The Death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ✎

A great day for the Jewish people. A huge day for the Iranian people. 

And a beautiful day for mankind.

I saw this video on the Guardian which made me smile:

I have several things to say.

1. We should take a moment to remember the tens of thousands of brave Iranian unarmed protesters which the regime has committed organised mass murder against in the past weeks.

2. The US and Israel are showing the world what military might can do to make the world a safer place by preventing Iran, a pariah and rogue state, from making nuclear and ballistic missiles. Take note China. They definitely deserve our gratitude. They have my support.

3. I think Ayatollah Khamenei more than warranted military action, and that Trump has already exhausted so-called “negotiations”. Iran’s paramilitaries, in other countries, have gunned down or abducted thousands of civilians. They have launched tens-of-thousands of unguided missiles at civilian areas. The Islamic Republic, since its founding, has constantly threatened to destroy a much smaller country thousand-miles away, which was allied with Iran and had never attacked it. And it is enriching uranium to weapons grade, while maintaining a public “countdown clock” to their use.

4. I don’t think peaceful or grassroots uprisings can succeed against a deeply entrenched military state. The IRGC was established after the 1979 revolution specifically to protect the Islamic system and prevent internal dissent or military coups. They have an estimated force of nearly 190k active personnel. I think a full-scale invasion, foreign occupation, and forced regime change by the West in necessary. This is the exact playbook the US used during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and historically during the post-WWII occupations of Germany and Japan. If the Shah-in-exile is assisted to become the pro-tem leader of the country while a new administration is put in place via elections then Iran stands a better chance of becoming a safe, civilised state than if it’s left to whoever on the streets has the most weapons when the dust settles.

The Balfour Declaration is a Milestone of Moral Clarity ✎

The Balfour Declaration is celebrating its centenary. 

It’s a short letter from the British Foreign Secretary to Lord Rothschild, leader of the British Jewish community, dated November 2, 1917. 

The full key sentence says:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

✲✲✲

The Balfour Declaration represented, not just a diplomatic statement, but the moral recognition that the Jewish people - long persecuted, displaced and/or impoverished - had the right to safety in the restoration of their homeland. 

More than a mere political document, it carried deep symbolic weight. It affirmed that a people without a state could still claim a history, an identity, and a belonging. Since this recognition was granted from one of the world’s great powers, it endowed that promise with legitimacy and hope - suggesting that safety and justice was not beyond reach.

It is a testament to humanity’s nobler instincts in the age of our history often degraded by its cruelties.

At a time when antisemitism was open, casual and systemic - from the pogroms of Eastern Europe to the prejudices of Western capitals (e.g. mob violence, the Dreyfus affair etc.) - it was a rare spark of moral courage. In hindsight, it shines all the brighter against the tragedies that have ensued, as hatred and denial continue to target the Jewish story.

The standard rebuttal against the Declaration is that it disregarded the Palestinian aspirations of independence. But, it’s important to note that the Declaration expressly recognised the need for a homeland without detracting from the civil rights of Arabs already living there. The Peel Commission ended-up recommending that the Arabs receive 77% of what was said to have been the “Jewish homeland in Palestine” promised in the Balfour Declaration. If anything, the Jews got shafted. So, it’s completely untrue to argue that the Arabs were disregarded.

The Declaration is not a relic of a empire, but a declaration of principle - even in darkness, safety and justice can still have a voice.

The troubles that Israel has endured since are because of Arab rejectionism, and not at all due to the Balfour Declaration. I think that might be my next post.

The Haredi community and Israel’s defence ✎

This is a thorne for Israel, and I’m not sure I know what the answer is.

On the one hand, I can understand the moral resentment by the serving soldiers (and their families), especially those that have lost their loved ones in the war. The IDF is the backbone of Israel’s continuing survival. And while Israel should respect religious identity, so it should  respect defending the land that guarantees the study of the Torah. Zionism preserves Judaism.

On the other hand, I see young men that simply want to live a humble life studying the Talmud. Additionally, the Haredi community seem to live in a bubble, from what I can see in London. That’s how they developed in Eastern Europe centuries ago. The IDF is a secular institution, and the Haredi are the complete opposite. I don’t think they can cope. It’s not cowardice or disloyalty to Israel as much as their belief in their lifestyle.

It’s also not just Torah study per se. I understand that it’s the Torah lifestyle they wish to preserve which guarantees Jewish survival. Otherwise, generations down the line, Jewish continuity may be impaired by secularism.

What do you all think?

Ending two years of torment ✎

Very happy for the hostages, their families, and Israel.

In truth, I didn’t really believe all the living hostages would be released.

For the moment, in Israel at least, a day for celebration.

Great work by Trump, Netanyahu, and the IDF in getting those Israelis back in the arms of their loved ones.

✲✲✲

I think this is a small victory for Israel (even at the heavy price). Since Oct-7, Israel has been obliged to engage against Hamas with one arm tied because of hostage considerations (see my post on Israel’s achilles heel). 

Hamas still exists and now reinforced by 2,000 more maniacs. History portends that Hamas will not fulfill its end of the deal, but Israel/US should be able to retaliate without the hostages getting in the way now.

Also, I’ve been wondering whether the Israeli airstrike in Doha (September 9th) was the catalyst of transformation in Hamas’s top officials. It showed Israel would target their Qatari headquarters, and neither Hamas nor Qatar were prepared to countenance that. So, well done Netanyahu.

✲✲✲

ADDENDUM: Ben Smith writing for the Telegraph reports that President Trump has probably, in a secret meeting, disabled Israel from “restarting the war”:

Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff reportedly shook hands with Hamas’ leaders at a secret meeting last week.

