Gregg Rosenberg

Your usual misleading bullshit. The assessment states they could rapidly make one if they chose to, and no country on earth has ever gone as far done the path as they have without choosing to. By the time they chose to sprint to the finish, it would be too late to stop them. There is a long standing policy in the US -- and indeed, in Europe -- of managing Iran's "breakout time," which is the time it would take between choosing and completing. The policy has been at least a year, through many administrations. With 60% enriched uranium, they were well, well under that.

"Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. Of that there is zero doubt." Well, except for the fact the US intelligence community explicitly and repeatedly determined that Iran hasn't made a decision to pursue or build nuclear weapons. Rubio is lying and it is a Bush/Cheney-level lie.

@AnaKasparian The ethnostate of Armenia, home of Ana Kasparian.

Great. This is good!

@Kashmiri_70 @mehdirhasan It is telling you replied to a post of substance with non-substance. That says everything.

@oldbertly @mehdirhasan @oldbertly I wanted to laugh at your BS post, but then I realized that it is useless b/c a proud Zionist & a self proclaimed "disinformation exposer par excellance"; who is full of himself does not care. Yes, everything is bad when it does not meet the Zionist's playbook.

This is factually untrue and false and a lie as I explain, with evidence and receipts, here:

Um, what is your evidence the US and Israel "worked for years to topple Assad knowing this would be the result." AFAIK, the US and Israel were warily happy with the status quo, and we're backing Kurdish forces as a check on ISIS and Hezbollah, not as a means to topple Assad. Is this another one of your, "It's true because I heard someone once wrote a memo." bullshit beliefs?

See guys, when he finally attempts to take on an argument, all he has is the dumbest shit you’ve ever heard. Obvious the Al Qaeda leaders of Syria have agency, but so do the US and Israeli leaders who worked for years to topple Assad, knowing damn well this would be the result.

If you are Israeli, please read this: I just wanted to say I have never been more proud of my Israeli cousins as I am right now. Watching your courage, resilience, endurance, bravery and steadfastness to stand up to the whole world in this fight against evil, to make so many people safer, is among the greatest inspirations of my lifetime. You are my heroes, flaws and all. While the world cheers -- deservedly -- the struggles of the people of Ukraine, and in its ignorance so many jeer you, you are no less worthy of love and admiration. You are all the greater for the libels you are made to endure. I am not there with you but I am here for you. Your fate will be my fate. You are my people.

