K's & N's Papa

Product Development, Fund Management - now & before before; IFA - before; Trainee actuary - before before before; 'dent - before before before before.

[K's & N's Papa @ssaxim]

There is no, I repeat, no sporting theatre as enthralling, compelling and enriching as hard fought Test match cricket 🏏

[K's & N's Papa @ssaxim]

@dopamine_uptake @rhomboid1MF Somewhat less execrable, but in the same sector, e.g. BKG?

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

1. There’s always been a special bond between Scotland and France. I do my best to maintain it. I’m sure Edinburgh and Paris are grateful 😜
2. I don’t put down Scotland.
3. But I do put down the narrow-minded, thick, separatist, grievance-mongering, blame-everything-on-Westminster/the English numpties who’ve been running it into the ground for nearly all this century.

[𝔼𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕥 𝕄𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕟 @ElliotMalin]

Dov, thank you for the thoughtful response. I'll note that maybe you are correct that not all individuals who have pushed this narrative are doing so to engage in a blood libel. I believe that most, however, are. And the reason for that goes back to the exact thing I noted in my initial response, which is that they have required shifting the standards and burdens specifically for Israel – they do this for no one else.

There's a substantial flaw in your reasoning for making the conclusion you did, though, which is that the cutting of aid can be a legitimate and legal military tactic under certain triggering conditions. If the conduct is legal because the triggering condition has been met, then the dolus specialis standard and only reasonable inference test cannot be sustained.

Under GC IV 23 if a belligerent diverts aid to materially benefit from it for the purpose of aiding their war effort, the aid can be ended. It is indisputable that Hamas has done that exact thing, causing the triggering condition to be met. This is problematic because we don't want to see aid ended. However, shifting the legal blame to Israel is nonsensical.

There's also Israel's counter argument that it had facilitated enough food to enter Gaza to sustain Gaza for months. Now, one can reasonably argue that wasn't the case, and one can also argue that this didn't matter since Hamas was diverting the aid. One can even reasonably argue that it was the commission of a war crime without jumping to the higher threshold of genocide.

Again, we have reasonable alternative explanations which negate the only reasonable inference test. And I suspect you are confusing something here, which is this dual intent theory. This is a construct of some individuals who wish to expand the dolus specialis threshold to beyond what it currently is. As a lawyer in this area of law I would argue that there can be no other reasonable explanation other than genocide, and there can be no legitimate military conduct if the genocidal mens rea has been met, because that means the conduct itself would be driven to be genocide – and not legitimate military goals.

The prior ICJ ruling on the matter, which I quoted from Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) para. 373 explains in detail that it must be the only available explanation. Not that it is a reasonable explanation, but the only. In fact, in the recent oral arguments of The Gambia v. Myanmar earlier this year Gambia's legal team tried to shift to "a reasonable inference" (thus causing a shift in the standard), this was noted by Myanmar's counsel (Prof. Stefan Talmon) in their rebuttal causing The Gambia to shift back to only reasonable inference available in their closing remarks. There can be no other alternative explanation other than genocide for the conduct to be genocide, this is longstanding jurisprudence at this point.

Reasonable people can express that they disagree with this standard of law that has been written into the jurisprudence and challenge it, but in doing so they must be honest about what they are intending to do in changing the law. We don't get to make an ex post facto determination of law and convict a party when the law does not work that way. This idea of "dual intent" is one that is debated, but is not in the law itself.

But there is also more to this than what you said, the law says that the act with the intent must be to destroy, in whole or in part, the group, as such. Again, we must discuss the "in part" requirement as I noted, which demands that it be so substantial to threaten the existence of the group within the area of control.

In total 475 people have reportedly died from malnutrition, from what we know all had pre-existing conditions (this could be rebutted if proof exists otherwise). Does this mean that their deaths are acceptable? By no means whatsoever. The total death rate in Gaza is 3.28%, leaving 96.72% still alive (a good thing).

Again, the ICJ tells us we have to look at this as a place to start our analysis. We do not find that there is a substantial amount of destruction that would threaten the existence of the Palestinian people within the area of control.

To your point, well-intentioned people can disagree about genocide, but well-intentioned people do not get to change the jurisprudence and argue in the affirmative that the crime has been committed under the lens of the change that they made. Which is what every single "authority" you cited does.

