiyeh. Sunnis watched Rafik Hariri assassinated and his political heirs forced to coexist with the architecture of his assassination. The Druze watched their autonomy reduced to a phone call from a handler. Every community outside Hezbollah’s orbit has been living under undeclared occupation disguised as national unity, and the absence of peace is the lock on the cage.
Sixty years of rejectionism didn’t liberate a square meter, didn’t build a single power plant, and didn't secure a future. It buried 200,000 people, bankrupted a nation, exiled a generation, and delivered total strategic control to a militia that answers to Tehran and calls it sovereignty.

Anyone still defending this isn’t a patriot. They are either an operative, or a hostage so conditioned by captivity that they have mistaken the warden for a guardian.

This is why peace isn’t just a diplomatic position; it is the single act capable of collapsing the entire architecture of Lebanese captivity. The moment the war justification disappears, Hezbollah loses its veto, Iran loses its last ideological foothold on the Mediterranean, and every political actor in Beirut is forced to stand naked, stripped of the conflict they’ve hidden behind for half a century.

And then, only then, the Lebanese can finally have the conversation that’s been strangled since Taif: what does this country actually look like when no one holds a gun to the table? Perhaps it’s federalism. Perhaps it’s partition. Perhaps it’s a model no one has written yet. But that conversation is impossible as long as one armed faction holds the permanent right to override every community in the name of a resistance that resists nothing except Lebanon’s own survival.

The opponents of peace know this perfectly well. They know that the day Lebanon signs, their operating myth dies. That’s why they will fight it with every tool they have: religious guilt, nationalist shame, sectarian fear. Because peace doesn’t just end a conflict with Israel; it starts a reckoning with them. And they would rather bury another generation than face that reckoning.

Enough. The absence of peace has already cost Lebanon everything except its last heartbeat, and the men who caused it are now asking for more time. They’ve had a century. The answer is no.