The two men personally assured senior figures in the terrorist group that Donald Trump, the US president, would not allow Israel to restart the war after freeing its hostages, Axios reported.

“We think that if you meet them and shake their hand there will be a deal,” a Qatari official reportedly told Mr Witkoff, the US’ Middle East envoy.

Mr Witkoff and Mr Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, met Hamas’ four most senior leaders on Wednesday alongside officials from Egypt, Qatar and Turkey in Sharm el-Sheikh. Mr Trump is said to have given his permission for the meeting.

The Israeli hostage release of Monday 13th October ✎

Big day.

Let’s hope the 20 living hostages will indeed be freed. And not turned into a disgusting circus of death.

And what a price! Nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners are to be “exchanged”, including 250 serving life-sentences.

There are even reports of Hamas trying to negotiate the release Marwan Barghouti. He’s a famous maniac serving 5 life sentences for murder. He masterminded suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis during the 2nd intifada.

He’s referred to as “the Palestinian Mandela”. I think it’s telling that a majority of Palestinians genuinely seem to admire psychopaths like Sinwar and Barghouti - who seek misery and death, rather than building a semblance of a nation state and a future.

It feels like Israel is playing the losing hand.

At the end of WWII, the Nazi party did not agree to a “ceasefire” with conditions. Nor did the Japanese. It was an unconditional surrender. It’s galling to me that Hamas - with all their global supporters, including the British government - think that they are in a position to make these sorts of demands.

The reality is that Hamas are not “going away”. Their fanatical mission is to destroy Israel and the Jews. That won’t change. Our only hope is that Hamas break the terms (by not disarming/surrendering) so Israel has to finish the job. 

This is the price Israel pays for being a civilised society.

Complete inhumane barbarism, and the streets of Western democracies awash with people supporting them.

CORRECTION: The British government doesn’t actively support Hamas. I was referring to the recent diplomatic protection implicit in its recognition of the Palestinian state whilst the Hamas government was the extant authority.

On the Second Anniversary of October 7th ✎

It is now two years since October 7th 2023.

For me, that day was the return of the Nazis.

October-7 is one of the most recorded and documented massacres of modern history. The details of which are so dreadful that they amount to an attack on humanity itself, on our decency.

I watched the documentary “We Will Dance Again” (with raw footage of the October-7 attacks, the Nova music festival and the aftermath). The violence was horrific and the perpetrated by maniacs who were truly enjoying themselves. I would recommend pursuing Lord Roberts’ detailed Parliamentary report on the October-7 attack.

One thing that has stayed with me about October-7 is the terrible realisation of just how vulnerable Israelis were that day.

So, for me, this is one of the most important issue of our times.

The security of the only democracy in the Middle East and sanctuary of the Jewish people means so much. We cannot afford to lose.

✲✲✲

Since October-7, there has been a growing antisemitism on the progressive left which, I think, has inched closer to the centre left now. We’re all aware of the nasty strains of antisemitism on the right, but it amazes me still how many on the Left can regard a genocidal rampage as some kind of bona fide resistance movement. Then, proudly waving terrorist flags up-and-down our streets and haranguing Jews.

So many disguise their antisemitism as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist concerns. But we’re not fooled. See below, there are “pro-Palestinian” (aka: “pro-Hamas” because they never criticise Hamas) protests on Oct-7.

It’s like going to protest about Israel outside Auschwitz!

The Manchester synagogue terrorist attack ✎

A horrific attack in England today on Yom Kippur.

Antisemitic terrorism.

The normalisation of antisemitism in the west since Oct-7.

This is what “globalising the intifada” looks like.

The antisemitic uses of the word “genocide” against Israel ✎

I recommend a great podcast.

Venetia Rainey, Telegraph, had a terrific episode “‘This is not a genocide’: ex-IDF lawyer explains why the UN is wrong”. The guest is Dr. Eran Shamir-Borer (“ESB” for short). Former lawyer at the IDF and part of the team defending Israel at the ICJ. (Topical issue as, very recently, the United Nations had countries calling for the denial to Israel of “tools of genocide” and the Mayor of London accusing Israel of genocide.)

✲✲✲

Until recently, it was very rare to hear of a nation being accused of genocide. Nowadays, Israel is accused on a daily basis. 

Not only does it have no basis in fact, but I suggest that it’s a nasty attempt to Nazify the Jewish and thereby undermine her moral resolve to stand and defend herself.

✲✲✲

The word “genocide” as gaslighting to accept its own moral defeat

The word genocide entails the clear and specific intent to destroy an ethnic, religious or national group. The humanitarian hardship must have been specifically calculated to destroy that group. Israel’s declared aim is to dismantle Hamas.

The Gaza civilian casualty count is usually the only thing people look at. It’s usually quoted at around 60k. My question is why call this a “genocide” or “mass murder” as opposed to an aspect of warfare?

The problem is the selective cherry-picking and the incomplete picture. For instance, we also have to bear in mind that Israel has:

• Integrated the rules & requirements of law into operational procedures - ESB points out the Israel’s military lawyers work together with IDF operational commanders (e.g. the selection of targets). Thus, the various principles of international law are part of the IDF’s backbone in decision-making. Moreover, IDF commanders are also trained on the law.
• Having a war cabinet (Attorney General present) in which decisions are made about the war and to which the IDF are then accordingly instructed on how to operate. Legal advice present at all levels. Judicial oversight exercised by the Israeli Supreme Court.
• Focused on Hamas targets and Hamas military capabilities (i.e. intent to destroy the enemy’s capacity - not a “people”). 
• Issued warnings before air strikes.
• Created evacuation routes.
• Fed civilians.
• Created refugee zones.
• Urged civilians to flee.
• Investigated alleged misconduct by the Military Advocate General.
• Punished soldiers who abused their position and power.

