Townsville shopkeeper who shouted ‘filthy Jew’ at Israeli tourists speaks out - "The female shopkeeper who went viral for her shocking anti-Semitic tirade against two Israeli backpackers has spoken out to defend herself. The footage, taken on Saturday night in Townsville, shows the woman shouting at the young tourists, aged in their 20s, after they spotted a donation sign for Palestine displayed near the counter. The shopkeeper allegedly became enraged when the tourists recommended she verify where the donations were being directed. “Get the f**k out of my store!” the shopkeeper allegedly yelled at the tourists. “I don’t give a f**k about Israel but I do care about the fact that you’re a dirty fithy f**king Jew,” the woman, who was dressed in black, said in video footage taken by one of the tourists. “You wanna listen to what I have to say?” the tourist, dressed in a brown top and pants, asked calmly. “No. F**k off,” she responded. “I said check what you say,” the tourist continued.The woman then repeated “f*** off” two more times. When approached by the Townsville Bulletin on Monday, the shopkeeper was unaware of the video’s widespread circulation. After being shown the clip, she claimed that the video had been cut short so as not to show the backpackers in a bad light. “People can take their own thing away from that video, I don’t really give a s**t,” she said... The shopkeeper said that what appears to be an object in her hand in the video was actually a wooden club kept by the cash register."
She forgot that she was anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic
U of T governing council accused of abandoning Jews on campus by doctors' advocacy group - "Doctors Against Racism and Antisemitism (DARA), an organization of health care professionals, is alleging that the university’s governing council recently turned down a motion aimed at condemning antisemitism on campus... DARA says on Nov. 7 that the council’s chair, Anna Kennedy, and vice chair, Sandra Hanington, refused to allow a vote on whether to add the antisemitism motion to the meeting agenda. It alleges council leaders quashed the opportunity to even consider the antisemitism motion... “Encampments and intimidation are not a reasonable exercise of free speech,” said Cooper. He went on to say that the university has “failed” Jewish students. “Imagine the trauma inflicted on Jewish, students, faculty and staff who were subjected to weeks of threats, intimidation, exclusion, and harassment. Shouts that Hitler should have got all you guys, go back to Poland and actual physical assaults.”"
Wikipedia takes sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict - "Wikipedia, the world's largest and most popular online encyclopedia, has long aimed to establish itself as a trustworthy and unbiased source of knowledge, with neutrality as one of its foundational principles. However, recent alarming occurrences raise fears that this fundamental commitment is being considerably compromised, particularly in publications on sensitive topics such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The creation of a problematic double standard in source evaluation on these topics casts doubt on the platform's objectivity and editorial procedures' integrity. Based on the primary premise of neutrality, the sources the encyclopedia relies on should provide information that is accurate, balanced, and verified without prejudice. However, recent events have raised serious questions about whether these rules are consistently followed. One striking example is Wikipedia's decision not to accept the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), one of the most prominent civil rights organizations in the world, as a legitimate source. The ADL has a long history of working for human rights and combatting hatred, having published well-researched publications on antisemitism, racism, and extremism. Despite its established trustworthiness, Wikipedia regards the ADL as an untrustworthy source on Israel and Zionism, and only "roughly" trustworthy on antisemitism. This decision is odd, especially given that the ADL's research is frequently cited by academics, journalists, and officials worldwide. In sharp contrast, Wikipedia regards Al Jazeera, a Qatar-funded news organization, as a trustworthy source. While Al Jazeera is a major international broadcaster, its editorial stance has been critiqued for reflecting Qatar's political interests, including its alignment with Hamas. This influence can result in coverage that is viewed as biased, particularly on issues related to the conflict. Despite worries and reporting about its impartiality, Wikipedia has acknowledged Al Jazeera as a reliable source."
First, they came for the Daily Mail and Fox News...
