Micha Danzig

Mehdi Hasan’s formulation is the kind of historically selective half-truth that has made him such a reliable conveyor belt for anti-Israel propaganda. Yes, large numbers of Palestinian Arabs became refugees during the 1947-49 war. What he deliberately erases is how the war started. He’s right that the violence did not begin on May 15, 1948 with the invasions by 5 different Arab states. It began the moment the UN voted for partition on November 29, 1947 - when Arab militias in Mandatory Palestine rejected the existence of any Jewish state in any borders and launched a civil war against the Jewish community. The first shots were not fired by “Zionist militias invading Arab land.” They were fired by Arab forces rejecting partition altogether. Nor did this violence emerge in some historical vacuum. Arab massacres of Jews in Ottoman and later British-controlled Palestine long predated Israel’s independence: 1517 Safed. 1834 Safed and Hebron. 1920 Nebi Musa. 1921 Jaffa. 1929 Hebron and Safed. 1936-39 Arab Revolt attacks. This was not a conflict born solely from “occupation” or “1967.” Violent opposition to Jewish sovereignty and even Jewish presence long preceded both. And Hasan’s framing also erases the influx of irregular Arab forces well before May 15, 1948. The Arab Liberation Army entered Mandatory Palestine months earlier under Fawzi al-Qawuqji - an Iraqi officer deeply tied to Axis and Nazi collaboration during WWII. The Battle of Tirat Tzvi in February 1948 was fought against these invading Arab irregulars months before Israeli independence was declared. As for Deir Yassin: yes, civilians were tragically killed there in April 1948 during a brutal civil war already underway. Even mainstream Zionist leadership condemned aspects of the operation. But Hasan predictably presents Deir Yassin as though it occurred in isolation while ignoring decades of anti-Jewish violence, the Arab rejection of partition, the siege warfare started long beforehand against Jewish communities, and the openly declared goal of preventing Jewish sovereignty altogether. And this is the larger pattern with Hasan. Everything is stripped of chronology, causation, ideology, and agency until Jews appear as seemingly inexplicable aggressors. But history is not propaganda theater. The 1947-49 war did not begin because Jews rejected coexistence. It began because the - very closely aligned with the Nazis - Arab leadership rejected partition, rejected Jewish sovereignty on any borders, launched a civil war, and then invaded with multiple armies after Israel declared independence. That does not erase Palestinian suffering - predominantly caused by their leaders terrible choices. But neither does Palestinian suffering erase the actual chronology of the war.

This is a lie. One in three Palestinian refugees, or 250,000 men, women and children, were made refugees by Zionist forces and militias *prior* to May 15th 1948. The Deir Yassin massacre happened more than a month before May 15th 1948.