These are not the actions of a genocidal regime.

The civilian casualties in Gaza - while obviously horrible - are a feature of 21st-century urban warfare. A democracy is responding to an enemy engaged in battle in an unprecedented manner in the modern history of warfare.

In the podcast, ESB addressed the question of “aren’t there just too many casualties”:

His answer was to point out the logical corollary of this reasoning. It means that if Hamas is effective & evil enough in managing to hide and shield themselves among its civilians, then a democracy cannot win the war. Such a genocidal regime must be tolerated and accommodated by the democracy. Thus, the lives of Israeli civilians matter less than the lives of Palestinians in Gaza because their enemy is so cruel and so cynical that there’s just no way to win against them.  

The word “genocide” is being used to gaslight the Jewish state into accepting its defeat.

✲✲✲

The word “genocide” to delegitimise the Jewish state

I think the word “genocide” serves to delegitimise the Jewish state in the most profound way possible.

Only a nasty cretin would label Israel’s response to Oct-7, in the context of that history, with the same word that describes the unprovoked mass murder of a people (that we all associate with the Nazis and the final solution). Especially to the Jews, having been threatened with obliteration forever, and certainly since Israel’s inception in 1948.

For everyone on Earth, Nazism is the vertible epitome of evil.

Thus, the antisemite - in using the word “genocide” - is seeking to equate Israel with the Nazis. Thereby, transforming the nation into a horrifying monster. This goes to the core of the nation’s self-respect and to the Jewish identity as a whole.

This is pure antisemitism. It also hopes to obfuscate history’s hard truths: you cannot let those who commit mass slaughter hide behind their own civilians.

And yet, we live in a universe where basic moral truths are inverted by those with a nasty agenda.

The only genocidal organisation is Hamas (as per their founding charter’s aim). If this terrorist organisation were to surrender, free the remaining hostages and agree to disarm, then there would be no need for this horrible but necessary war.

British grandstanding on Palestinian statehood ✎

Our British Prime Minister recently decided that the government would recognise “Palestine” as a state despite its non-existence.

I have three points to make on this subject.

(1) Who and what are being recognised?

Sir Keir Starmer maintains that Hamas can have “no future, no role in government, no role in security” in a Palestinian state. But this is delusional. The PCPSR regularly conducts polling across the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Highlights from their recent polling: 

• “Only half of the Palestinians in the current poll view Hamas’ decision to carry out the October 7 attack as “correct.”” (Note: “ONLY” 50%!)
• “Despite the declining favorability of October 7, most of the public continue to believe the attack and the following war have placed the Palestinian issue at the center of global attention.”
• “Still, a plurality of the public believes that Hamas will continue to control the Gaza Strip after the war ...”
• “... this is why the overwhelming majority is opposed to a Hamas disarmament or the departure of its military leadership from the Gaza Strip.”

The question is: what would the government’s position be if Hamas (or some Islamist variant) emerges as the winning party in a fresh round of Palestinian elections? Probably no answer.

(2) The underlying causes of a lack of a Palestinian state need to be addressed

As I have pointed out above, not only do polls show Hamas winning elections, but that we can be assured Hamas will plunge them immediately back into war if given the chance. 

The underlying causes need to be addressed. 

Israel still deals with 200-400 terror attacks per year from the WB - to say nothing of Gaza. The denazification of Germany is something we need to think about - but it seems that Islamism might be something considerably harder to address (especially when “almost 90% of the public believes Hamas men did not commit the atrocities depicted in videos taken on that day”). As history shows, Arab negotiators have consistently rejected offers of a Palestinian state so many times (the 1947 UN Partition plan, Camp David summit, the Clinton Parameters, the Ehud Olmert peace offer, or Donald Trump’s 2020 “Peace to Prosperity” plan). While Israel is the object of endless criticism, there is no acknowledgment that the counter-“problem” is fundamentally that Israel exists at all.

That’s why merely “giving them a state” and “the vote” - a la the Western tradition - isn’t the answer. The governments of Jordan and Egypt aren’t popularly elected. They don’t reflect sentiments on the street. I think it’s fair to say that nasty religious extremists tend to win elections in the Middle East - e.g. Egypt. A similar arrangement needs to happen in Palestine with a strong leader (backed up by a ruling elite) that regard peace with Israel and a 2SS as benefiting them - completely irrespective of what the street thinks - and who can seriously crack down on terrorism. I say this as a believe in liberal democracy.

As for deradicalisation, I think that Palestinian society need to really accept certain facts:

1. The Jews are human beings with dignity and should not be killed - A great first step would be expelling UNRWA from both the WB and Gaza. They have been seriously complicit in the indoctrination of Palestinian children to murder Jews, and other nasty things. Ideally, moderate Palestinian teachers would replace them under Israeli oversight but they only make up a minority of the population which is a problem.
2. The Arabs lost the 1948 War and the Six-Day War - They lost. Completely lost. Need to move on. We can’t keep fighting forever. 
3. Hamas did indeed commit genocide and war crimes on Oct-7 - Germany’s own process of denazification came internally from a recognition that things had to change. The same for Palestinians. They need to stop making excuses or shifting responsibility. 

None of this is even remotely possible until after Hamas is defeated and Gaza is fully demilitarised.

(3) Siding with fascism

It’s very strange to me that people (especially left-wingers who invariably bleat on endlessly about “fascism”, “Nazism”, “antifa” etc.) stand squarely on the side of the most evil fascistic regime on Earth.

Statehood seriously legitimises Hamas’ military rationale. I.e., but for the unalloyed horror of Oct-7, we probably wouldn’t be discussing a two-state solution. Events would be permitted to carry on until things change organically. Instead, invading neighbours, viciously killing thousands of innocents and taking hostages is rendered a winning strategy. It legitimises using your own citizens as human shields and trading their inevitable deaths as useful propaganda. 

