Antonio آنتونیو אנטוניו Αντόνιο

Don't pay attention to the headlines.

[Larry Sanger @lsanger]

I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show—and now I’m banned.

I told the story in the Washington Examiner, out this morning:

https://t.co/IubzC65BoC

[Antonio آنتونیو אנטוניו Αντόνιο @tonym36]

@JoopLisboa @JuisteAntwoord

[Antonio آنتونیو אנטוניו Αντόνιο @tonym36]

@JuisteAntwoord LOL!!! Nederland is zo diep geislamiseerd dat een tandenlose motie tegen iftar wordt als een overwinning gezien!! Triest dit!

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

The algorithm is not appreciating this video enough. Please watch and share or we will stop making them.

[Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok]

Lmao the full clip is even better

I can’t stop watching it 🤣🤣🤣

[Roy K. Altman @RoyKAltman]

One of the claims I address in my new book, Israel on Trial, is the allegation that Israel has committed genocide.

Genocide has a clear legal definition. It means that a country, not individual soldiers, a country has the specific intent to destroy an entire people in whole or in part as such, because they are that people, by killing their members or because of their racial, religious, or ethnic origins.

The proponents of the genocide claim have to show that the Israeli government had the specific intent to wipe out the Palestinians of Gaza because they are Palestinians, not because there's Hamas fighters embedded within them, not because they're trying to release the hostages.

That's why when you read, for example, the briefing book that the legal team from South Africa submitted at the International Court of Justice, there's no mention of Hamas really. There's barely a mention of October 7th. There's no hostages. It's a fictional world in which there are no hostages, there was no October 7th, there is no Hamas, and there's just Israeli war planes and an innocent civilian population. That starts to look a lot more like genocide if you remove all of the essential elements that are the reality on the ground.

How do we begin to analyze this question?

The first is historically. We know for example from the Nuremberg trials that this argument that Hamas and its supporters are advancing was already rejected by the original people who tried the original war crimes trial at Nuremberg.

The German defense team wanted to advance the defense that you shouldn't be too angry with our people, and you shouldn't think that the prosecution has any moral right to be prosecuting and trying our defendants, because the pilots who were flying over Dresden and Berlin and Tokyo and Hiroshima are equally guilty of these war crimes.

And the Nuremberg trials resoundingly rejected that theory and said, "You're not guilty of these war crimes when you're fighting a war of existential survival against a genocidal regime in a war that is defensive in origin, that you didn't start, and never wanted and frankly never expected."

But it's much more than that.

Israel has fought the most precise, and in some respects the most humane, urban warfare conflict the world has ever seen. And you don't have to take my word for it. Take the HLMG, the High Level Military Group.

The HLMG is a collection of high-level officers and generals from almost every Western army in the world. Not Jews. Not Mossad agents. These are generals from America, from Canada, from New Zealand, who all went to Gaza, went to Israel, looked at the evidence, looked at Israel's strike packages, realized that Israel is fighting a war that is essentially run by lawyers.

This doesn't appear in the newspapers, but as I can tell you when I lead these judges' trips to Israel, Israel is fighting an almost preposterously Jewish war, where all of the calls of strikes that are not emergent are made by lawyers in the field. This is a reality that must be understood.

Israel has a corps of military advocate generals. They're called MAGs. Think about our JAGs, for example, and many of our judges were JAGs, and so the context and the contrast is stark. Military advocate generals are deployed in the field with the commanders all over Gaza and on the Gazan border, and one of the things that you should remember about the military advocate generals isn't just their deployment.

It's also that their advice is not precatory. So in the United States, a JAG says to a commander, "You shouldn't strike. That's my advice." But the commander can always override the strike because the advice is precatory. In Israel, the MAG's advice is not precatory. It's mandatory. It's an order that must be followed.

Of course, if the commander disagrees, there's a whole appellate mechanism that goes to senior commanders that ultimately could end up in front of an IDF judge. I mean, this is the ridiculously legalistic way in which these Jews fight these wars.

And frankly, we have seen, as judges, dozens and dozens and dozens of videos where this plays out in real time. Videos, which somehow don't make it into The New York Times, where pilots are in their planes or flying their drones over clear Hamas targets— terrorists shooting out of a mosque or out of a hospital or out of a UN car.

Yes, that happens in Gaza every single day. And the pilot says, "I'm ready to fire." And then something amazing happens, something our American JAG officers are like, "What is happening here?" A nerdy Jewish lawyer comes over the air, the airwave and says, "Hey, what's that 50 yards away on the top right of the screen? Scan over to the top right of the screen."