These accusations started on October 13, 2023, while the blood was metaphorically still wet from what happened on October 7. The accusations have misled, manipulated, and demeaned the requirements of the Genocide Convention specifically to find the sole Jewish state guilty of the crime invented because of what happened to us as a people. Within days Jews were being attacked around the world because of it.

That is, by all definitions, a blood libel. Even when well-intentioned people spread it without understanding what they are doing, they are still spreading a blood libel.

A point to highlight that you make: The genocide accusation that you were so reluctant to make would excuse Hamas from the harm that they have committed in Gaza against the Palestinian people. This is exactly true. Under the totality of the evidence it is extremely difficult to fully conclusively state that Israel's intent is the destruction of Palestinians, at least in part, because of their status within the Palestinian group, when we have so much evidence of Hamas' conduct that is done to exacerbate the harm that comes to the Palestinian people. It's a tactic and tool in their arsenal. When we make the accusation of genocide it negates them from having agency for their own conduct because it negates that as a reasonable explanation for the harm that has occurred.

And if you want a prediction based on the law, I think that the ICJ finds Israel has not committed genocide since finding for genocide would require changing not just the dolus specialis standard, but also the substantiality, and actus reus standard, but also the burden of proof.

I do think that there is a case to be made to find Israel violated Article III(c) of the Genocide Convention in failing to punish incitement to genocide by some high profile individuals who are not within the chain of command or have the ability to act to further the crime itself. But incitement is not genocide. (It also raises an American legal question on the First Amendment).

[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.

[David Cohen @DavidBCohen1]

Stupid strawman designed to impress your low IQ followers. No one has ever argued that genocide requires killing every single member of a group. If that were true then even the Holocaust, which you constantly try to invert against the Jews, would not have been a genocide. Even before Israel responded to October 7, propagandists like you were hell bent on accusing Israel of genocide and were intend on making any specious argument needed to make that accusation appear legitimate. You guys fixate on the words “in part” from the definition to insist that the situation in Gaza, which only moral illiterates would compare to the Holocaust, still qualifies as a genocide. That assertion is indeed farcical. None of your followers will take the time to read @ElliotMalin’s excellent explanation below, which breaks down why you and all of the corrupted authorities you appeal to are wrong. But they should and you should.

[Andrew Fox @Mr_Andrew_Fox]

@zeteo_news @mehdirhasan Mehdi doing the meme again

[Hebdon 🇮🇱 @ko_amarti]

@zeteo_news @mehdirhasan The definition of gen0cide is muslims losing the war they'd started, so they try to delegitimize the opposing side's response with fictitious blood libels. Bret's right, it IS farcical. And so are you, Mehdi.

[Andrew Fox @Mr_Andrew_Fox]

Bottom line: they’ve spent three years shrieking about genocide, backed by academic fraud. Now it’s collapsing, they’re throwing smoke to cover tracks.

The Lancet papers claiming hundreds of thousands dead, the IPC and UN panels loaded with anti-Israel activists claiming famine (now conclusively disproven) and genocide, made-up testimony and faked x-rays by doctors taken to Gaza by a charity connected to an actual terror group, the staged vids, AI images and beheaded doll photos put out by Hamas themselves… all bullshit. All of it. The “Gaza genocide” is the greatest hoax of all time, enabled by social media, antisemitism, and gullibility.

Now we know that the population of Gaza *increased* since the war began and a comparatively tiny proportion of non-combatants died. What you are seeing now from people like Mehdi is nothing but rhetorical sleight of hand to keep the hoax going, even as it falls apart.

[Andrew Neil @afneil]

Hey Rip Van Winkle, where you been. This was decided under the Tories and confirmed by Starmer. Just woken up?

[Michael LaRosa @MichaelLaRosaDC]

I refused to defend or support anyone with an SS Totenkampf tattoo, simply because they had a "D" next to their name.

I won't defend or support anyone who is too cowardly to stand up to extremists who think the mother of my best friend, who jumped from 95 stories because the alternative was worse, deserved what happened to her.

Her only crime was showing up to work that morning.

The Democrat running for the U.S. Senate in Michigan won't or can't stand up to the guy who says she "deserved" what she got that morning she showed up for work.