Fighting against civil rights groups only makes you evil when it hurts the left wing agenda
Who Does Wikipedia Consider a ‘Reliable Source’ on Israel-Palestine? - "The decision was made by three Wikipedia editors, known only by the following pseudonyms: The Wordsmith, theleekycauldron, and Tamzin (pronouns: “they/xe”). These three editors—yes, these are the people deciding what we can and cannot see when we’re scrolling Wikipedia late at night—said they made their decision on the grounds that the ADL is both a research and advocacy organization. While they say that the ADL “is a generally reliable source,” they insisted that the organization should not be cited on topics relating to the Israel-Hamas war. On Tuesday, more than forty Jewish groups signed a letter sent to the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, saying that the decision “is stripping the Jewish community of the right to defend itself from the hatred that targets our community.”... who does Wikipedia consider reliable on this subject? One example is a man named Salman Abu Sitta, a Palestinian activist who wrote that “Nothing can hide the determination and courage of those young people who returned to their land on October 7.” (He was the first cited source on the Wiki page 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight.) Wikipedia also considers Al Jazeera—a Qatari-sponsored news organization that has described the October 7 pogrom as “heroic”—a “reliable source”: on its page Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Al Jazeera is cited without skepticism seven times. On the page for the October 7 attacks, Wikipedia absolves Hamas of its antisemitism, describing how in 2017 the terrorist group “adopted a new charter, removing antisemitic language and shifting focus from Jews to Zionists.” We could go on like this all day."
Wikipedia has it out for Israel, and we’ve got the data to prove it - "We conducted a comprehensive analysis of Wikipedia’s structural bias, using as our case study the page about South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Our findings unearthed patterns of systematic bias that can shape and contort public understanding of critical global issues. Through a detailed examination of over 1,000 page revisions, we identified several key mechanisms through which bias can enter and metastasize inside Wikipedia. Our analysis identified 27 highly active editors who contributed significantly to the page. These weren’t hobbyist contributors — they averaged over 200,000 edits across Wikipedia, suggesting they’re highly experienced editors with considerable influence over content. The bias expression analysis identified patterns of anti-Israel bias among power-user editors, highlighting how personal viewpoints can seep into supposedly neutral content. For instance, one high-bias editor consistently removed neutral descriptive terms from the Israeli response section. Another editor systematically changed article titles from neutral legal terminology (“South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)”) to more emotionally loaded versions (“South Africa’s genocide case against Israel”), demonstrating a pattern of bias in framing the conflict. Another editor imbued the page with selective emphasis in sections like “other international responses,” which skewed the narrative. Similarly, one high-bias editor invoked overt animus, such as labelling Israel as the enemy and actively accusing it of genocide, as opposed to objectively describing South Africa’s legal case. One contributor, “EthanRossie2000,” wrote: “Free Palestine. Israel is the enemy. They’re committing genocide.” That contribution was made when several automated bots and other editors were making category and citation changes. Notably, the comment was surrounded by seemingly routine edits from other users. It appears the comment was made without any attempt to mask its bias and there were no immediate challenges or responses to EthanRossie2000’s point of view. And this, to be clear, was in a page ostensibly documenting the legal case in support of South Africa’s case. EthanRossie2000 was editorializing, not citing data or evidence. These findings illustrate the challenges Wikipedia faces in maintaining objectivity, particularly in articles related to geopolitics and international relations. Neutralizing these biases requires robust editorial guidelines and oversight mechanisms to prevent the dissemination of skewed information that could mislead readers and influence public perception. This concentration of editorial power raises questions about representation and diverse perspectives in Wikipedia’s coverage of complex geopolitical issues. It also raises the spectre that the system is too readily gamed by those with a sharp axe to wield. Given Wikipedia’s increasing reach into classrooms and hundreds of thousands of news sites, these questions demand scrutiny. A 2014 study by researchers at the University of Ottawa found 1,433 full-text articles from 1,008 journals with 2,049 Wikipedia citations. The frequency of Wikipedia citations in academic literature increased over time, with