And it's two children playing soccer or three women holding a loaf of bread having a conversation. And instantly it's "Strike canceled. Strike canceled. Strike canceled."

Over and over again in Gaza and in Lebanon, legitimate strikes on legitimate military targets that almost any other Western army in the world would take are canceled by Israeli lawyers, international law scholars, because of a concern for the preservation of innocent Palestinian civilian life.

[Antonio آنتونیو אנטוניו Αντόνιο @tonym36]

@GBPolitcs @itvnews I don't think you've been stabbed mate

[UN Watch @UNWatch]

President Trump reposted our director Hillel Neuer's tweet questioning the virtue of the “proportional response” announced by CENTCOM in response to the latest Iranian assault on the U.S. and its allies: https://t.co/4VSL61pm47

Again in reply to CENTCOM: https://t.co/JwwwQ4VFue

[Patrick Webb @Patrickwebb]

@LeadingReport californians rn:

[Anama 🇺🇸🇮🇱 🦅 @AnamaMOSS]

Watch and learn.
Israel’s kindness and tolerance was a mistake that led to never-ending terrorism.
They should’ve just deported the terrorists a long time ago.
https://t.co/JfEfu4okGQ

[Buzz Patterson @BuzzPatterson]

This is the ultimate insult in the annals of Stolen Valor. A journalist claiming combat bonafides.

My combat time was spent mostly from the safety of the sky, with intermittent asshattery from the ground,

If I was a true Army soldier, or a Marine, or one of our special operators, I’d be really pissed.

This era of “media” is dead…and so is Scott Pelley’s career.

Fellow vets, are you as mad as I am?!

[Een blik op de NOS @eenblikopdenos]

"Zit jij ook in team cidi?" - een volger

Ja, CIDI-directeur Naomi Mestrum betaalt mij in natura. Zij brengt mij wekelijks een Tupperware-bakje met heerlijke falafels. Daarnaast stopt de Mossad tijdens mijn slaap sjekels in mijn sokken. Mijn donatiepagina is voor de sier. 🙃

[Jaimee Michell @JaimeeUSA]

Pallwood math!

[🇮🇷 Association of Iranian Royalists @IranRoyalists]

In the mid-1970s, France, as usual finding itself on the wrong side of history, decided it would be a good idea to sell a nuclear reactor and highly enriched uranium to Saddam Hussein. The reactor, known as Osirak, was officially presented as a peaceful scientific project, but Israel saw Saddam for what he actually was: a violent expansionist dictator obsessed with military power and regional domination.

Then, in 1980, Saddam launched the Iran–Iraq War believing he could quickly seize Iranian oil fields and dominate the Middle East, only for the conflict to become a catastrophic bloodbath that killed over a million people. Watching all of this unfold, Israel decided it couldn't allow Saddam to move closer to nuclear capability and destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981 in one of the boldest long-range air strikes in modern history. The UN, Europe, and the left condemned Israel and mocked their warnings as paranoia, but history later proved otherwise. Saddam went on to massacre Kurds with chemical weapons, invade Kuwait after financially devastating Iraq through the war he had started with Iran, and secretly pursue a large clandestine nuclear weapons program while pretending Iraq only wanted peaceful scientific development. Years later, Western military and intelligence officials admitted that a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein would have been catastrophic, with Dick Cheney even acknowledging that Israel's strike on Osirak had prevented a far more dangerous future.

The same people who screamed at Israel in 1981 are often the same people now condemning Israel for confronting the Islamic regime, which openly threatens annihilation, sponsors terrorism, crushes its own population, and pursues nuclear capabilities while hiding behind diplomacy and "peaceful" slogans.

Israel understands a simple lesson much of the world still refuses to accept: when genocidal or expansionist regimes openly threaten you, believe them and act accordingly.

[Antonio آنتونیو אנטוניו Αντόνιο @tonym36]

@EYakoby Are you retarded? This woman is a pawn for Islamic Republic.

[Vivid.🇮🇱 @VividProwess]

Shani Louk, 2001-2023.

Murdered in cold blood by Hamas on October 7th.

Hamas has no right to exist.

[Rabbi Poupko @RabbiPoupko]

Because they were not raised by a Beijing algorithm.

[Uri Kurlianchik @VerminusM]

@jawan514 I scratched my balls today. It was an act of resistance.

[Uri Kurlianchik @VerminusM]

@jvgraz

[SelflessDuke ✈️ 🌍 @Dammyselfless]

@DailyMail @udeochusp Well, it’s a welcome development!