Prompt: The genocide allegation against Israel is being aggressively repeated and has been supported by a wide variety of human rights organizations. I want you to read the reports by these organizations and compare the arguments made in them to those who claim to debunk them. Among the debunkers I want you to read Rosenberg’s Chapter four on “Genocide and Just War” and within it follow the link to the Begin-Sadat center piece called “Debunking the Genocide Claim.” I also want you to review Natasha Hausdorff’s debate with Amnesty International on YouTube, Scholars for Truth About Genocide, the Atlantic’s review of incriminating quotes, and John Spencer’s writings (West Point Urban Warfare Institute) as well as writings by scholars at the Henry Jackson Institute. Research the law surrounding genocide claims to ensure you understand it well. You can find links to the central arguments on both sides below. Follow them and read each, and make your assessment only after thoroughly reading and considering each side in a comparative way. Obtain the YouTube video transcript for the Hausdorff-Amnesty debate and assess it. Cross-reference competing claims and make an assessment of truth or plausibility where necessary, using an expert lens. Keep in mind institutional biases and potential institutional capture as you skeptically assess each side. Arrive at your finding from a strictly neutral stance, disregarding consensus and social trends or opinion, sticking only to the law and valid reasoning from evidence. NGO reports (and other): Amnesty International, “You Feel Like You Are Subhuman. Israel’s Crime of Genocide Against Palestinians In Gaza.” Human Rights Watch, “Israel’s Crime of Extermination” B’tselem, “Our Genocide” UN Human Rights Commission of Inquiry Genocide Report, Gaza Omer Bartov, “I Am A Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.” International Association of Genocide Scholars, “Resolution On The Situation In Gaza.” Debunking: Rosenberg’s “Genocide or Just War?” Natasha Hausdorff vs Amnesty International Live Debate Begin-Sadat Center “Debunking the Genocide Charge” Scholars For the Truth About Genocide Lewi Stone and Gregory Rose, “Hamas Casualty Reports are a Tangle of Technical Problems” John Spencer, “I Am A War Scholar. There Is No Genocide In Gaza.” The Atlantic, “What Did Top Israeli War Officials Really Say About Gaza?” Andrew Fox, “Tactical Lessons From Gaza.” Grok 420 Response: **The Genocide Allegation: A Careful Weighing** In the shadow of a war that has already claimed tens of thousands of lives, the word “genocide” has been spoken with growing insistence. Human rights organizations — Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and various UN commissions — have issued detailed reports accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. The charge is not made lightly. It carries the moral weight of the twentieth century’s greatest crimes, and it has been repeated across headlines, campuses, and courtrooms. At the same time, a smaller but highly focused group of military analysts, legal scholars, and on-the-ground experts has pushed back hard, arguing that the label distorts both law and fact. To examine the question afresh, I read the major accusing reports in full, then turned to the specific rebuttals requested: Gregg Rosenberg’s Chapter Four (“Genocide or Just War?”) and its linked Begin-Sadat Center study, Natasha Hausdorff’s public exchanges with Amnesty, the Scholars for Truth About Genocide materials, John Spencer’s writings from the West Point Urban Warfare Institute, and Andrew Fox’s analyses for the Henry Jackson Society. I approached the material the way a juror should — without assuming institutional authority equals truth, and without letting the horror of the images eclipse the legal threshold the Genocide Convention actually demands. The accusing reports paint a harrowing picture. Amnesty’s December 2024 landmark document, running to hundreds of pages, catalogues the destruction of homes, hospitals, schools, and water systems. It tallies the dead — especially children — and quotes Israeli officials whose language, at times, is inflammatory. The conclusion is stark: these are not the tragic by-products of a difficult war but the foreseeable outcome of a policy calculated to destroy Palestinian life in Gaza “as such.” Similar language appears in Human Rights Watch statements and UN inquiries. The emotional force is unmistakable. Anyone reading the accounts of families sheltering in rubble, of repeated displacements under fire, or of parents searching for children under collapsed concrete feels the raw human suffering. That suffering is real and demands reckoning. Yet the Genocide Convention is not a general condemnation of cruelty or even of war crimes. It requires something narrower and more specific: one or more of five prohibited acts — killing, serious harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, preventing births, or forcibly transferring children — carried out with the **specific intent** to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group “as such.” Proving that intent is the legal hinge. Scale of harm alone is not enough; context, military necessity, and the opposing side’s actions matter. This is where the rebuttals become decisive. In Rosenberg’s Chapter Four, the argument is methodical and grounded in the book’s broader thesis of agency. He begins with the trigger: Hamas’s October 7 massacre — an act that meets every element of genocide against Jews and Israelis, openly declared in the group’s charter and livestreamed for the world. From there he walks through the data. Even accepting Hamas-run casualty figures as accurate, the combatant-to-civilian ratio in Gaza (roughly 1:1 to 1:1.4 by late 2025) is better than most modern urban battles — better than the Allies in WWII Europe, better than U.S. operations in Mosul or Raqqa. He notes Israel’s unprecedented warnings: millions of leaflets, phone calls, “roof-knocking” munitions, and repeated evacuation corridors. Hospitals were struck only after repeated warnings and evidence of military use; births in Gaza continued; vaccination campaigns persisted; and