Immediately after the PM’s statements, “Hamas declares ‘victory’ after UK recognition of Palestine” (Telegraph, Sept 2025):

Hamas has declared victory for “the justice of our cause” after Sir Keir Starmer announced Britain would recognise Palestinian statehood. In a video message on Sunday, Sir Keir insisted the move, one of the most significant shifts in British foreign policy in decades, was “not a reward for Hamas”. But Mahmoud Mardaw, a senior Hamas official, claimed it represented “a victory for Palestinian rights and the justice of our cause” and would “send a clear message” to Israel. On Sunday night, US president Donald Trump said the decision was “rewarding Hamas”. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, he added: “I don’t think they should be rewarded. I am not in that camp, to be honest.”

I don’t understand how the government aren’t embarrassed by this.

✲✲✲

Finally, I recommend the Telegraph’s recent editorial on the subject, “Recognising a nation that doesn’t exist can only be a foolish gesture” (Sept 2025):

Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to recognise Palestine as a state despite its non-existence is a reckless exercise in virtue signalling designed to appease Labour Left-wingers and curry favour with leaders like Emmanuel Macron. The French president addressed the opening day of the UN General Assembly in New York to extol his own contribution to this policy.

He said momentum towards the “two-state solution” to the Middle East conflict, which has long been a UN ambition, needed to be revived. But does this have any practical effect? The United States is opposed to recognising the state of Palestine and without pressure from Washington the Israeli government will not change course. 

Although four of the five permanent members of the UN security council support Palestinian statehood, the US retains a veto. Notably, other big European states like Germany and Italy have not joined Britain and France.

The fact is that there is no state of Palestine, though there could have been had various leaders down the years, notably Yasser Arafat, agreed to a peace settlement. But while they wanted a Palestinian state, what they didn’t want was a Jewish state. The destruction of Israel remains the principal objective of Hamas and other militant movements.

The Government insists that recognition is not just a symbolic move but it is hard to see it as anything other than that. Indeed, it has pushed Israel into threatening to extend or even annex its settlements in the West Bank. The position of the Palestinians could be worsened in order to make Western politicians feel better about themselves, ending any prospect of a two-state solution.

Israel’s plan to take control of Gaza City ✎

I agree with Israel’s plan.

The plan is (1) to occupy gaza, and then (2) hand it over to a non-PA Arab governance.

Leaving Hamas in control of Gaza is NOT an option. They are a danger to Israeli lives.

So, what are Israel’s options?

1. ⁠Do nothing and simply live with constant terror – Nope. Unacceptable.
2. ⁠Rely on the “international community” to step in – Nope. I have already written a blog about how “Israel stands alone” when it comes international support and such consensus. Neither the UN nor any other nation is willing to send troops, take control, or remove Hamas themselves. Nobody is proposing any viable alternative. And Hamas will never honour any “agreement” with Israel.
3. ⁠Go into Gaza and remove Hamas themselves – this was always the only real option.

Israel has no alternative but to finish the job on their own, and carefully.

These so-called ceasefires were always unacceptable apropos Israeli war aims. To my mind, they were a convenient pretext for freeing hostages - nothing more. Hamas’ ceasefire demands were effectively a total Israeli subjugation - no reasonable government could ever approve the release of imprisoned terrorist maniacs, or withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor etc. There will never be any circumstance in which Hamas will be permitted to remain in any power, or make any such demands.

Eliminating Hamas and trying to turn Gaza into a functional state will be a serious undertaking. The PA is way too weak to hold Palestine on its own (hence the idea of statehood being a ridiculous joke). The European idea that the UN can provide a new government is risible piffle. I think the US has considerable leverage here. The promise of trade, investment, protection, money etc. is a very appealing opportunity without any serious trade-off. I think Trump could negotiate a contingent of, let’s say, 15k troops per nation as part of a coalition?

And what does “remove Hamas” mean?

As Mr Netanyahu said in his speech, it means securing the remaining two Hamas strongholds. Gaza City (and the other unoccupied areas) is where the majority of Hamas’ remaining fighters are. It is where their arsenal is likely located. It is also likely where the remaining hostages are. The enemy has not surrendered, so it must be hunted down and defeated.

Israel cannot afford not to win.

Israel has to see this war to the end. The object of war is not a “ceasefire” or some “treaty” - it is to make your enemy surrender or destroy them. Wars are fought to be won. Israel needs a WWII-type of victory here - not a Vietnam withdrawal.

Israel will always stand alone ✎

In my previous blog post, on the subject of international multilateralism, I asked “Should Israel respond stating her needs in clear actionable language?”. 

My thought, at the time, was “I think perhaps - thought only barely. We are approaching the end and Israel needs US and Arab support.”

I was wrong.

I forgot the one immutable truth when it comes to Israel: Israel will always stand alone.

✲✲✲✲✲

The lessons of the Yom Kippur war

During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israel was attacked by Egypt and Syria, along with a coalition of various other Arab nations. 

In just the opening weeks of the war, the Israeli air force and ground forces were being overwhelmed by Egyptian military. Israel could fight back against the Syrian front, but Egyptian modernisation (with anti-air missiles and guided anti-tank missiles) were very effective against Israel. Egypt had modernised its military re-armaments following the Six-Day war defeat (off the earlier decade). The war quickly began to taken an extremely alarming toll on Israel. They lost almost all of their tanks and planes.

Then, America announced Operation Nickel Grass to replace the entirety of Israeli military hardware. Israel’s Centurion tanks had turned into M60 tanks; and they were being flown from Missouri to replace Israeli forces. But how would America transport all these supplies across vast distances? They need a point to refuel. 