most citations occurring after December 2010. Given the rise in scholarly citations to Wikipedia, evidence of potential agenda-driven bias renders Wikipedia less credible, let alone authoritative, for such purposes... Our analysis surfaced eight biases that go unmentioned in Wikipedia’s own page disclosing the traditional bias reportedly hewn in Wikipedia’s coverage of topics — specifically, how the platform “over-represents a point of view (POV) belonging to a particular demographic described as the ‘average Wikipedian,’ who is an educated, technically inclined, English-speaking white male, aged 15–49, from a developed Christian country in the northern hemisphere.” But the biases we identified in the Wikipedia page about South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice were very different. What’s particularly remarkable is these biases contradict the spirit of a “wiki” — an ethos of bottom-up collaboration and respect expressed toward all its volunteer editors. These biases include: elite theory bias, that is, a preference for academic sources over grassroots knowledge; high-contributor frequency bias (disproportionate influence of frequent editors); citation gaming (strategic use of citations to push particular viewpoints); temporal bias (over-representation of recent events or perspectives); institutional capture systematic bias (from organized editing groups); language complexity bias (use of complex language to obscure bias); and source selectivity bias (selective choice of sources to support particular views). Despite these evident biases, contributors can always claim they are inserting a “neutral point of view” (NPOV) while expressing bias through selective editing. Bias can be readily masked through highly technical and academic language. Perhaps most concerning is how these biases can be amplified through digital ecosystems. Whenever Wikipedia content is cited by news media, on social media, in academic papers and books, or gets used to train AI systems, these biases can be reproduced and magnified, creating self-reinforcing cycles of misinformation. But the implications extend far beyond any single Wikipedia page or topic. Our findings suggest the need for enhanced transparency in Wikipedia’s collaborative editorial processes; the development of better tools for detecting and measuring systematic bias; greater diversity in editor demographics and viewpoints; and improved mechanisms for balancing competing narratives in controversial topics. Just as cigarette packages carry health warnings, our findings suggest the need for explicit literacy guidance on Wikipedia pages covering contentious topics... We encourage new analyses of Wikipedia coverage across other topics such as public health, poverty, war and geopolitics. If Wikipedia’s system is indeed being “hacked,” information on which policy-makers and the public rely turns unreliable. It can be corrupted and deployed for harmful agendas. Our goal isn’t to undermine Wikipedia — an invaluable resource — but to strengthen it by understanding its limitations and biases."
If you accuse Wikipedia of left wing bias, you're a far right extremist
Wikipedia Editors Add “Gaza Genocide” to “List of Genocides” Article - "Wikipedia editors have officially added “Gaza genocide” to the “List of genocides” Wikipedia article following a discussion launched over the summer. The list itself begins with “Gaza genocide”... The discussion over whether or not to add “Gaza genocide” to the list began in July; those in favor argued that it was only natural to include after an article title was changed from “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” to “Gaza genocide” earlier the month. They also argued that it fits the list’s inclusion criteria for “acts which are recognized in significant scholarship as genocides” and that other genocides on the list are considered controversial, such as Rohingya genocide and Darfur genocide. Those opposed to inclusion contended that the allegation that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip is too widely disputed to warrant mentioning it in a neutral voice (wikivoice) in the article, especially when the International Court of Justice has yet to make a ruling on the matter. The discussion was a formal discussion known as a Request for Comment (RfC), where editors put in their “!votes” with their stated position and rationale on the dispute at hand; oftentimes, a closer (an uninvolved Wikipedian in good standing) renders a verdict on the discussion based on the numbers and the strength of site policy arguments. British Wikipedian Stuart Marshall ultimately closed the discussion in September, finding consensus in favor of inclusion based “on the strength of the arguments … and it’s not close … I discarded the argument that scholars haven’t reached a conclusion on whether the Gaza genocide is really taking place,” Marshall wrote. “The matter remains contested, but there’s a metric truckload of scholarly sources linked in this discussion that show a clear predominance of academics who say that it is. I discarded the argument that it is for the U.N. or the International