[Paul Embery @PaulEmbery]

Incredible to think that this person helped to shape so much of what passes for energy policy across the West.

[ENT - Education Not Taxation @EducationNotTax]

First, the Government got its VAT on school fees forecasts wrong.

When we pointed that out, Ministers reached for a new stock response:

"The latest school census data, as at June 2026, reveals pupil numbers remain firmly within historical patterns seen for over the last 20 years."

So we did what Ministers apparently hadn't done.
We checked.

Using 20 years of Dept Ed data, we found that since VAT was introduced:

📉 The lowest independent-school pupil numbers in the published 20-year series.

📉 The largest annual fall in the series.

📉 The largest rolling two-year decline in the series.

The Government's own statistics don't support its latest excuse either.

@UKLabour, instead of recycling the same boilerplate response to justify this unjust tax, why not look properly at your own data?

Your own evidence shows this policy has already exceeded the forecasts you asked Parliament to accept.

It's time to stop making excuses, accept the evidence and scrap VAT on school fees.

@AndyBurnhamMP @OliviaBailey @LauraTrottMP @CarolineVoaden @educationgovuk @CommonsEd

📄 Want the full data? You'll find it on our website.

#EducationNotTaxation #ScrapVAT

[Jim Chimirie 🇬🇧 @JChimirie66677]

A Camera Inside Special Forces Headquarters Was Quietly Talking to China

The Ministry of Defence says no evidence exists that data or systems were compromised. In the same breath, it confirms that cameras fitted to Royal Navy special forces drones were sending signals to an IP address in China, and that every internet connection on the fleet had to be ripped out once this was discovered. Those two claims cannot both be reassuring. One of them is the scandal, and the MoD's own statement admits it.

The devices in question are K3 Scout surveillance drones, part of a £12 million fleet used by the Royal Marines' Coastal Forces Squadron and 47 Commando since March. They operated close to the Special Boat Service headquarters in Poole, one of the most sensitive military sites in Britain, where security-cleared personnel plan operations most of the country will never hear about. The cameras were sending what investigators call heartbeat communications, signals confirming a device is live and functioning, to China. A camera that quietly proves to Beijing it is switched on and working, stationed beside special forces headquarters, is not a data breach waiting to happen. It is a channel that already existed, whether or not anything more passed through it.

The certification failure here matters as much as the breach itself. Kraken, the British contractor that supplied the drones, describes the cameras as NDAA-compliant, certified under US law to be free of components from restricted Chinese manufacturers. That certification was supposed to be the safeguard. It failed on equipment marketed as British, deployed beside Britain's most secretive forces, sourced through a supply chain nobody appears to have checked closely enough before signing off.

Alicia Kearns, the shadow security minister, put the stakes plainly: if Britain cannot say with confidence what is inside its own military equipment, it cannot say that equipment is truly its own, or that the country remains sovereign over it. That is not overstatement. A drone fleet intended to support a British defence package securing freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz was quietly reporting to the very state Britain's own intelligence services have spent years warning about.

None of this happened in isolation. It follows the revelation of a concealed chamber built into China's new embassy beside cables carrying the City's financial data. It follows the SBS banning Chinese-built electric cars from its own headquarters over near-identical fears. It arrived not long after MI5 warned MPs that Chinese intelligence was working relentlessly to harvest information through ordinary employment websites, and weeks after a spy trial collapsed because the government would not call Beijing a threat in open court. Each of these was defended individually as manageable, isolated, contained. A camera phoning home from inside special forces territory is what containment actually looks like once tested.

Downing Street has spent the past year pursuing a diplomatic thaw with Beijing, high-profile visits, trade ambitions, a super-embassy waved through despite the warnings attached to it. This discovery does not fit comfortably into that story. It sits instead as evidence of what happens when a government treats vigilance as an obstacle to relations rather than a precondition for them. The camera has been switched off. The question it leaves behind, why it took an accidental discovery rather than a functioning safeguard to catch it, has not been.

"Alicia Kearns, the shadow security minister, put the stakes plainly: if Britain cannot say with confidence what is inside its own military equipment, it cannot say that equipment is truly its own, or that the country remains sovereign over it."

