Who's going to slay the monster? Not the greedy, collapsing American empire. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthies are heroes not monsters. Everyone in the world sees what America is doing except Americans, who deserve their next genocidal president.
Why not hide in the vast underground tunnels under Shifa?
Why not simply leave north Gaza if only Hamas terrorists are still there and millions of phamphlets, smss and phone calls were made to warn that it is a closed military zone?
I’m afraid you’ve been fooled once again by Islamofascist regimes which will, one day, love to have your head on a stick for all to see and be full of terror
I find your article not only inaccurate but deeply biased, revealing an underlying antisemitism that taints your perspective. It's astonishing that you seem to advocate for a position where Israel should stand idly by while it is under siege. This is not just naïve; it’s irresponsible, and very frankly quite stupid.
Let’s not mince words: Hamas started this war. On October 7, they launched a barbaric and unprovoked attack, slaughtering over 1,400 innocent Israelis in cold blood. They celebrated, danced in the streets, and openly stated that they will repeat this atrocity as often as possible. How can you possibly ignore this fundamental truth? Your refusal to acknowledge Hamas’s genocidal intentions suggests a disturbing willingness to overlook the reality of their violent aspirations.
Hamas is not merely a political organization; they are a genocidal entity hell-bent on eradicating the Jewish people. Their charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, and they have made it clear that their goal is to kill as many Jews as possible. By ignoring this, you are not only being intellectually dishonest, but you are also complicit in normalizing their violence.
Your article conveniently overlooks the countless peace offers made by Israel, all of which have been rejected by Palestinian leaders. History has shown us that the so-called “peace process” has been derailed time and time again because Hamas and its supporters have consistently opted for violence over dialogue. The facts speak for themselves: they choose war, terror, and bloodshed over coexistence.
Let’s be clear: there are no innocent Gazans in this context. Many in Gaza cheered and celebrated the horrors unleashed on October 7, reveling in the suffering of others. This attitude cannot be brushed aside. It illustrates a chilling complicity with the very terrorism you claim to oppose.
You advocate for a narrative that borders on appeasement—a dangerous and misguided stance that only emboldens those who wish to annihilate Israel. To suggest that Israel should do nothing in the face of such threats is a recipe for disaster and an affront to the principles of self-defense and justice. Every nation has the right to defend itself against aggression, and Israel is no different.
Your perspective not only undermines Israel’s right to exist but also sends a dangerous message to those who wish to harm it. It’s time to wake up to the reality that the only thing standing between peace and genocide in this region is Israel’s unwavering resolve to protect its citizens. To ignore this is not just foolish; it’s morally reprehensible.
In conclusion, your analysis is dangerously simplistic and fails to grasp the grim reality of the conflict. Instead of offering misguided solutions that ignore the truth, we must confront the brutal facts: Hamas is the aggressor, and it is their genocidal ideology that must be condemned and resisted. Anything less is an affront to the memories of those who have suffered and a betrayal of the values we hold dear.
I suggest Jonathan you read the definition of genocide thoroughly before pontificating about it. If Israel is committing genocide, they are extremely bad at it. The population of Gaza has increased considerably since 1948.
What Israel is doing in Gaza is a continuation of the imperialist, racist policies of white, European countries that has been directed against non western countries and peoples of color for hundreds of years. One has to conclude that not only is the United States, the United Kingdom and other Western countries complicit in the genocide and mass murder of Palestinians and Lebanese, but they support it. They would be very happy if the native peoples in Palestine and parts of Lebanon were eliminated as the native peoples were decimated in such countries as the United States, Australia and New Zealand so as to provide additional space for white settler colonialists and their domination of the region.
A late yet renowned newsman rightly implicated the Western world's seemingly callous and imbalanced news coverage and consumption: “A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.”
With each news report of the daily death toll from unrelenting bombardment, etcetera, I feel a slightly greater desensitization and resignation. I’ve noticed this disturbing effect with basically all major protracted conflicts internationally ever since I began regularly consuming news products in 1987.
Human lives in this world are consciously or subconsciously perceived as not being of equal value/worth, when morally they all definitely should be. They can actually be seen and treated as though they are disposable and, by extension, their suffering and death are somehow less worthy of external [i.e. our] concern, sometimes even by otherwise democratic and relatively civilized nations.