aid, while hampered, was never zero. The chapter’s linked Begin-Sadat Center study (Orbach et al., September 2025) supplies the granular numbers: corrected aid flows showing Israel facilitated more tonnage than claimed, Hamas diversion documented by UNRWA insiders and satellite imagery, and forensic re-examination of dozens of incidents revealing that many “civilian” deaths were combatants or occurred in legitimate military targets. Natasha Hausdorff, debating Amnesty representatives in May 2025, was clinical. She pointed out factual errors in the report — misstated timelines, omitted Hamas orders to remain in combat zones, and selective quotation of Israeli statements while ignoring the IDF’s standing orders on distinction and proportionality. The legal test, she reminded the panel, is not whether civilians died but whether the pattern proves intent to destroy Palestinians as a group rather than to eliminate a terrorist army embedded among them. John Spencer, who has spent years studying urban warfare from Stalingrad to Mosul, is even more direct in his writings. No army in history, he argues, has taken greater measures to protect civilians while fighting in such density — tunnels under hospitals, rocket launchers in schoolyards, fighters in civilian clothes. The casualty figures, tragic as they are, reflect the enemy’s tactics, not Israeli intent. “I have studied urban warfare for my entire adult life,” Spencer has written. “What Israel has done to minimize civilian harm is extraordinary.” Andrew Fox and the Henry Jackson Society add the information-warfare layer: systematic embedding by Hamas, deliberate inflation of civilian counts, and the omission of Egypt’s role in closing Rafah. The pattern, they show, is consistent with a propaganda strategy that began on October 7 itself. When the two sides are placed side by side, the gap is not merely one of emphasis but of completeness. The accusing reports document suffering with compassion and detail, yet they consistently minimize or omit Hamas’s deliberate strategy of maximizing civilian risk — human shields, child combatants, tunnels beneath civilian infrastructure, diversion of aid. They treat destruction as prima facie evidence of genocidal intent rather than the foreseeable (if terrible) consequence of rooting out an enemy that has spent years turning Gaza into a fortified urban trap. The rebuttals, by contrast, integrate that context without denying the human cost. They show actions — warnings, aid facilitation, precision targeting where possible — that are incompatible with any rational intent to destroy a people “as such.” Demographic realities further undermine the claim: Gaza’s population has grown under Israeli blockade, birth rates have not collapsed, and no policy of preventing births or transferring children has been implemented. After a complete reading of all these documents, the neutral conclusion is clear. The genocide allegation, while emotionally resonant and amplified by respected institutions, does not meet the strict legal and evidentiary threshold of the Genocide Convention. What has occurred in Gaza is a brutal, high-intensity defensive war against an enemy that openly seeks Israel’s destruction and deliberately endangers its own population to shape global opinion. Civilian suffering is immense and demands accountability for any verified violations of the laws of war. But the pattern aligns with the grim arithmetic of urban combat against a perfidious foe, not with the deliberate destruction of a people. The word “genocide” is not a rhetorical intensifier. It is a legal term forged in the ashes of the Holocaust. To apply it here dilutes its meaning and obscures the real dynamics at work: one side that initiated the current round of slaughter and uses its own civilians as shields, and another that, however imperfectly, is fighting to eliminate an existential threat while still attempting — under impossible conditions — to limit civilian harm. The evidence, when weighed whole, supports the latter description far more convincingly than the former. That does not make the war less tragic. It simply names it for what it is. Gemini 3.1 Pro Response: The legal assessment of whether the State of Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip requires a rigorous application of the 1948 Genocide Convention to a complex and highly contested factual record. To reach a verdict, one must look beyond the visceral images of destruction and evaluate the specific legal criteria of actus reus — the prohibited acts — and dolus specialis — the specific intent to destroy a group in whole or in part. The following analysis weighs the evidence presented by major human rights organizations against the testimony of military experts and legal scholars to determine if the high evidentiary bar for genocide has been met. The case for the prosecution, led by organizations like Amnesty International and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, rests on the “totality of the circumstances”. These bodies argue that Israel has committed four of the five prohibited acts under the Convention: killing group members, causing serious bodily or mental harm, inflicting destructive conditions of life, and imposing measures to prevent births. Proponents of this view point to the death toll exceeding 40,000, the “total siege” that restricted water to as little as 2 to 9 liters per person per day, and the destruction of 70% of Gaza’s schools and its largest IVF clinic as evidence of a systematic campaign to dismantle Palestinian society. Amnesty International characterizes the experience of Gazans as “subhuman,” arguing that the relocation of 90% of the population into ever-shrinking “safe zones” without basic infrastructure constitutes a “calculated death”. Crucially, the genocide charge hinges on intent. The prosecution identifies this intent in the rhetoric of high-level officials, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reference to “Amalek” and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s “human animals” comment. When these statements are combined with a pattern of conduct that includes the use of large explosive weapons