Chris, I appreciate the thoughtful tone, but several key parts of your historical framing are either inaccurate or far more complicated than you present them. First, Palestine was not simply “promised to the Arabs” in the simplistic way many modern activists claim. During WWI, the British made overlapping and deliberately ambiguous commitments to multiple parties. The McMahon-Hussein correspondence involved Sharif Hussein of Mecca - the Hashemite leader of the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans - and the general Arab claim is that Britain promised the Hashemites a kingdom stretching from Aden to Damascus. But Britain largely did fulfill its commitments to the Hashemites in enormous territorial terms. After the war, the Hashemites were installed as rulers over newly created Arab states including Iraq and Transjordan. In 1921, Britain removed roughly 79% of the original Mandate territory from the Jewish National Home provisions and created Transjordan under Hashemite rule. That enormous historical fact is routinely erased from modern discourse. And this was never simply “Arabs vs. Jews.” The Arab world itself was fractured by dynastic, tribal, ideological, and religious struggles, including the Saudi-Hashemite conflict that ultimately drove the Hashemites out of the Hejaz. Second, this conflict was never driven solely by borders or colonial politics. There has always been a profound theological and civilizational dimension to opposition toward Jewish sovereignty in land once ruled by Islamic empires. That of course does not describe all Muslims. But pretending the issue is marginal badly distorts the conflict. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the most influential Palestinian Arab leader of the pre-1948 era, did not oppose specific borders. He rejected Jewish sovereignty altogether, aligned himself with Nazi Germany, spread antisemitic propaganda during WWII, and helped fuse European antisemitism with Islamist and pan-Arab political currents. Those currents did not disappear. They evolved into Hamas ideology, Hezbollah doctrine, and the deeply messianic theology of the Iranian regime. Iran does not chant “Death to Israel” because of any particular Israeli action or borders. Its leaders openly frame Israel’s destruction in theological and civilizational terms, including claims that it will help bring the Mahdi. And this matters enormously when discussing modern policy proposals. Israelis have repeatedly watched territory ceded in the name of peace become platforms for militarization. Southern Lebanon after Israel’s complete withdrawal became a Hezbollah fortress under Iranian sponsorship. Gaza after the 2005 withdrawal became a Hamas-controlled terror enclave with rockets, tunnels, and ultimately October 7. Israel’s 2000 offer to cede over 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza for the first-ever Palestinian state led to no counteroffer, but instead the Second Intifada and over 1,000 murdered and 10,000 seriously wounded Israelis in under three years. So when most Israelis hear proposals for rapid Palestinian statehood absent deep social, educational, political, and ideological transformation, they do not hear “peace process.” They hear the possibility of another Hamas-run entity even closer to Israel’s major population centers. That does not mean Palestinians should never receive peaceful self-governance. They absolutely should. But peace requires more than maps, money, and diplomatic slogans. Thinking otherwise is frankly a very Western and privileged perspective. Without a fundamental shift away from eliminationist ideology, glorification of “resistance,” martyrdom culture, and rejection of permanent Jewish sovereignty, simply creating another sovereign vacuum beside Israel is not a peace plan. It is a recipe for another terrible war.

Thanks for writing. The native Americans were genocided too. But they are not actively lobbing rockets in to the rest of the USA and have largely accepted that even if it was unfair that they lost their land there is nothing to be done now and they haven’t had it all taken. They do their best within the semi autonomous reservations which are set up quite like Gaza was. The difference in your situation is some of them (particularly Hamas) believe it is unfair and have not given up. Thanks for the history lesson I didn’t know much of it. But it is from your pov. Palestine was promised to the Arabs, then these colonialists dropped in based on a different argument. That’s their point of view. I’m not saying it’s right or fair or that they shouldn’t have accepted some previous offer. But they didn’t. So we are here. 10/7 happened. A second nakba happened. They hate and dehumanize you. And visa versa. I think the only way to peace is to offer something that will feel fair to them now. For example a two state solution plus compensation for the land you have taken and reparations. I think something like 100000 per person would enable them to rebuild in Gaza and would hopefully be agreed to. That’s 200 billion which is eye watering. But probably close to the right amount. Once they are in a separate state with infrastructure they won’t attack Israel because you are way better armed. Iran would probably leave you alone too. And you really have to worry about Iran now. Just my two cents.

Jews may be the only people on earth regularly told their indigenous history somehow “expired” - not because the connection vanished - but because centuries passed after conquest, exile, and dispersion. Yet Jews never stopped praying toward Jerusalem, maintaining a presence in the land, preserving Hebrew, or repeatedly seeking, including through uprisings against empires, restored sovereignty in the historic Land of Israel. No one applies this indigeneity “statute of limitations” to any other people. My latest in @JewishJournal: jewishjournal.com/commentary/opi…