There was only one European power willing to help Israel by allowing US supply flights across Europe: Portugal. The other European nations refused out of fear of upsetting the Arab OAPEC countries and disturbing Europe’s oil supplies, and ultimately money. According to the NYT: 

However, the Governments of Greece, Turkey, Spain and Italy publicly forbade their territory to American aircraft. Other Governments, including that of Britain, made their positions clear privately. Portugal was under pressure from the United States, the sources asserted, and agreed to use of the Azores base.

What does this teach us?

Israel can never rely on other nations for it’s protection, even when it most needs help.

Israel stands alone, and always will. 

So, it should ignore the feelings of the “international community”, the United Nations, and all these high-sounding institutions and focus on their own security.

British government and the Gaza war ✎

From today’s Telegraph — A propos the British PM’s recent statements about recognising the state of Palestine (which I have written about).

Hamas is just pure evil ✎

This 24-year-old gentleman is Mr Evyatar David.

Starved, emaciated, clavicle & shoulder blades sticking out horridly, and apparently digging his own grave.

Hamas kidnapped him from the Nova music festival. He should never be there. They have starved him DELIBERATELY. 

Seeing the skin and bones of this Jewish/Israeli hostage reminds me of the Holocaust committed by Nazis and the starving Jews in concentration camps.

This is pure evil - and Hamas are flaunting it.

✲✲✲✲✲

Now compare the situation with the Israeli government.

Israel is fighting over the aid through the GHF, and the siege, in order to defeat Hamas’s leverage over the population and its critical source of income (through its control over the aid and its reselling). 

In practice, is enough aid getting in? No. The GHF distribution isn’t near enough or spread out enough. Is it because the mechanisms for distribution are broken? That’s probably a large part of it, yes. The GFH was a bona fide attempt at distributing the aid; however it failed, in part, because of the battle conditions (Hamas fighting the distribution). In fairness, nobody has ever attempted to do what Israel is doing: surgically distributing aid to a population dominated by a guerilla militia fighting that distribution. Has Israel historically provided large quantities of aid into Gaza (notwithstanding the hostility)? Yes, of course. Have there been instances of violence and/or mistakes at aid sites? Yes, and each instance should be investigated.

Conclusion I’m driving at is that Israel is trying to save live while Hamas wants to starve (both Gazans and the hostages). The hunger & starvation in Gaza is caused by the logistical nightmare caused by Hamas. It is NOT DELIBERATELY done by Israel. It is Israel which is trying to feed people and strike a balance between providing aid while not providing resources to Hamas.

There is no moral equivalence.

The romantic idealism of Palestinian statehood ✎

Ben Riley-Smith writing in “Hermer dismisses lawyers’ claim that Palestine recognition breaks law” (Telegraph, 1 Aug 2025) says:

The Prime Minister said he would recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel meets four conditions. He wants Israel to end the “appalling” situation in Gaza and allow the UN to restart the supply of aid; reach a ceasefire; “make clear” there will be no annexation in the West Bank; and commit to a long-term peace process that delivers a two-state solution.

Sir Keir also repeated calls for Hamas to release all remaining hostages captured in the October 7 attacks, but that demand was not made an explicit condition for recognition to take place.

The letter to Lord Hermer from the 40 peers, including prominent Israel supporters, first reported by The Times, argued that the Government’s approach risked breaking international law. The signatories wrote: “We call on you to advise him [Starmer] that this would be contrary to international law. “You are on record as saying that a commitment to international law goes absolutely to the heart of this Government and its approach to foreign policy. Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the Government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law.”

✲✲✲✲✲

There are three points to make:

1. As the article says, the British Prime Minister did not call for the return of Israeli hostages as an explicit requirement for statehood. That’s absolutely incredible.

2. The British government is effectively threatening Israel. It says if you don’t agree to a ceasefire then we’ll recognise Palestinian statehood. Sir Keir Starmer is effectively doing Hamas’ work for them. There are ongoing ceasefire negotiations which Hamas recently rejected. And of course they would. Why accept anything when you can sit on your demands - as the world castagates Israel. If I was the Hamas leader, I would make sure to reject every ceasefire deal; and let the democracies of the West come to my aid. Afterall, I don’t need to release any hostage.

3. Mere recognition cannot conjure up a functioning state which would be required for a two-state solution. The Montevideo Convention of 1933 in international law requires 4 conditions for statehood: a permanent population, a government, defined borders, and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations. The so-called state of Palestine can only meet 2 conditions. E.g. it has two rival governments. After Israeli unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, did the Palestinians seek to establish a fully functioning nation state. No. Billions of dollars in aid spent on building a war machine.

Should Israel end this war? (Apropos the Arab League’s condemnation of Hamas) ✎

Israel has effectively won the war as it relates to the nation’s security. The objectives are:

• Secure Israel’s borders - Israel’s borders are now secure.
• Prevent Oct-7 from happening again - Hamas don’t have strategic capability to exert force beyond the borders of Gaza. Mohammed Deif is dead. Hanniyah is dead. Sinwar is dead. Sinwar’s brother is dead.
• Defeat and/or dismantle Hamas - Leadership wiped-out, Iranian regime deterred, infrastructure & finances seriously hampered.
• Return the hostages - Most of the hostages that can be returned are back. 

After the death of Sinwar, Israel effectively won this war. But it cannot really declare victory with the hostages remaining in terrorist hands.  Thus, the only thorn, it seems to me, is whether you really believe Hamas will be prepared to return the 20 remaining hostages.

Should Israel continue to use force to secure the hostages, or can they be negotiated for? Afterall, what further military objectives can be reasonably yielded at this point by the IDF? 