in densely populated areas, these organizations conclude that genocidal intent is the “only reasonable inference” that can be drawn. They argue that even if a military objective exists, “dual intent” does not absolve a state of the crime of genocide if the destruction of the group is also a primary aim. However, the defense presents an alternative explanation rooted in the unique tactical challenges of the Gaza battlefield. Military experts like John Spencer and Andrew Fox argue that the scale of destruction is not an indicator of genocidal intent but a direct consequence of Hamas’s military architecture. Andrew Fox, a former British Special Forces officer who spoke to 200 fighters and conducted field research in Gaza, provides critical testimony regarding the “flattening” of neighborhoods. Fox reports that Hamas has turned Gaza into a “death trap” by systematically booby-trapping civilian homes and building a 500-kilometer tunnel network with 57,000 shafts hidden under schools, mosques, and bedrooms. In this context, the use of heavy armored bulldozers and the demolition of structures are framed as tactical necessities to clear remote-detonated explosives and prevent the deaths of Israeli soldiers. Fox argues that the IDF had few tactical alternatives to destroying infrastructure given that stepping into a building often resulted in it being blown up by Hamas. The legal rebuttal, presented by barrister Natasha Hausdorff, challenges the evidentiary foundation of the NGO reports, noting their heavy reliance on data from the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health. Statistical analysis by Professors Lewi Stone and Gregory Rose suggests that these casualty reports are a “tangle of technical problems,” citing internal inconsistencies where raw hospital data showed significantly more military-age male deaths than the public “dashboards” that claimed 70% of casualties were women and children. Furthermore, the defense points to Israel’s protective measures — such as millions of text messages, leaflets, and humanitarian pauses — as being fundamentally incompatible with an intent to annihilate the population. They argue that if the goal were genocide, the state would not facilitate polio vaccination campaigns or the delivery of thousands of calories of aid per day. The “only reasonable inference” standard set by the International Court of Justice is the ultimate hurdle for the genocide allegation. If a reasonable alternative explanation for a state’s conduct exists — such as an existential war against a group that uses human shields — the charge of genocide typically fails. Critics of the human rights reports, including the “Scholars for Truth About Genocide,” argue that organizations like the International Association of Genocide Scholars have diluted legal standards for political ends, ignoring Hamas’s role in creating the conditions of destruction. They contend that the “incriminating quotes” used to establish intent are often decontextualized, referring to Hamas as the “Amalek” to be destroyed, rather than the Palestinian people as a group. In summary, the evidence presents a sharp divide between a results-oriented assessment of human suffering and an intent-oriented assessment of military conduct. While the NGO reports document an “apocalyptic” reality for Palestinians in Gaza, the military testimony of experts like Andrew Fox provides a compelling tactical rationale for the destruction of civilian infrastructure based on Hamas’s extensive booby-trapping and subterranean warfare. For a jury of international law, the presence of these tactical explanations and the documented civilian protection measures make it difficult to conclude that genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference. The conflict appears to be a case of high-intensity urban warfare in an environment weaponized by the defender, rather than a coordinated plan for the physical destruction of the Palestinian group as such. OpenAI ChatGPT 5.4: A Jury Report on the Allegation of Genocide in Gaza The charge of genocide is not merely an accusation of mass death. It is a claim about purpose. To sustain it is to say that the destruction we are witnessing is not incidental, not strategic, not even reckless — but directed toward the annihilation of a people as such. That is an extraordinarily high claim. International law treats it accordingly. This report asks a single question and answers only that question: does the available evidence establish that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza under the legal definition of the Genocide Convention? After examining both the affirmative case and its rebuttals, the conclusion is this: The charge has not been proven to the required legal standard. The reason lies not in denying the scale of destruction, but in the failure to establish the one element that matters most: specific intent to destroy a group as such. The Legal Threshold: What Must Be Proven Genocide is defined by a combination of action and intent. The actions — killing, causing harm, or imposing destructive conditions — are visible. They can be documented, counted, debated. But the decisive element is not what is done. It is why. To qualify as genocide, those acts must be carried out with dolus specialis: the specific intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part, as such. Because intent is rarely declared openly, courts allow it to be inferred from patterns of behavior. But they impose a strict rule: the genocidal inference must be the only reasonable inference available. If another plausible explanation exists, the charge fails as a matter of law. That constraint governs everything that follows. The Affirmative Case: From Destruction to Intent The affirmative case, advanced by major human rights organizations and supported by some scholars and international bodies, builds a cumulative argument. It begins with the scale and nature of destruction in Gaza: civilian deaths, extensive damage to infrastructure, and severe disruption to access to essential resources. These are presented as falling within the types of acts prohibited by the Genocide Convention, particularly