Chris, if you actually believe in indigenous rights and self-determination, your argument collapses under its own logic. By your apparent standard, indigenous peoples lose their rights if they are conquered, displaced, dispersed, or reduced to minorities long enough. Would you apply that standard to First Nations peoples in Canada? Native Americans? Aboriginal Australians? If colonial empires conquered them, altered demographics over centuries, and reduced them to minorities in much of their ancestral territory, would you argue they permanently lost any right to sovereignty or self-determination there? I would hope not. Yet Jews are routinely treated as the one indigenous people whose rights supposedly “expired” because too much time passed after conquest, exile, massacres, forced conversions, and imperial colonization. And your history here is deeply incomplete. Jews were not some foreign implant created by Balfour. Jews maintained a continuous presence in Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Tiberias for centuries before Balfour. Jewish civilization, Hebrew, the Jewish calendar, and the core of Jewish identity all emerged in that land long before the Arab conquest of the 7th century. Nor were Jews some tiny irrelevance until modern times. Before the Arab imperial conquests, Jews were a major demographic presence and at times a plurality in parts of the land. Over centuries, enormous political, economic, social, and religious pressures drove large-scale Arabization and Islamization across the region. That history is one reason genetic studies consistently show deep Levantine ancestry among both Jews and Palestinian Arabs today. But none of that erases Jewish indigeneity or the Jewish right to national self-determination. And your reference to the “Nakba” also strips away chronology and causation. Yes, the war of 1948 produced immense suffering and displacement, including for many Palestinian Arabs. Tragedies in war are real. But it was also, in substantial part, a self-inflicted tragedy. Jewish leadership accepted partition proposals in both 1937 and 1947. Arab leadership rejected both and chose war rather than accept any form of Jewish sovereignty. And the territorial context matters enormously. After 1921, the British carved roughly 79% of the original Mandate territory away to create Transjordan - a brand-new Arab state ruled by the Hashemites from the Arabian Peninsula over a population that became overwhelmingly Palestinian Arab. So if your argument is that the British illegitimately imposed foreign rule and arbitrarily partitioned land, do you also consider the creation of Transjordan an injustice? Or does the anti-colonial critique only emerge when Jews exercise sovereignty anywhere west of the Jordan River? Because by the time of the 1947 UN partition plan, the proposed Jewish state was already confined to a fraction of the original Mandate territory - much of it desert - while Arab states already controlled the overwhelming majority of former Ottoman controlled lands. The core issue was never that Arabs got “nothing.” The issue was that Arab leaders rejected any Jewish state on any sliver of land, no matter how small, and chose a devastating war to destroy it. And when that war failed, roughly 99% of the Jewish populations of Arab countries - from Morocco to Iraq to Yemen - were ethnically cleansed, expelled, terrorized into flight, or stripped of their rights and property, including Jewish communities that predated the Arab conquest of those regions by many centuries.

Yes I know the history. The British caused the problem in 1917 with the Balfour declaration to secure war funding and an agreement with the Arabs (to beat the German ottomans) that they interpret as giving them all of Palestine. Jews have been a minority for a couple of thousand years but only a majority since the nakba.

That would be a compelling response if the article argued Jews merely “showed up 78 years ago.” It - and the historical record - argue the opposite. Jews were there 78 years ago. And 150 years ago. And 500 years ago. And 1,000 years ago. And 2,000 years ago. And 3,000 years ago. The Jewish connection to the land predates the Arab empire’s conquest of the Levant by well over a millennium. And despite that, the Jewish leadership in the land under British Empire control still agreed - twice, in 1937 and 1947 - to partition proposals that would have created the first independent Arab state west of the Jordan River in history. The Arab leadership rejected both offers in favor of war under Haj Amin al-Husseini - a literal wartime ally and guest of Adolf Hitler in Berlin. So the issue was never whether Arabs were “there.” Of course they were. Rights flowing from longstanding presence are real things. Good thing too, Chris - or descendants of Europeans in Seattle might have some difficult conversations ahead. The issue was whether any form of Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish ancestral homeland would ever be accepted by a regional deeply autocratic political culture that historically denied Kurds, Copts, Yazidis, Baloch, Jews, and countless other minorities equal national rights and often reduced them to permanently subordinate status (and worse).

@DanzigMD You apply the statute of limitations to the people who were there 78 years ago. It’s not working anymore.

