Beths
12K posts




You look well-fed, clothed, you have a roof over your head, and a nice laptop. It sure doesn’t look like you went through a genocide.




Due to several requests by so many people who have not yet seen the footage, this is 40 minutes of raw footage from October 7. Please share this widely and bookmark it for reference. ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️ WARNING: SENSITIVE CONTENT ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️ Some of the footage is extremely distressing so I urge caution. But it is so important for people to see and know the truth. ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️ WARNING: SENSITIVE CONTENT ⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️⚠️



Israel is raping Palestinians with dogs. owenjones.news/p/israel-is-ra…













@viraameli @owenjonesjourno @lumibucks This is a guy who (admirably) vocally opposes the genocide while also saying, after Oct 7th, that it was the biggest attack on Jewish people since the holocaust. He takes virtuous positions, without ever meaningfully contending with real resistance or revolution. Summed up here.







Mamdani is playing games with the truth as usual. First, he did not “let one bill go into effect.” It passed with a veto-proof supermajority. The houses of worship bill (1-B) passed the City Council with a 44-5 veto-proof majority, so even if Mamdani symbolically vetoed it and forced a reconsideration the bill would have had to fall to below 34 support for his veto to hold. For all intents and purposes this bill was automatically passing Council where the votes to override and make it law anyway were overwhelmingly present. So let’s be clear. He didn’t veto 1-B because it would have been an embarrassment for his office to be overridden, not out of magnanimity. But 175-B, the companion bill about educational facilities, didn’t have a super majority. It had 30 for, 19 against, which is 4 shy of being veto-proof. That gave Mamdani the latitude to play schoolyard bully and crush the bill -- because without the supermajority, the Council couldn’t force it through on a second vote. Second, there were no constitutionality issues in the final draft. The bill required the NYPD Police Commissioner to develop a formal plan which addresses and contains the risk of physical obstruction, physical injury, intimidation and interference with entry to or egress from educational facilities. It included black and white letter that mandates the plan preserve and protect First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and protest. The key requirements of the plan which the bill directed the Commissioner to develop include considerations for the NYPD on 1) Determining whether, when, and to what extent security perimeters should be established to protect access. 2) Communication protocols with stakeholders (the public, protesters, educational administrators, etc.). Contrary to opposition framing the bill doesn’t create fixed “buffer zones” or ban protests. Initially it called for a 100-foot perimeter. That led opponents to argue it violates the First Amendment. They cited precedents like McCullen v. Coakley. Supporters of the bill argued McCullen is distinguishable on the merits. Opponents argued the bill applies to huge swaths of the city. Eric Dinowitz, the bill’s sponsor, argued the bill applies only to educational facilities on public property and does not target campus demonstrations. Still, the 100-foot language was stripped from the text. But critics continued to argue it gives NYPD excessive discretion and risks over-policing speech. Importantly, the bill requires NYPD to formalize guidelines and a framework for when temporary security barriers or restricted zones might be used in response to specific threats. That mandate of planning, rather than imposing a fixed zone, is structurally more like Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994) than McCullen’s blanket statute and therefore, supporters argue, constitutional. In sum, Mayor Zohran Mamdani vetoed the final bill, citing constitutional concerns over free speech and the overly broad definition of educational facilities, which could chill protest on college campuses or other sites. When you drill down into the actual final bill, which passed the Council 30-19, it was neither overbroad nor unconstitutional, but merely 4 votes shy of overriding a Mamdani veto. Kids, teachers, patients, and families should be able to enter and exit public educational facilities without being physically blocked or intimidated. Requiring NYPD to have a structured, rights-preserving plan on the shelf rather than improvising under pressure is reasonable and actually more protective of speech than reactive, ad hoc policing that could lead to worse overreach. Mamdani acted in bad faith to protect mobs when they cross the line into intimidation and anarchic activism instead of empowering the NYC community to safeguard it public educational facilities. His subterfuge is not complicated or particularly covert. It’s his agenda.