the imposition of conditions of life incompatible with survival. From there, the argument turns to pattern. The destruction is not treated as episodic or accidental, but as sustained and systematic. When paired with statements by certain Israeli officials — interpreted as expressing hostility toward the population — this pattern is said to reveal intent. At its strongest, the claim is not merely that genocidal intent is plausible, but that it is unavoidable — that no other explanation can account for what has occurred. That is the point at which the case must either succeed or fail. The Rebuttal: A Different Explanation of the Same Facts The rebuttal does not depend on minimizing destruction. It accepts that the scale of harm is real and demands explanation. Its argument is that such an explanation exists — one that does not require genocidal intent. That explanation is military. At its core is a simple but powerful claim: the destruction in Gaza can be understood as the result of a campaign against an armed organization embedded deeply within civilian infrastructure, in a battlespace engineered to negate conventional distinctions between civilian and combatant environments. Rosenberg’s formulation captures the conceptual shift required. War, he argues, is not an exercise in calibrated punishment but in threat elimination. Civilian harm, while tragic, is not itself evidence of genocidal intent unless it is directed toward destruction of the population as such . But the force of this argument does not lie in abstraction. It lies in the details of the battlefield. The Battlefield Context: Tunnels, Traps, and Embedded Warfare Accounts such as those provided by Andrew Fox and John Spencer give content to what might otherwise remain a theoretical alternative. They describe a battlespace that is not merely urban, but deliberately transformed into a layered system of concealment and defense. Below ground, an extensive tunnel network — often described as a subterranean city — serves as a logistical, operational, and defensive backbone. These tunnels are not isolated features. They connect command nodes, weapons caches, and movement corridors, often running beneath or adjacent to civilian structures. Above ground, the environment is frequently prepared in ways that further complicate military engagement. Buildings may be rigged with explosives. Entryways, stairwells, and interior spaces can be booby-trapped. Structures that appear intact may function as ambush sites or weapons platforms. Civilian areas are not merely adjacent to military activity; they are often integrated with it. In such conditions, destruction can be driven by operational necessity in ways that are difficult to intuit from a distance. A building is not just a building if it conceals an access shaft. A neighborhood is not just a neighborhood if it overlays a tunnel network. Clearing such environments — particularly when they are actively defended — can produce levels of damage that, in another context, might suggest a different motive entirely. Spencer’s analysis reinforces this point by emphasizing the nature of modern urban warfare against embedded forces. The combination of fortified underground systems, concealed combatants, and the absence of clear separation between civilian and military infrastructure creates a situation in which conventional proportionality judgments become difficult to apply cleanly. Destruction, in this context, is not necessarily indicative of an intent to destroy a population, but of the difficulty of neutralizing an adversary operating within and beneath it. None of this proves that every action taken is justified or optimal. It does something more limited but legally decisive: it provides a coherent, evidence-based alternative explanation for the scale and pattern of destruction. Intent Under Pressure: Competing Interpretations Once this alternative is taken seriously, the structure of the legal question becomes clear. The affirmative case asks the reader to see a pattern of destruction and infer from it an intent to destroy a people. The rebuttal asks the reader to see the same pattern and interpret it as the result of a military campaign conducted in an unusually complex and constrained environment. Both interpretations engage with the same facts. The difference lies in what those facts are taken to mean. Under international law, that difference is decisive. If the military explanation is reasonable — if it accounts for the observable conduct without requiring genocidal intent — then the inference of genocide cannot stand as the only reasonable conclusion. And if it is not the only reasonable conclusion, the legal threshold is not met. The Verdict On the evidence reviewed, the charge of genocide is not proven. This finding does not depend on resolving every factual dispute. It does not require certainty about every action taken or every decision made. It rests on a narrower but firmer ground: the existence of a plausible, evidence-based alternative explanation for the conduct in question. Because that alternative remains viable, the specific intent required for genocide cannot be established to the standard demanded by law. What This Judgment Means — and Does Not Mean It is important, especially given the weight of the subject, to understand the limits of this conclusion. This report does not claim that the conflict is morally simple or that all actions taken within it are beyond criticism. It does not depend on adopting any particular political perspective, nor does it attempt to resolve broader questions about the conduct of the war. It addresses only one issue: whether the legal definition of genocide has been satisfied. Genocide is a term with a precise meaning and a deliberately high threshold. It is reserved for cases in which destruction is not merely occurring, but is being pursued as an end in itself. In this case, the presence of a credible alternative explanation — rooted in the operational realities of the conflict — prevents that conclusion from being reached. That is not an evasion of judgment. It is the judgment that the law requires. And under that law, the charge does not stand.