Since the outset of war, I have thought that military force was the only real means for the security of the hostages. But, there has been a shift among the Arab adjoining nations. Some part of me wonders whether this might make Hamas surrender the hostages?  As the Times of Israel has reported:

Arab and Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, signed a declaration Tuesday condemning for the first time Hamas’s onslaught of October 7, 2023, and calling on the Palestinian terror group to release all the hostages it is holding, disarm and end its rule of Gaza, in a bid to end the devastating war in the Strip ...

The ToI has also uploaded a copy of a UN-document in which the nations are calling for (1) the removal of Hamas from Gaza and (2) revive the two-state process with Israel. 

The whole document is mostly a joke (as I point out below). In fact, I think it was designed to make Israel reject it. 

Should Israel respond stating her needs in clear actionable language? I think perhaps - thought only barely. We are approaching the end and Israel needs US and Arab support. (I don’t think UN is any use to Israel).

From what’s worth, I think the two-state solution is a long way off though. We’ve all seen the videos of Oct-7 when the hostages were kidnapped and dragged back into Gaza. There were cheering hordes of civilians who took turns desecrating dead bodies and spitting on and harassing (to put it mildly) the living ones. Moreover, we shouldn’t forget that everyday guards and civilians followed up the wave of Hamas fighters on October-7 to commit further atrocities in Israel itself. Then we have institutions, like the UNRWA education system, which has raised Gazan children for decades to loathe the Yahud.

✲✲✲✲✲

The declaration’s points about the 2 state-solution

• The false moral equivalence of Hamas and Israel - The declaration (para 4) actually says “we condemn the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians on the 7th of October” followed by “we also condemn the attacks by Israel against civilians in Gaza” ... almost in the same breath! It’s like comparing a serial killer with a doctor killing the fetus to save the mother’s life. Only a maniac would compare the two. There is a world of difference between Hamas’ evil use of civilians as human shields and hostages to Israel’s rules of engagement apropos  minimising civilian death consequent to targeted strikes against differing levels of commanders. What a joke.
• The contingent release of Hamas’ hostages - Para 8 actually calls upon Hamas to release all hostages but, strangely, “in the context” of stopping the war in Gaza. That makes the release of hostages part of the 2SS, and thus contingent on Israel to “exchange of Palestinian prisoners” (even, presumably, if they’ve committed serious crimes). We’re not doing that rubbish again. We’ve learnt our lessons.
• Gaza and the Westbank unified under one regime - is unobjectionable in theory. But how to do this? Are they going to form a landbridge over the two completely unrelated pieces of land.
• Israel to hand over East Jerusalem - Nope. Not going to happen. East Jerusalem was never part of Palestinian territories, under the original UN plans. Jordan annexed it illegally from 1948 to 1967, and ethnically cleansed Jews from the area. In 1967, Israel immediately took it back. Israel has a much stronger claim to East Jerusalem than Palestine.
• Hamas must end its rule and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority - OK. Fine. But no mention to what happens to remaining Hamas operatives.
• Calling for the return of UNRWA - No way. They have been caught teaching violent ideology to the children of Gaza, providing books with virulent antisemitism. A few UNRWA workers even participated in Oct-7 attacks. Another joke.
• Calling on Abbas to lead the new Palestine - No acknowledgment of him as a corrupt dictator of 20 years.
• Calling for “Right of Return” (by endorsing UNAR 194) - Total non-starter. This will be the destruction of Israel. There is no “Right of Return”. There will never be a “Return” for the sons of the sons of the people who declared war on old Israel and then fled after their attempted genocide failed. No country will ever dictate to Israel its sovereignty and security through its immigration policies.

The Gaza aid crisis ✎

The Gaza aid situation is v. serious. While no famine yet, we may be approaching it quite quickly. The prolonged and uneven distribution of aid is going to give rise to severe malnutrition - esp. among the most vulnerable in the Gazan population.

As Emanuel Fabian writes in the ToI, the problem is distribution. There are almost 1,000 aid trucks sitting at the Gaza-side of Kerem Shalom crossing of the border. They are not getting distributed - either by the GHF or UN.

As a bit of a recap, there are two means of delivering aid to Gaza:

1. Directly to the population in Israeli-secured distribution centers - The IDF simply cannot distribute the aid. That would mean putting soldiers into a v. confrontational situation. They would be surrounded by thousands of Gazans; inevitably leading to clashes and attacks. This is why the GHF was created. In an earlier blog post, I thought this might actually be a solution. But, it’s main problem is not nearly enough distribution points (with only 4 centers). You’d need a safe and secure location close enough to the local population. Then, you need the soldiers, security contractors, equipment and engineering to build & secure the sites. Those distribution centers need to be controlled, managed and defended as Hamas is doing everything to undermine them. They’re being disrupted by gunfire and deaths, and involve long lines. An aid station needs to take in thousands of people per hour, and you can’t search them all. Nevertheless, the GHF have been delivering millions of meals per day (which is why there is no famine).

2. Into Hamas controlled territory - The delivery to areas controlled by Hamas is not what GHF does, but others do it. Previously, if the UN sends their drivers, then part of it gets looted on the way and the remainder goes to Hamas. Hamas uses it for their fighters or selling it to Gazan population at exorbitant prices (thereby gaining recruitment money to get more fighters) or plain recruitment-for-food. Earlier in this war, the UN told Israel that it had to secure the convoys of aid going into Gaza. However, when the IDF did that, Hamas combatants (in civilian clothing) mingled with the civilians coming for the aid; then started shooting at the IDF soldiers. The soldiers shoot back. The narrative became: “Israel is shooting civilians coming for aid.” So then, Israel stopped securing the convoys. The problem now is that the UN and aid organizations don’t want to distribute aid into Gaza without the security of the IDF for fear of Hamas. But, when Israel does secure the aid, they can’t protect it from Hamas because of those civilians. And whose fault is that? You guessed it .... Israel!! Not the fault of Hamas.