Naya is identifying something many people refuse to confront honestly. The “genocide” accusation against Israel was never primarily about legal analysis or evidentiary standards. It became, for many, a moral inversion project - recasting Jews, the paradigmatic victims of the Holocaust as paradigmatic villains. And once that psychological inversion was accepted, increasingly grotesque accusations became easier to mainstream: famine libels, organ harvesting myths, “concentration camp” rhetoric, and now even medieval-style atrocity fantasies. That is why the charge often appears strangely disconnected from the actual legal and demographic realities surrounding the war. The verdict was maliciously preloaded long before Oct. 7. I wrote about that dynamic here: algemeiner.com/2026/04/15/the… The deeper issue is not merely hostility toward Israel. It is the growing insistence that Jewish suffering itself must be morally relativized, appropriated, inverted, and ultimately turned back against the Jews.

The genocide libel directed against Jews is perhaps the most powerful and malicious of the modern anti-Jewish accusations. It is not merely Holocaust inversion, nor Holocaust denial. It is something far darker: resentment toward the Jew for daring to occupy the space of victim. The libel takes the Holocaust, the apotheosis of victimhood in the modern moral imagination, and declares: this no longer belongs to you. Jews are told not only that they cannot claim this history as uniquely their own, but that they must instead be recast as its moral opposite. The accusation is not that the Holocaust did not happen, but that its meaning must be transferred elsewhere. Thus, Jews are transformed from victims into oppressors, from inmates into guards of concentration camps. Born of resentment and envy, the genocide libel does more than pervert history. It denies Jews the possibility of historical particularity itself. Jewish suffering cannot remain unique, morally authoritative, or even fully legitimate. It must be inverted, appropriated, and ultimately turned back against the Jews themselves.

It was remarkably beautiful for an “open-air concentration camp” - or any of the other absurd descriptors so often used to describe pre-Oct. 7 Gaza. But wars started by fascist movements can bring catastrophic destruction, especially when the forces that launched the war embed military infrastructure inside and beneath civilian areas, as Hamas systematically did. And yes, that destruction is tragic for innocent civilians living under such regimes - just as the devastation of German cities in WWII was tragic for innocent German civilians living under Nazi rule. Before 1939, many German cities were beautiful too. By 1944, much of urban Germany looked worse than Gaza does today. That was not because Allied countries were uniquely evil. It was because regimes that launch genocidal wars against more powerful enemies can bring ruin upon the societies they govern.

@IsraelMFA Once dubbed Gaza’s “street that never sleeps”, Al-Rasheed Street and the Palestinian enclave’s waterfront are now barely recognisable after Israel’s relentless bombardment since October 2023

Following the publication by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times of one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press, which also received the backing of the newspaper, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar have instructed the initiation of a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times.

So let’s get this straight. By this logic: • American police K9 units using German Shepherds = Nazis. • British police using German Shepherds = Nazis. • French and Canadian police K9 units = Nazis. • Search-and-rescue teams using German Shepherds after earthquakes = apparently Nazis too. This is what happens when historical literacy and common sense collapse into internet propaganda. German Shepherds became one of the world’s most widely used working dogs because they are intelligent, trainable, athletic, and highly effective for policing, military work, rescue operations, and detection work. That is why countless police and military forces around the world use them. And the irony here is especially rich because the dog in the video was actually identified as a Belgian Malinois - a different breed entirely - something apparently too difficult to verify before launching into Nazi analogies. But the larger issue is the grotesque moral inflation. For many ahistorical and counterfactual anti-Israel activists, virtually everything connected to the world’s only Jewish state must somehow be reframed as “Nazi”: Jewish self-defense = Nazism. Border enforcement = Nazism. Hostage rescue = Nazism. Military dogs = Nazism. Jews defending the one Jewish state on earth are recast as stand-ins for the regime that exterminated six million Jews. It is intellectually bankrupt, morally obscene, and grotesquely trivializes the Holocaust by reducing Nazism into a lazy catchall insult for anything anti-Israel activists dislike or associate with Jewish self-determination and sovereignty. And the historical irony is staggering given how extensively the original Palestinian Arab leadership collaborated with Nazi Germany - while Hitler admiration remains disturbingly common across significant parts of the modern anti-Israel ecosystem.

Not coincidentally, the IDF prefers to use German Shepherd dogs as the Nazis, who used them for similar purposes did. Incidentally, the Nazis believed they were the Master Race due to their perceived wolf-like ancestry, obedience, and fierce loyalty.