Courts to decide what’s a genocide and what isn’t. This is Wikipedia, where we follow the scholarly sources.” Marshall rebuked an argument put forward in the discussion where an editor argued against inclusion by citing a piece from The Economist the editor claimed was “significantly more reliable than publications in ideologically captured fields like critical race theory, postcolonial studies, etc.” “The contention that ‘General-audience publications such as The Economist are actually significantly more reliable than publications in ideologically captured fields like critical race theory’ is not one that I lightly set aside. I hurled it aside with great force,” Marshall wrote. “We follow the scholars.” When the editor “Partofthemachine” told Marshall on his talk page that scholarly sources should receive “editorial scrutiny” over “their obvious prioritization of an ideological agenda over factual accuracy,” Marshall acknowledged that “there are serious scientists with all kinds of insane views” but that the Wikipedia community needs to reach “a consensus that a certain scientist is a nutcase or a certain journal publishes lies.” But Marshall stated the comment in question didn’t cite any such consensus and “was about ‘ideologically captured fields,’ which is a red flag for a U.S. alt-right perspective.” One editor told me that they “would be concerned about POV-pushing, especially when we say ‘sources say.’ Are those sources objective? Is it really a consensus among experts or just a consensus among motivated academics?” Other editor sources provided mixed opinions on Marshall’s close. One editor with many years at Wikipedia, almost entirely outside of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, told me: “When he says ‘we follow the scholars,’ he’s saying ‘we follow a subset of sources guaranteed to find Israel guilty of everything, including the Lindbergh kidnapping’… Anti-Israel bias is baked into the Wikipedia power structure, as he could have easily used his discretion not to have Wikipedia accuse Israel of genocide in ‘wikivoice.’” Another editor told me that “when you have a field filled with partisanship, ‘a predominance of academics’ means nothing. It’s about quality of scholarship, plain and simple, and maintaining a robust and self-critical neutrality that is not common enough in a space currently filled with an abundance of veiled politicking.”... Two of my editor sources pointed to a couple of the scholars’ cited in the survey should be discounted, such as a French sociologist and anthropologist writing an op-ed in Le Monde quoting someone from Jewish Voice for Peace and an international relations professor being interviewed in Anadolu Agency, the Turkish state-run media outlet that Wikipedia considers as being generally unreliable on international politics and contentious topics. “He’s literally quoting an activist in an [Le Monde] op-ed,” an editor who grew disillusioned with Wikipedia after making thousands of edits told me. “That means nothing regarding scholarly consensus and would very rarely even be proper for an article.” Regarding the Anadolu Agency citation in the survey, the editor said that “if the highest quality source for something like this would be, say, a well-known professor of international law publishing a peer-reviewed paper in a high-quality academic journal, then this guy who’s in an ‘adjacent’ field with no specific expertise giving his unreviewed opinion in the state-run media of an enemy state is not very high.” Further, the editor noted that establishing the majority view among scholars “is also somewhat of a numbers game as whoever has more people looking is likely to find more sources supporting their side. There are thousands of academics in many fields.” That said, another editor told me that “the lack of pro-Israel academics is one of the major gaps here.” It is also worth noting that the current inclusion criteria in the “List of Genocides” article was changed in April from “that are recognised in significant scholarship as genocides in line with the legal definition of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide” to its current iteration after enough editors argued that it would be better to simply follow what the scholars say as opposed to having it be narrowly toward the 1948 definition and follows the criteria for other lists on Wikipedia. “This definitely seems to be related to recent politics and this sort of discarding precedent, moving target and ground shifting under us is one of the major challenges,” an editor said. I have previously reported on how editors renamed the “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” Wikipedia article to “Gaza genocide”; a challenge to the close of that discussion on procedural grounds ultimately failed. An attempt in September to rename the article from “Gaza genocide” also quickly failed after a few days. One editor told me that they hope Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, which is the site’s version of a Supreme Court of sorts, opens a case “that deals with both the claim calling this a genocide as well as editor behavior.”"