The waiting aid convoys are supposed to be taken by various aid groups & UN for delivery; and, as the ToI article makes quite clear, it’s about Hamas:

The official said that the UN has made requests that COGAT cannot agree to concerning the deliveries, such as demanding that Hamas police escort the convoys, or that they be allowed to bring in communication devices that Israel fears could end up in the terror group’s hands.

This is not about starving people. This is a power struggle opposing Israeli measures to stop the aid being used to implicitly strengthen Hamas. Hamas’s remaining power and danger is directly related to its control over the aid delivery. Hamas needs to make getting aid from people other than them dangerous, so they can maintain their monopoly and thus power. As Ben Farmer, Melanie Swan and Iona Cleave writing in “How Gaza’s aid crisis broke Hamas and starved the Strip“ (Telegraph) have explained the new GHF aid program has seriously debilitated Hamas:

It has also caused Hamas’s worst financial crisis in decades, Israeli officials report. The terror group has been unable to pay its fighters or repair its network of tunnels and hideouts beneath the Strip. Cash shortages have also left Hamas reportedly unable to pay salaries for police or ministry employees. Money reserves amassed before, or during the early stages of, the war have run short, while Israeli strikes have devastated the leadership and fractured its grip on the besieged territory. Hamas for years received large sums from Iran, Qatar and others, and was also able to tax cross-border commerce. Israel has long alleged that Hamas also made money by seizing and selling international aid entering Gaza, though this has been denied by the United Nations and aid agencies. That income ended, officials say, when Israel imposed a blockade in March, and then began using the GHF, set up jointly by the US and Israel, to run aid hubs and bypass UN-run distributions.

Perhaps the next stage would be a humanitarian city, like Rafah, in allowing much easier delivery since Hamas is not there.

France’s virtue signaling on Palestinian statehood ✎

French President Macron said yesterday that his nation will recognize an independent state of Palestine in September at the UN. According to President Macron (X):

Consistent with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine. I will make this solemn announcement before the United Nations General Assembly this coming September. 

The urgent priority today is to end the war in Gaza and to bring relief to the civilian population. Peace is possible. We need an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages, and massive humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. We must also ensure the demilitarization of Hamas, secure and rebuild Gaza. And finally, we must build the State of Palestine, guarantee its viability, and ensure that by accepting its demilitarization and fully recognizing Israel, it contributes to the security of all in the region. There is no alternative. 

In light of the commitments made to me by the President of the Palestinian Authority, I have written to him to express my determination to move forward.

✲✲✲✲✲

France’s position means absolutely nothing, for five reasons.

◉ Firstly, the acceptance of the French President’s conditions (which I’ve highlighted in blue) were made by the PA leader Mahmoud Abbas. Mahmoud Abbas is an election-cancelling dictator of the Westbank. He doesn’t have the hostages and he doesn’t control that part of Palestine. And yet, he has apparently pledged to release the hostages. People have forgotten the kind of violence committed by Hamas against other Palestinians, especially members of Fatah. Even if Abbas were installed to run the strip, can he really control Hamas & Islamic Jihad and have them release the hostages? What a joke. Hamas probably loathe him as much as Israel - esp. given the barbaric horrors inflicted by Hamas to his political party members when they took control of the strip in 2007. It’s also v. unclear whether Fatah can command sufficient public support in the Westbank itself, let alone in Gaza. To a considerable proportion of his voter base, his increasingly aggressive rhetoric just isn’t extreme enough.

◉ Secondly, how does the French President propose kicking Hamas out of Gaza? Is he going to send troops to install Abbas instead? Hamas will never demilitarise, and they will never - ever - recognise the state of Israel. So how do we get there?

◉ Thirdly, Israel would be completely willing to recognise a Palestinian state under the conditions Macron listed. The problem here isn’t Israel. Macron is trying to effect a two-state solution from on high without addressing what the Palestinians think about these topics? Polling has consistently showed that the Palestinians (even more so in the Westbank) support what Hamas did on Oct-7. Additionally, people polled have overwhelming stood against “disarmament of Hamas in the Gaza Strip in order to stop the war on the Gaza Strip”. How many times have they rejected a two-state solution because they want Israel gone. Nothing will really change until the surrounding Arab nation states acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. This declaration by the French President cannot undo the brainwashing of children to hate Jews, or religious delusions about “armed struggle”. There just isn’t the political will for a two-state resolution - neither at Camp David nor today.

◉ Fourthly, the recognition of a State of Palestine following the events of Oct-7 only reinforce the terrorist factions, and not the people advocating for peace. Sinwar would be smiling in his grave. If you’re a moderate Palestinian, you’re now more likely to support Hamas over the PA. They get you the statehood results you want.

◉ Fifthly, France is not a player in the Middle East. This needs to managed by the the US and neighbouring Arab states. 

“Israel to the Rescue of the U.S.” by William F. Buckley Jr. ✎

National Review have been celebrating William F. Buckley’s centenary birthday with republications of his old articles. 

WFB is a personal hero. A towering, witty and urbane figure of Conservatism and independence of thought. I am currently reading his “God and Man at Yale”. 

In the below article he comments on the Israel’s six-day war and US-Israeli relations, and, I must admit, found myself smiling and chuckling:

I also forgot that the Soviet Union had backed the Arab nationalisms against Israel during the 60s onwards.