[Jonathan Conricus @jconricus]

My take on the Gaza situation:
▪️Israel got itself outmaneuvered diplomatically by Hamas, Egypt, Qatar and Turkiye, and the framing of the event does both truth and Israel a disservice.
▪️Hamas has no intention to disarm, and therefore misery, violence and war remain the foreseeable future of Gaza. This is just Arab posturing and strategic communications, not meaningful progress.
▪️Israeli statements are weighted by domestic politics instead of care for its national security. Israel is in fact in compliance with UNSCR 2803, and has reduced eliminations of Hamas terrorists in Gaza at US requests.
▪️Gazan civilians remain trapped under Hamas terror and their situation will not improve in any meaningful way.
▪️After October 7, no Israeli government will jeopardize Israeli security by trusting international guarantees. We've been there before and are saturated with disappointment.

[Joo @JoosyJew]

Beautiful example of Israel / Gaza discourse.

Andrew takes analysis from a detailed, forensic thread by @GabrielEpsteinX, using Hamas’ statistics, showing claims of genocide are bollocks.

Hasan’s “win” is a screenshot of a newspaper with a controversial quote.

Facts v Vibes.

[K's & N's Papa @ssaxim]

@Lordshipstrade Moron's also totally ignoring the vast amounts of income tax, NI, CGT, VAT and council tax that will have been spent by those subject to this pernicious wealth tax in support of all these 'fabulous' state services. Immediate and long term decline as capital flees & never returns!

[Matthew Earl @Lordshipstrade]

This guy is a lunatic.
Under his policy no one in their right mind would ever take the risk to start a business in the UK.
He argues, if you’ve lived 50 years in the UK and you move, then you pay 50/51 of your wealth to the UK or whatever, because you may have taken a train ride or used the NHS (despite having already paid for it through multi decade high taxes). Then the answer is simple. Any industrious, wealth creator gets out of the UK asap. Has he ever been on a southeastern train? We’re basically two years away from having to sit on the roof … and still pay more £’s per mile than the Orient Express.
And what’s Brexit got to do with it? The French economy is even more of a basket case than the UK’s. Further, France is probably around 6-9 months away from hard left or hard right government. Pick your poison.
Is he just a French Gary Stevenson?

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Mehdi habibi, do you deny that Muhammad massacred the 800 Jews of Banu Qurayza, and had the boys stripped to check for pubic hair to determine which of them were men and therefore fit to be beheaded?

Do you deny that Jews were permitted to live under Islam only as long as they submitted to Islamic supremacy?

Do you deny that Muhammad told Muslims they would eventually kill the Jews, that the rocks and the trees would call out to point them to where the Jews were hiding, so they could be killed?

Do you deny that when Muslims around the world invoke “Khaybar” at their protests against Israel, they are invoking what Muhammad did to the Jews of the Arabian Peninsula, and his oath to expel the Jews and Christians from Arab land?

Do you deny that Muhammad said rats are Jews whom God had transformed as punishment for disobedience?

Do you deny that the Quran calls Jews descendants of apes and pigs?

Do you deny that the Islamic war against Israel has nothing to do with borders, and everything to do with Jews refusing to live as second-class subjects under Islam?

So yes, Islam is in the room with Gad.

For 1,400 years it forced itself on everyone: Jews, Christians, pagans.

Today it is forcing itself on the West, to destroy it and take over the ruins.

[Liza Rosen @LizaRosen0000]

Piers Morgan spent the entire interview trying to bully Kemi Badenoch into apologising for supporting Israel.
She didn’t blink. She didn’t bend. She simply refused to apologise for not hating the Jewish state.

[The Free Speech Union @SpeechUnion]

Prof Jason Arday called the police on a fellow academic and a journalist who were investigating discrepancies in his academic and charitable record.

Devon and Cornwall Police declined to investigate Prof David Harris after he sent Prof Arday a series of legitimate questions about inconsistencies in his record via email. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police investigated a harassment allegation against Times Higher Education journalist Jack Grove for doing his job.

The Met went on to advise Mr Grove not to contact Prof Arday again because it was affecting the professor’s mental health.

This is the same force that sent five armed police officers to arrest Irish comedian Graham Linehan as his plane landed at Heathrow over three gender-critical posts on X.

It is not good enough for Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley simply to say his force “dropped the ball” in this case. It happens too often.

Jason Arday sought to use the police as a tool to silence those who were investigating his record.