@backengotrik @jacksonhinkle That settles it. Third time’s the charm. Definitely the intellectual sophistication one expects from someone whose political vocabulary - and likely much else - appears permanently trapped in middle school.

@DanzigMD @jacksonhinkle Say A, and I Will follow suit zionist shitface.

Piers Morgan: “Iran is no threat to the US?” John Mearsheimer: “No.” Piers Morgan “They fund groups Israel doesn’t like” John: “You’re baking the idea that Iran is a threat to Israel, and that any threat to Israel is a threat to the U.S. I don’t buy it.”

Sure, “Cyrus.” The regime built on revolutionary Islamist ideology, apocalyptic 12th Imam messianism, and “Death to America” as an official state slogan apparently does not really mean “Death to America” because Khamenei later offered a semantic clarification for Western audiences. How reassuring. This is the same regime whose proxies killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, repeatedly attacked U.S. bases, stormed embassies, targeted international shipping, kidnapped Americans, plotted assassinations abroad, and spent decades funding Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Shiite militias across the region. But we are now told the chants are merely symbolic because the regime claims “Death to America” only means opposition to American policies - as though these are just Green Party activists in a Seattle coffee shop rather than messianic fundamentalist theocrats who hang gay men from cranes, imprison and torture dissidents, and have shown themselves willing to kill tens of thousands of their own people to remain in power. At some point this stops being analysis and becomes ideological performance art masquerading as sophistication.

@DanzigMD @jacksonhinkle Any idea what death to America means? In 2015, Khamenei elaborated on what it means. Only the very stupid or gullible takes its literal meaning. english.khamenei.ir/news/2298/Deat…

Mrs. Macchan - “I don’t know if Iran funds Hezbollah” may be the most unintentionally revealing sentence here because it demonstrates an almost total lack of familiarity with the subject being discussed. Iran didn’t just casually “fund” Hezbollah. Iran’s IRGC helped create Hezbollah, has armed and financed it for decades, and built an entire regional network of proxy militias and terror organizations across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, and Yemen. And “just let Iran get a nuclear bomb” is not some sophisticated anti-war doctrine. It means placing a nuclear umbrella over the world’s largest state sponsor of transnational jihadist proxies and terrorism - a regime that openly chants “Death to America,” helped kill and maim thousands of American troops in Iraq, arms the Houthis attacking international shipping, propped up Assad’s murderous dictatorship helped kill over 500,000 Syrians, and openly calls for Israel’s destruction. This is not geopolitical realism. It is the kind of shallow isolationist reductionism people arrive at when they confuse ignorance with sophistication.

@DanzigMD @jacksonhinkle The question is why are American soldiers in the Middle East? There really is no reason for them to be there. I don’t know if Iran funds Hezbollah, etc. We do know that the USA funds Israel. As to 60% uranium enrichment, let Iran get a nuclear bomb. Nobody will attack them then.

@backengotrik @jacksonhinkle Quite the retort “FGB.” I’m sure many people will deeply miss your biting repartee.

@DanzigMD @jacksonhinkle Sorry I need to correct myself. Micha Danzig, a zionist nobody will miss,

While @RahmEmanuel’s comments on @billmaher about treating Israel “like every other ally” may sound pragmatic at first blush, they collapse under even basic historical scrutiny. Israel fights its own wars without NATO-style guarantees or US troops stationed along its borders, unlike many American allies. Meanwhile, critics demanding “distance” from Israel usually stay quiet about American “partners” like Qatar and Turkey. My latest in @algemeiner: algemeiner.com/2026/05/12/rah…

“The key word is soldiers.” Correct. American soldiers. Which is precisely why Iran is obviously an enemy of the United States and not merely “a threat to Israel.” IRGC-backed militias killed and maimed well over 1,000 American troops in Iraq - a war and theater having little to do with Israel. So thank you for clarifying the point. A regime that arms its proxies to kill American soldiers, attacks U.S. bases, chants “Death to America” as state doctrine, and enriches uranium to 60% with no credible civilian purpose is, in fact, an enemy of America. Also, “zio scum” is not an argument. It’s just updated branding for old-fashioned Jew hatred.