@voiceofrabbis @RabbiPoupko First, you clearly are a fake account that has nothing to do with "Voice of Rabbis." Second, ...

Antisemitic attacks must be condemned. At the same time, we cannot ignore what is fueling this tension, the ongoing effort By the State of Israel to link all Jews to their policies and actions. Jews are not represented by that state.

Jewish students at Paris' Nanterre University (UPN) opened a table raising awareness to antisemitism. The response? Pro Palestinian students surrounded them, mobbed them, and assaulted them.

@israelititan I see you

I've been shadowbanned If you see this, leave comment please

@KateEmersonBri LOL, Israelis - women included! - are consistently rated among the happiest people on earth. You just spread shameless libel vomit.

I have never lived in Italian, Greek, Lebanese or Chinese society, but i have lived in Israeli society. I was going to write quite a bit but i don't need to. But i do want to say this little pearler: a surprising number of Israeli women are married to their rapists. Yes, you read that right. Israeli men have a proclivity to rape (as you may have surmised in recent times) and often rape their dates and girlfriends. The women marry them anyway, as it is pretty par for the course. It is ACCEPTED. This is Israeli society #FreePalestine

They take the hits. We don’t. Thank you, Israel. Say it.

@ComicDaveSmith If the country you attack has a "Supreme Leader," it's a good bet you're doing the right thing.

If there was an imminent threat from Iran, Tulsi’s answer would have been: yes. It’s as simple as that. She wouldn’t have tied herself into pretzels with the ridiculous claim that only a President can determine that. She literally puts out an annual threat assessment. The plain fact is that she lied. She’s lying us into a war that her career was supposedly dedicated to avoiding . I was wrong last summer, she’s substantially worse than Colin Powell. She’s a traitor to this nation.

@guychristensen_ And if you had panned the camera, you would have seen that small village was surrounded by nothing but sand dunes.