The value of such life will be measured by its overabundance and/or the prolonged conditions under which it suffers; and those people can eventually receive meagre column inches on the back page of the First World’s daily news. I see it as external observers’ inhuman(e) devaluation, albeit perhaps on a subconscious level. It's like an immoral consideration of 'quality of life'.
_______
With news-stories’ human subjects’ race and culture dictating / quantity of media coverage of even the poorest of souls / a renowned newsman formulated a startling equation / justly implicating collective humanity’s news-consuming callousness / —“A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus / make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.” //
According to this unjust news-media mentality reasonably deduced / five hundred prolongedly-war-weary Middle Eastern Arabs getting blown to bits / in the same day perhaps should take up even less space and airtime. //
So readily learned is the tiny token short story buried in the / bottom right-hand corner of the newspaper’s last page, the so brief account / involving a long-lasting war about which there’s virtually nothing civil; / therefore caught in the warring web are civilians most unfortunate / most weak, the very most in need of peace and civility. //
And it’s naught but business as usual in the damned nations / where such severe suffering almost entirely dominates / the fractured structured daily routine of civilian slaughter (plus that of the odd well-armed henchman) / mostly by means of bomb blasts from incendiary explosive devices / shell shock and shrapnel wounds resulting from smart bombs dropped for the stupidest of reasons. // ....
A late yet renowned newsman rightly implicated the Western world's seemingly callous and imbalanced news coverage and consumption: “A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.”
With each news report of the daily death toll from unrelenting bombardment, etcetera, I feel a slightly greater desensitization and resignation. I’ve noticed this disturbing effect with basically all major protracted conflicts internationally ever since I began regularly consuming news products in 1987.
Human lives in this world are consciously or subconsciously perceived as not being of equal value/worth, when morally they all definitely should be. They can actually be seen and treated as though they are disposable and, by extension, their suffering and death are somehow less worthy of external [i.e. our] concern, sometimes even by otherwise democratic and relatively civilized nations.
The value of such life will be measured by its overabundance and/or the prolonged conditions under which it suffers; and those people can eventually receive meagre column inches on the back page of the First World’s daily news. I see it as external observers’ inhuman(e) devaluation, albeit perhaps on a subconscious level. It's like an immoral consideration of 'quality of life'.
_______
With news-stories’ human subjects’ race and culture dictating / quantity of media coverage of even the poorest of souls / a renowned newsman formulated a startling equation / justly implicating collective humanity’s news-consuming callousness / —“A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus / make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.” //
.
According to this unjust news-media mentality reasonably deduced / five hundred prolongedly-war-weary Middle Eastern Arabs getting blown to bits / in the same day perhaps should take up even less space and airtime. //
.
So readily learned is the tiny token short story buried in the / bottom right-hand corner of the newspaper’s last page, the so brief account / involving a long-lasting war about which there’s virtually nothing civil; / therefore caught in the warring web are civilians most unfortunate / most weak, the very most in need of peace and civility. //
.
And it’s naught but business as usual in the damned nations / where such severe suffering almost entirely dominates / the fractured structured daily routine of civilian slaughter (plus that of the odd well-armed henchman) / mostly by means of bomb blasts from incendiary explosive devices / shell shock and shrapnel wounds resulting from smart bombs dropped for the stupidest of reasons. // ....
We all know that the spineless rubbery soulless sellouts are doing nothing - then the question needs to be asked why are they doing nothing and who would ultimately benefit apart from greater Israel and control over resources etc etc.
There's more to this cruel sadistic Genocide....
The stage is being prepared so that the global populace - who are rightly demanding proper accountability for the genocide being inflicted on the Palestinians and numerous humanitarian crimes against humanity - will be more easily persuaded into accepting a global government digital ID and the works.
Uk government complicit to genocide and with this proof they are actually complicit in partaking with mass murder https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/keir-starmer-labour-party-quadrature-donation-arms-companies-israel-war-gaza/
Everone in the world sees what America is doing, except Americans, who deserve our next genocidal president.
Who's going to slay the monster? Not the greedy, collapsing American empire. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthies are heroes not monsters. Everyone in the world sees what America is doing except Americans, who deserve their next genocidal president.
Geez… can’t even tell the good guys from the bad guys. Woke lunacy!
resounding and erumpent plaudits to you, klonda 56!
A precise description of what is happening in the ME. Thank you, Jonathan.