@DanzigMD @jacksonhinkle The key word is soldiers, zio scum.

“GO WORLD NEWS” sounds less like a news outlet and more like a Telegram fever dream with a logo budget. “Israel paid Hamas to attack Israel and then killed its own people” is conspiratorial sludge for people who get their geopolitics from TikTok clips and anonymous meme accounts. Israel allowing monitored Qatari cash transfers into Gaza to avoid total collapse in Gaza under Hamas rule - was not “paying Hamas to attack Israel.” And the Oct. 7 atrocities were filmed by Hamas themselves: massacres, kidnappings, rape, immolation, mutilation. Proudly documented in real time. “Israel did it” is flat-earth-level nonsense. The speed with which supposedly “anti-disinformation” people become deranged conspiracy theorists the moment Jews are involved remains remarkable. And as for the “dumb” comment: tiny ~9 million-person Israel has won more Nobel Prizes than the entire ~400 million-person Arab world combined — while producing exponentially more patents, startups, medical innovations, cybersecurity technology, and scientific breakthroughs per capita. Reality remains stubborn.

@DanzigMD @jacksonhinkle Israel paid HAMAS to to start fighting against Israel, and Israel killed its own people!!!

Dan Bilzerian spends his days cosplaying as a warrior on podcasts while fantasizing about “boots on the ground” and “getting a rifle” to kill Israelis. Flights from the U.S. to Lebanon exist, @DanBilzerian. So put your money where your mouth is. Join Hezbollah. Grab that rifle. Head to Southern Lebanon and meet some Israelis face to face. My guess? @DanBilzerian prefers podcasts, Instagram filters, and TMZ interviews to encountering the IDF in real life. And nobody should pretend this is merely “criticism of Israel.” This is a man who denies or trivializes the Holocaust, runs polls asking whether Hitler was “a good guy,” obsesses over deranged myths about the Talmud, and publicly fantasizes about killing Israelis. Same old Jew hatred - repackaged for podcasts, livestreams, and social media algorithms.

Lucy-Anne - these dozens of posts across four screenshots are an extraordinary case study in projection, conflation, false moral equivalencies, category errors, and the erasure of cause and effect. You accuse me of “erasing context” while simultaneously flattening every category distinction that international law, basic morality, and common sense depend upon. Across these posts you equate: civilians dancing at a music festival with armed militants; babies kidnapped from their homes with “supportive armed civilians”; systematic terrorist infrastructure embedded under hospitals and schools with ordinary civilian communities where some reservists might live; a localized criminal atrocity in Huwara with the largest one-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust; and premeditated mass rape, torture, kidnapping, immolation, mutilation, and massacres across dozens of locations with “heat of the moment.” These “takes” are representative of ideological & moral collapse. You literally wrote that Oct. 7 victims were “IDF, financiers, settlers or supportive armed civilians” and that some Nova victims were “rock throwers” with “IDF boyfriends.” Read that again slowly. You are retroactively stripping civilian status from murdered Jews because they were Israeli, knew Israelis, dated Israelis, lived near Israelis, or once served in the military in a country with mandatory conscription - while ignoring the deliberate murder of children and babies. Under that logic, virtually any Israeli civilian becomes permanently targetable forever. That is not the law of armed conflict. That is extremist collective guilt logic. You also keep pretending Hamas operating from civilian infrastructure is morally equivalent to civilians simply existing near off-duty soldiers or reservists. No. A military force embedding command centers, tunnel networks, rocket launchers, weapons depots, and fighters under hospitals, schools, mosques, apartment buildings, and refugee camps is not remotely equivalent to civilians living in a society with reserve military service. One is the systematic militarization of civilian infrastructure as strategy. The other is normal civilian life in a country with mandatory military service. And your constant reversal of cause and effect is astonishing. You write as if every Israeli action today must be understood through decades of prior grievance against Israelis while ignoring all attacks on Jews and Israelis beforehand. And when Jews point out centuries of massacres, expulsions, pogroms, dhimmi status, riots, terrorism, and exterminationist rhetoric directed at Jews long before 1948, suddenly history becomes “not all connected.” So history explains Arab violence against Jews — but never Jewish fear, Jewish nationalism, Jewish self-defense, or Jewish distrust? That asymmetry is the entire game. And the comparison between Huwara and Oct. 7 is especially grotesque. One involved a horrific criminal rampage by a small number of extremists after the murder of two Jews that same day - and that vigilantism was widely condemned across Israeli society and politics. The other involved thousands of armed men systematically invading civilian communities to massacre, rape, torture, kidnap, mutilate, and burn alive civilians while much of Gaza publicly celebrated in real time. Those are not morally or operationally equivalent events. Nor is “some Hamas members did those things” remotely credible when Hamas itself proudly filmed, livestreamed, and celebrated the atrocities. And after all this, you still keep erasing the single most important causal fact in the entire war: Hamas intentionally started this war on Oct. 7 by invading Israel and massacring civilians. Wars have cause and effect. Civilian casualties in Gaza are tragic. But pretending they occurred in a vacuum disconnected from Hamas’s strategy, Hamas’s actions, Hamas’s embedding in civilian areas, and Hamas’s initiation of the war is not moral sophistication.