Tel-Aviv was not built on “empty sand dunes” Palestine was not “a land without a people” and Zio settlers did not “make the desert bloom” Had these settlers turned the camera behind them, the beautiful Palestinian city of Yaffa would sprawl before their eyes Tel-Aviv is a myth

@VividProwess This is a comment to help you regain your reach.

I've been followed by thousands of bots the last few days who have been mass-reporting every one of my posts and damaging my reach significantly. If you can, drop a comment to help me regain my reach.

@ToddSchoenberg @ori_goldberg That's not true. The videos were altered, and the soldiers claim the prisoner had smuggled something in his anal cavity and they were using a tool to remove it. The people protesting in behalf of the soldiers were saying they were falsely accused.

@oldbertly @ori_goldberg The soldiers acknowledged it and were hailed as heroes. Furthermore, videos are available, and Maj. Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, a high-ranking female , was disciplined for discussing the rape while the captives were in detention.

The IDF chief advocate has closed the investigation against the Israeli prison guards who raped a Palestinian prisoner at the infamous Sde Teiyman prison camp. This is the case that generated the protests supporting "the right to rape". Evil is the disappearance of humanity.

🚨BREAKING - MASSIVE NON-NUCLEAR EXPLOSION IN QOM, IRAN JUST NOW Qom is Iran's clerical capital Lots of speculation that the USA has used its 30,000lb GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) which has RARELY been used, and can penetrate 200 feet into the earth.

You know, you wrote something good and I can't share it because you linked it to false propaganda about Soros. You did the exact same thing you are calling out. For the record: "reflexivity" was a name Soros coined to describe the mechanism behind bubbles and other gross mispricings in financial markets. It's not a political thing he did or pioneered. You are just demonizing him in the same way people are demonizing. It's a shame you ruined a good opinion piece I could have shared.