Perhaps we should sign that mutual defense pact with Israel — if only for our own self-protection. Let’s face it, that was a blood-stirring show she put on against the Egyptian swaggerer with all his Communist tanks and airplanes, and all his jingoistic rodomontade. One can hardly imagine a better military machine to help us out of a jam than Israel’s. There is courage, tenacity, single-mindedness, skill — all of them put to essentially non-imperialist uses, if you grant the legitimacy of the Balfour Declaration which at this stage you might as well do.

Nasser declared that the Mideast was too small an area for the Arabs and for the Israelis, to which the Israelis’ only response — always assuming they were not prepared neatly to dismantle their nation and march into the sea — was that under the circumstances, the Arabs would have to move over. (Lol) After 36 hours of an Israeli blitzkrieg, the Arab braves have stopped war-dancing long enough to discover that they are surrounded by Israelis, and that their great brothers in the Soviet Union were off at the United Nations jawing about cease-fires, and never mind the old borders, the new ones would be perfectly satisfactory. (Another lol)

Not only might Israel be of great military help to the United States in any future emergency: there is absolutely no limit to the psychological help she can be. Who else but Israel could have turned our doviest doves into tiger sharks? Who but Israel could, for instance, have persuaded Dwight Macdonald, that eminent pacifist, who walks out of the room rather than listen to Hubert Humphrey because Hubert Humphrey is committed to the proposition that the United States has to help small nations around the world when threatened by aggression: who else but Israel could have transformed Macdonald into the very image of Long John Silver, patch over his eye, dagger between his teeth, napalm grenades in his rucksack, boarding the enemy’s ship shouting lustfully Murder! Loot! Rapine! Come one, come all!

A single advertisement sponsored by the “Americans for Democracy in the Middle East,” whose text I myself heartily endorse, is signed by Theodore Draper, critic of LBJ; Michael Harrington, a pacifist of sorts; Robert Heilbroner, the economist and critic of LBJ; Irving Howe, the critic and editor of “Dissent,” which is to the American left what the John Birch Society’s “American Opinion” is to the American Right; H. Stuart Hughes, who loveth man so much that he would have had the U. S. disarm unilaterally years ago — leaving us, Sir Stuart, with what means of implementing the action you call for now in Israel?; Norman Podhoretz of “Commentary,” Joe Rauh of the ADA, and so forth and so on.

Any nation with the strength to compel such men as these to start talking in terms of international obligations, the demands of honor, the necessity for the use of force thousands of miles from home, is a priceless national asset, quite apart from the sentimental value of the country. Indeed, one should consider giving to Israel a few square miles of territory in South Vietnam, in West Berlin, in the Straits of Formosa, and at other likely pressure points where East and West are likely to meet on unfriendly terms. 

The antisemites on the right ✎

Very interesting comments by Jeffrey Blehar in “The Wail of the Israel Haters“ (National Review):

And as soon as the first Israeli strikes were announced on Thursday, the weirdos scuttled out from behind the woodwork and poured forth over Twitter/X, chirruping angrily and helplessly about Israel, about Jews, and about worldwide conspiracy theories to yoke America to the Zionists. Yes, old-fashioned nuttery was once again out in the open, as all the most obvious suspects ran rampant.

There was Candace Owens — a woman who swears she is not an antisemite even as she “just asks questions” about the myth of Simon of Trent — reverting perfectly to form upon hearing the news: “Get ready, white American men! It’s time for you to go die for Israel again.” There was Tucker Carlson’s favorite “historian,” Darryl “MartyrMade” Cooper, offering prayerful words of consolation to his followers: “Don’t worry, friends: as arrogant and invincible as he may seem, in the end the devil and all his children are cast into the lake of fire.” (Remember, my friends: Cooper — who also believes that Churchill was the villain of World War II and that Europe would have been better off had Hitler won — insists that he is in no way an antisemite.)

As if to top them all, purported comedian Dave Smith — last seen sidekicking as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist spouting accusations of Israeli genocide in Gaza on Joe Rogan’s hyperpopular podcast — went one step further. Referring to reports that Trump is fully supporting Israel’s action, he called Trump a traitor to his own movement:

If this is true, Trump is the most impotent b**** of a leader imaginable. He’s allowing one side of a war, who clearly wants to drag us in, to lie about our involvement while not correcting the record.

Either way, Trump has betrayed MAGA and every principle of America First. He is no longer worthy of any of our support. He probably never was.

I am as worried about the potential outcome in the Middle East as any sane man would be. (In particular, I would be very careful about breezily calling for immediate “regime change” without further consideration of what a post-mullah Iran, brought to heel by Israeli military action, would look like.) But it does my heart good to see all the worst people absolutely enraged, and in such repulsively sputtering ways, about Israel’s success to date.

✲✲✲✲✲

For those who don’t know, Dave Smith is a total moron. I’ve heard him “debate” on the Israel-Gaza conflict and he knows nothing. He would babble about a two-state solution on the popular 1967 borders until he realised Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and Judea and Samaria from 1948. And even if we pretend that there was a country called “Palestine”, and that we could revert to the 1967 borders, or even the 1948 borders; why did the Arabs reject every single partition plan before these borders were demarcated and tried to take the entirety of the land by force? No answer. These people parrot “ending the occupation” or “from the river to the sea” which is an antisemitic dog whistle. It means the eradication of Israel and the Jews. 

Tucker Carlson is an isolationist conservative. The problem here is that this inclination is apt to sometimes involve conspiracies about the Jews and world dominion. Tucker did also “interview” Putin and, worst of all, gave Darryl Cooper a platform on his show for his deplorable David Irving historical revisionism of WW2.

Israel hitting military targets, Iran lobbing missiles at civilians ✎

Note the contrast:

• Israel took out military airport, major long-range missile bases, Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment site, the four most senior generals, and now the intelligence chief.
• Iran wants to make Israel “uninhabitable” .

  

✲✲✲✲✲