@DanzigMD @CrimSeadragon @Algemeiner No one is erasing anything, u are erasing context, not all of history is connected or indicative of the population and if u want to go that way, then u justify October 7

My latest piece in The @Algemeiner - “A 19-Year Name vs. 3,000 Years of History: Judea vs. ‘West Bank.’” Almost all major media treats “West Bank” as neutral while dismissing “Judea and Samaria” as ideological or “far-right.” History says otherwise. “West Bank” was coined by Jordan in 1949 after its unlawful seizure of the territory during the Arab League’s openly declared offensive war of annihilation against Israel. “Judea and Samaria” - on the other hand - are names used for millennia - including in the 1947 UN Partition Plan itself. The piece also examines how media framing often strips away chronology, cause and effect, and historical context when it comes to Israel. algemeiner.com/2026/05/07/a-1…

Lucy-Anne, what’s remarkable here is not your outrage. It’s your complete indifference to chronology, evidence, consistency, and even your own claims from one post to the next. You ignore virtually every question I ask and every factual point raised, then jump to a new accusation every time the last one collapses. You casually invent “facts” - including turning one Palestinian tragically killed in the Huwara violence into “multiple Palestinians beaten to death,” which is simply false. You claim Israel “finds every terrorist who hurts Jews,” which is obvious nonsense. Not every murder of an Israeli Jew has been solved. Israel is not omniscient. The difference is that Israeli society publicly debates, investigates, prosecutes, condemns, and reports crimes by Jews against Arabs - including ugly ones - instead of celebrating murderers in town squares and paying stipends to them and their families, as the Palestinian Authority has done for years. You also slide from “some perpetrators got house arrest” into “therefore Israeli society supports murder,” which is absurd logic. By that standard, every imperfect prosecution in every democracy proves the society itself endorses homicide. And your “human shields justify aggression” line is especially revealing because it inverts both law and causation. Under the laws of war, embedding military infrastructure, commanders, weapons depots, tunnel entrances, rocket launchers, and fighters inside and under apartment buildings, schools, mosques, hospitals, and dense civilian areas is itself a war crime precisely because it predictably endangers civilians. Pointing out that Hamas does this is not “justifying civilian deaths.” It is explaining why civilian casualties tragically occur in one of the densest urban combat zones on earth against a literal fascist organization that built its military strategy around civilian proximity. If using human shields erased an enemy’s right to strike military targets, every terrorist army on earth would immediately place all operations inside hospitals and schools and acquire total immunity. And notably, your page is remarkably quiet about the more than 1,000,000 civilians killed over the past decade in conflicts not involving Israel. But the most grotesque part is your moral inversion about Oct. 7. You are literally questioning whether the overwhelming majority of the roughly 1,000 civilians Hamas murdered in about six hours were “actually civilians.” Were the babies kidnapped from their homes combatants? Were the children dragged into Gaza combatants? Were the young women at the Nova music festival - many raped, mutilated, and executed - “financiers”? Were elderly Holocaust survivors murdered in kibbutzim “human shields”? This is what ideological hatred does to moral reasoning. And even your attempt to justify Hamas’s atrocities by pointing to modern Israeli policies collapses under basic history because brutal anti-Jewish massacres in the region long predate the modern State of Israel. Hebron. Safed. Jerusalem. The massacres and riots of 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1936-39. Earlier mass-murder pogroms and attacks against Jews under Arab, Ottoman, and British empire rule. Jewish civilians were targeted decades and centuries before “occupation,” settlements, checkpoints, or even the existence of modern Israel itself. Which means this conflict plainly did not begin because Jews built apartments in Ariel in 1998 - or even because Jews fought back against armies and militias sworn to their annihilation after they accepted partition in 1947. At some point you should ask yourself why every historical timeline in your arguments begins precisely where it has to begin in order to erase what happened to Jews beforehand.