So delusional it’s quite sad 😔
Nowhere safe?!
Why not hide in the vast underground tunnels under Shifa?
Why not simply leave north Gaza if only Hamas terrorists are still there and millions of phamphlets, smss and phone calls were made to warn that it is a closed military zone?
I’m afraid you’ve been fooled once again by Islamofascist regimes which will, one day, love to have your head on a stick for all to see and be full of terror
I find your article not only inaccurate but deeply biased, revealing an underlying antisemitism that taints your perspective. It's astonishing that you seem to advocate for a position where Israel should stand idly by while it is under siege. This is not just naïve; it’s irresponsible, and very frankly quite stupid.
Let’s not mince words: Hamas started this war. On October 7, they launched a barbaric and unprovoked attack, slaughtering over 1,400 innocent Israelis in cold blood. They celebrated, danced in the streets, and openly stated that they will repeat this atrocity as often as possible. How can you possibly ignore this fundamental truth? Your refusal to acknowledge Hamas’s genocidal intentions suggests a disturbing willingness to overlook the reality of their violent aspirations.
Hamas is not merely a political organization; they are a genocidal entity hell-bent on eradicating the Jewish people. Their charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel, and they have made it clear that their goal is to kill as many Jews as possible. By ignoring this, you are not only being intellectually dishonest, but you are also complicit in normalizing their violence.
Your article conveniently overlooks the countless peace offers made by Israel, all of which have been rejected by Palestinian leaders. History has shown us that the so-called “peace process” has been derailed time and time again because Hamas and its supporters have consistently opted for violence over dialogue. The facts speak for themselves: they choose war, terror, and bloodshed over coexistence.
Let’s be clear: there are no innocent Gazans in this context. Many in Gaza cheered and celebrated the horrors unleashed on October 7, reveling in the suffering of others. This attitude cannot be brushed aside. It illustrates a chilling complicity with the very terrorism you claim to oppose.
You advocate for a narrative that borders on appeasement—a dangerous and misguided stance that only emboldens those who wish to annihilate Israel. To suggest that Israel should do nothing in the face of such threats is a recipe for disaster and an affront to the principles of self-defense and justice. Every nation has the right to defend itself against aggression, and Israel is no different.
Your perspective not only undermines Israel’s right to exist but also sends a dangerous message to those who wish to harm it. It’s time to wake up to the reality that the only thing standing between peace and genocide in this region is Israel’s unwavering resolve to protect its citizens. To ignore this is not just foolish; it’s morally reprehensible.
In conclusion, your analysis is dangerously simplistic and fails to grasp the grim reality of the conflict. Instead of offering misguided solutions that ignore the truth, we must confront the brutal facts: Hamas is the aggressor, and it is their genocidal ideology that must be condemned and resisted. Anything less is an affront to the memories of those who have suffered and a betrayal of the values we hold dear.
M. Benchimol
Forgive me for my naivety, but is Trump a better vote than Kamala Harris? Will he stop sending arms to Israel?
No, he won't stop. He's all-in for the gangster-thug Netanyahu to finish the job. (That's why he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem.)
I suggest Jonathan you read the definition of genocide thoroughly before pontificating about it. If Israel is committing genocide, they are extremely bad at it. The population of Gaza has increased considerably since 1948.
👺👹🤬🤬☠️💩💩💩🤮❌
What Israel is doing in Gaza is a continuation of the imperialist, racist policies of white, European countries that has been directed against non western countries and peoples of color for hundreds of years. One has to conclude that not only is the United States, the United Kingdom and other Western countries complicit in the genocide and mass murder of Palestinians and Lebanese, but they support it. They would be very happy if the native peoples in Palestine and parts of Lebanon were eliminated as the native peoples were decimated in such countries as the United States, Australia and New Zealand so as to provide additional space for white settler colonialists and their domination of the region.
A late yet renowned newsman rightly implicated the Western world's seemingly callous and imbalanced news coverage and consumption: “A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.”
With each news report of the daily death toll from unrelenting bombardment, etcetera, I feel a slightly greater desensitization and resignation. I’ve noticed this disturbing effect with basically all major protracted conflicts internationally ever since I began regularly consuming news products in 1987.