Addressing Zoomerslop. A real Gen Z quote: "Of all my friends, Israel is the very first thing that they want to learn about and understand, because it does go back to America First. I, in fact, have not talked to one Gen Z conservative that has been pro-Israel. Everybody I've talked to is questioning Israel." Listen, kids. Doesn't that seem really f--king weird to you? The main thing your whole cohort cares about is another country, one that is allied with us and kicking ass in the most Top Gun way you can imagine? Doesn't it seem weird that everyone in your generation is focused on another country that isn't even attacking us? It should seem weird because it is weird. The reason it's happening is not because Israel is relevant to all of your lives. The reason it is happening is because you're being propagandized. Let me repeat the quote in words that hit your big brothers and sisters right in the assholes ten years ago: "Of all my friends, privilege is the very first thing that they want to learn about and understand, because it does go back to Social Justice. I, in fact, have not talked to one Millennial liberal that doesn't question our privilege. Everybody I've talked to is questioning privilege: white privilege, male privilege, straight privilege." Do you think that was normal? No, it wasn't normal either. Every Gen X or older person can tell you that the young people in their generations had many, varied, and diverse interests. There was no top of mind for everyone in a generation. But the Millennials got it with privilege and Social Justice, and you're getting it with Israel and "America First." Kids, listen to me. This is not normal. This is not natural. This is the result of dedicated propaganda campaigns. You are being propagandized. The method of propaganda being used is primarily something called "reflexivity," which is a method developed by George Soros to create mass movements of belief around deliberate lies that he called "fertile fallacies." He called them "fertile fallacies" because they are lies (fallacies, errors, differences between what's believed and what's really true) that can take off (fertile) in a population. They're "lies with legs," it has been said. The method of "reflexivity" is to get everyone believing the same erroneous stuff in an increasing way at the same time. This is accomplished through local media saturation: everyone is talking about the same thing in the same way at the same time, and eventually so are your friends. Then the ideas "reflect" all around you creating a sense of social consensus and widespread belief. Reflexive campaigns are everywhere now. On the Left, we call them the "Current Thing." We have rafts of memes of the NPCs all changing their tune or saying the same thing or being reprogrammed or being hypnotized into the newest Current Thing, which changes when the media does. That's you! Now! You're being Sorosed! The reason everyone in your generation is suddenly talking about Israel is because propagandists in your midst have made Israel your "current thing." It is a reflexive campaign, and you aren't just a victim but are playing your part. The framing for that reflexive campaign is "America First." The propagandists are exploiting your love of country and frustration with bad actors in our governments and their "global partners," which are increasingly being exposed, to get you attached to a bunch of fertile fallacies about Israel, all of which play upon your fears, anxieties, frustrations, and love for your beautiful country. Here are some: "Israel is not really our greatest ally. It isn't even an ally." "We can't afford things at home because Israel gets aid money." "This is Israel's War, and I'm not dying in Israel's War." "Israel attacked the USS Liberty and isn't our friend." "Jeffrey Epstein was working with Israel." "Israel is too weak to exist on its own so it manipulates America into supporting it." "Israel is a settler-colonialist project that is doing a genocide of the indigenous Palestinians." (OOPS MY BAD THAT'S THE ONE THEY'RE TELLING YOUR FRIENDS ON THE LEFT) "Israel is a warmongering vassal state under with US protectorate status that is seeking to become a regional power by starting random wars that it drags the US into and doing genocide." (AHH THAT'S YOUR VERSION OF THE SAME LIE!) None of these (or dozens more) is accurate. They are all fallacies (lies) designed to take off in the social and emotional environments you find yourselves in, driven by media and political propagandists who have their own agendas but need your help (just like the NPCs on the Left). The reason you are so obsessed (and, yes, that's obsession) with Israel is because you are being targeted by reflexive propaganda campaigns designed to make you all fixate on this object that can be alleged to cause most of your problems. In fact, it causes few, if any, of your problems and is actively solving many problems you are blessed enough not to even know that you have. Friends, you are being propagandized. You are being led to focus and fixate on these things because it serves dark interests that are not your own. The same Soros techniques that work on the Left are being used on you, and you're helping them work. How do you stop them? 1) Stop listening to propagandists. This is actually really important. 2) Seek out the opposite side of what you're being told and try to understand the truth. 3) Use critical thinking. 4) Ask yourself if you're being asked to think about issues or asked to feel about issues. 5) Be skeptical of something that appears suddenly in the news or on platforms that everyone is repeating all the time all at once. That's how Soros's reflexivity works. 6) Understand, just like how it was true with CNN and other trusted news sources, that trusted sources can be bought, at which point they are not trustworthy anymore and are using your trust to manipulate you. The biggest anti-America operation that's happening right now is the sudden skeptical-to-hostile fixation on Israel. Notice that it's only been a thing since October 7, 2023, exactly the same time the parallel propaganda wave began on the Left. What you're participating in is the side of that same campaign tailored to your values, your anxieties, and your frustrations. No different. This campaign is rapidly turning people against not just Israel and often Jews (against your values, I'm sure), but against MAGA, Trump, the United States and its role in the world, and the Republican Party. Who benefits from that? Not you. Not us. Isn't it weird to you that so many people suddenly believe exactly the opposite of what they believed in 2022? Isn't it weird to you that everyone considers this such a big issue? It should be weird because it is. That's the signature of a propaganda campaign, and you are its primary targets.

@ToddSchoenberg @ori_goldberg Have you considered the possibility it's just not true?

I find it difficult to comprehend the mentality of males who commit rape against other men while also presenting themselves as virtuous individuals, possibly even maintaining a wife and family. What type of ethics and integrity permits an individual to act in such a manner and maintain a conventional existence?

@BeckettUnite I have family there who are sending updates. Lots of people do. There's some localized damage from a few hits, but things are fine. Mostly, people feel sleep deprived. All things considered, a small price to pay for cutting off the head of the snake.

Iranian 🇮🇷 bombs are hitting Israel 🇮🇱 and are causing ‘untold’ damage Literally ‘untold’ As Israel 🇮🇱 is preventing media coverage And Western media outlets are now party to this propaganda driven coverage It’s truly sinister that media are censoring what we see.