@DanzigMD @CrimSeadragon @Algemeiner again, did they fnd the murderer of a palestinian man? hmm. no. so they ca find all the terrorists who dare hurt the jew, but not the terrorist. hmmm.strange.

Matthew - what might actually be funny here is your timeline. It’s wildly confused. Do you mean today? Because 90% of world Jewry absolutely does not speak Yiddish today. Roughly half of the world’s Jews now live in Israel, where Hebrew is the dominant native language, and many more Jews worldwide can at least read basic Hebrew. Do you mean 1880? Even then, huge Jewish populations across the Middle East and North Africa spoke Judeo-Arabic, Ladino, Judeo-Aramaic, Bukharian, Persian dialects, and other Jewish diaspora languages. Or do you mean the time of King David? Because Yiddish did not even exist yet - while Hebrew obviously did. And none of this changes the underlying point anyway because Yiddish itself is a Jewish diaspora language written in Hebrew letters and heavily infused with Hebrew and Aramaic vocabulary. Hebrew was never “dead” in the way Latin became dead. Jews across continents continued reading it, writing it, praying in it, studying law and scripture in it, and using it as a common written language between distant Jewish communities that shared neither Yiddish nor local vernaculars. Before the 20th century, a Yemenite Jew, a Polish Jew, and a Moroccan Jew might not have shared a spoken daily language - but centuries before Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, they could still correspond, study, and pray in Hebrew. That continuous chain is precisely why Hebrew could be revived as a modern spoken language at all. You cannot revive a language that vanished without a trace for 2,000 years. The only surviving indigenous language of the land called Canaan, Judea, Israel, or Palestine is Hebrew - and it survived because Jews never abandoned it, even after the Romans renamed the region Syria Palaestina.

@DanzigMD %90 of the world's Jews speaking Yiddish, but " the only surviving indigenous language of Palestine is Hebrew"? That's funny

This video perfectly captures one of the funniest recurring own goals in “anti-Zionist” antisemitic propaganda. “Anti-Zionists” constantly post “Palestine” passports, “Palestine Airways,” Mandatory-era Palestine stamps, currency, and other documents from before 1948 as though they prove there was an independent Arab Palestinian state destroyed by Israel. But it’s plain they cannot read the only surviving indigenous language of the Land of Israel/Palestine - Hebrew - on the very items they are posting. Because those same documents repeatedly identify Mandatory Palestine in Hebrew as “Eretz Yisrael” - the Land of Israel. The British Mandate era stamps literally say:“פלשתינה (א״י)”“Palestina (Eretz Yisrael).” The “Palestine Post” was a Jewish-founded newspaper. “Palestine Airways” was founded by Jews. The “Palestine Philharmonic” was a Jewish orchestra. “Palestinian passports” were British Empire-issued passports used by Jews living in Mandatory Palestine before Israel’s independence - and they too reflected that the Roman-imposed regional name “Palestine” coexisted with the far older indigenous Hebrew name: Eretz Yisrael. History is a brutal thing to argue about when your knowledge of history primarily comes from slogans and memes. fb.watch/G-pIxAiL7E/?fs…