Human lives in this world are consciously or subconsciously perceived as not being of equal value/worth, when morally they all definitely should be. They can actually be seen and treated as though they are disposable and, by extension, their suffering and death are somehow less worthy of external [i.e. our] concern, sometimes even by otherwise democratic and relatively civilized nations.
The value of such life will be measured by its overabundance and/or the prolonged conditions under which it suffers; and those people can eventually receive meagre column inches on the back page of the First World’s daily news. I see it as external observers’ inhuman(e) devaluation, albeit perhaps on a subconscious level. It's like an immoral consideration of 'quality of life'.
_______
With news-stories’ human subjects’ race and culture dictating / quantity of media coverage of even the poorest of souls / a renowned newsman formulated a startling equation / justly implicating collective humanity’s news-consuming callousness / —“A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus / make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.” //
According to this unjust news-media mentality reasonably deduced / five hundred prolongedly-war-weary Middle Eastern Arabs getting blown to bits / in the same day perhaps should take up even less space and airtime. //
So readily learned is the tiny token short story buried in the / bottom right-hand corner of the newspaper’s last page, the so brief account / involving a long-lasting war about which there’s virtually nothing civil; / therefore caught in the warring web are civilians most unfortunate / most weak, the very most in need of peace and civility. //
And it’s naught but business as usual in the damned nations / where such severe suffering almost entirely dominates / the fractured structured daily routine of civilian slaughter (plus that of the odd well-armed henchman) / mostly by means of bomb blasts from incendiary explosive devices / shell shock and shrapnel wounds resulting from smart bombs dropped for the stupidest of reasons. // ....
A late yet renowned newsman rightly implicated the Western world's seemingly callous and imbalanced news coverage and consumption: “A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.”
With each news report of the daily death toll from unrelenting bombardment, etcetera, I feel a slightly greater desensitization and resignation. I’ve noticed this disturbing effect with basically all major protracted conflicts internationally ever since I began regularly consuming news products in 1987.
Human lives in this world are consciously or subconsciously perceived as not being of equal value/worth, when morally they all definitely should be. They can actually be seen and treated as though they are disposable and, by extension, their suffering and death are somehow less worthy of external [i.e. our] concern, sometimes even by otherwise democratic and relatively civilized nations.
The value of such life will be measured by its overabundance and/or the prolonged conditions under which it suffers; and those people can eventually receive meagre column inches on the back page of the First World’s daily news. I see it as external observers’ inhuman(e) devaluation, albeit perhaps on a subconscious level. It's like an immoral consideration of 'quality of life'.
_______
With news-stories’ human subjects’ race and culture dictating / quantity of media coverage of even the poorest of souls / a renowned newsman formulated a startling equation / justly implicating collective humanity’s news-consuming callousness / —“A hundred Pakistanis going off a mountain in a bus / make less of a story than three Englishmen drowning in the Thames.” //
.
According to this unjust news-media mentality reasonably deduced / five hundred prolongedly-war-weary Middle Eastern Arabs getting blown to bits / in the same day perhaps should take up even less space and airtime. //
.
So readily learned is the tiny token short story buried in the / bottom right-hand corner of the newspaper’s last page, the so brief account / involving a long-lasting war about which there’s virtually nothing civil; / therefore caught in the warring web are civilians most unfortunate / most weak, the very most in need of peace and civility. //
.
And it’s naught but business as usual in the damned nations / where such severe suffering almost entirely dominates / the fractured structured daily routine of civilian slaughter (plus that of the odd well-armed henchman) / mostly by means of bomb blasts from incendiary explosive devices / shell shock and shrapnel wounds resulting from smart bombs dropped for the stupidest of reasons. // ....
We all know that the spineless rubbery soulless sellouts are doing nothing - then the question needs to be asked why are they doing nothing and who would ultimately benefit apart from greater Israel and control over resources etc etc.
There's more to this cruel sadistic Genocide....
The stage is being prepared so that the global populace - who are rightly demanding proper accountability for the genocide being inflicted on the Palestinians and numerous humanitarian crimes against humanity - will be more easily persuaded into accepting a global government digital ID and the works.
Politics is ‘the art of compromise’
politics at its moral peak
though this moral peak
indeed lies below a dead sea’s level,
but the compromise of ethics
and integrity is politics at
its moral natural state
—a state in which the media beast
must be fed, will feast from
the politicians’ tin can
filled with naught but the spin man
of the political animal.
Thanks for this, Jonathan.