Ideological bias is only a problem when it threatens the left wing agenda
ICC decision breaches its own foundational principles, says former minister - "“At the request of the special prosecutor, Karim Khan, and with the cooperation of the prime minister of Israel, I helped facilitate meetings between them,” he explained. “Well, on the very day that the ICC’s team was supposed to come to Israel … Karim Khan, the special prosecutor, peremptorily cancelled that visit and on the same day held a press conference … calling for arrest warrants against both Netanyahu and Gallant, along with Hamas leaders.”Cotler viewed this move as a breach of the ICC’s foundational principles.“To me, that was a breach of his own principle of cooperation, let alone also the principle of complementarity,” he emphasized.Cotler added that when he heard Khan was going to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, he told the ICC prosecutor, “If you do that, the effect will be to incentivize … antisemitism as well.” Cotler accused Khan of applying double standards, contrasting the ICC’s leniency toward Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro with its aggressive stance on Israel: “Previously he [Khan] had visited with the Venezuelan dictator Maduro. … He agreed not to institute arrest warrants with respect to the Venezuelan dictator … but yet he called for arrest warrants against the prime minister and defense minister of a fellow democracy.”“You can’t go ahead and give the Venezuelan dictatorship a waiver from an arrest warrant because you said you cooperated with them, and then call for an arrest warrant against a democracy when they have been willing to cooperate and you have not cooperated with them,” Cotler argued.He underscored the importance of the principle of complementarity, which holds that the ICC should defer to a country’s own judicial processes if they are robust and independent.“I have taken the view that Israel always had to use the very words of the prosecutor, Karim Khan himself, ‘a robust and independent judiciary,’ and that should be sufficient for purposes of combating an ICC warrant,” he stated. Cotler has strongly advocated for Israel to establish an independent state commission of inquiry to investigate any alleged misconduct, which he believes would strengthen Israel’s position against the ICC's charges... He criticized the ICC’s alleged moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas.“The United States has called what the ICC has done as outrageous, given as well the false moral equivalence that has been created between a democracy like Israel … and not only a terrorist organization, but a genocidal antisemitic terrorist organization like Hamas,” Cotler remarked... Throughout the interview, Cotler stressed the critical need for democracies to stand united against authoritarian regimes and uphold the principles of justice.“This must serve as a wake-up call … for the community of democracies,” he urged. “We need to have the other G7 countries [take action].”He criticized actions like Australia’s refusal to allow former Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked to enter the country for a security conference.“I thought that was shocking. … Punishing the leaders of that democracy without any basis whatsoever,” Cotler remarked. “That’s the only way I can characterize what the Australian government did.”"
Canada would arrest Israeli PM if he came to Canada: Trudeau : r/canada - "Where is the arrest wannt for Kim Jong Il? How about Nicolas Maduro? Lukashenko? Oh right, Guterres was hugging him the other day."
"Palestine's government launched the worst attack on Jewish people since WW2. The very same day, Lebanese militia (located less than 100m from UNIFIL bases) launched hundreds of rockets at civilian homes. Where was the ICC in October 2023?"
Victims of Oct. 7 attack file multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against crypto billionaire - "Victims of the October 7 Hamas attack filed a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit in a California court against the CEO of a major cryptocurrency exchange, alleging the platform facilitated Hamas terrorism through cryptocurrency financing, violating international sanctions and US laws."
Michel Juneau's answer to Are you surprised that famine is imminent in northern Gaza? - Quora - "No. I am surprised that you ask the question. Famine is real in Yemen, and in the Sudan, which have seen over 300,000 and possibly 1.5 million deaths respectively. No one knows because the international press don’t go there: partly because it is really difficult and dangerous to get there, but mostly because you can’t blame the Jews: no Jews, no news. Meanwhile, in Gaza there may be starvation - there is no way of knowing - but there certainly isn’t famine. Look at the condition of Hamas captives: they are obese, almost to a man. If there is starvation in Gaza, it is absolutely clear that this is due to Hamas stealing the food provided as relief for the people of Gaza."
The U.N’s Anti-Israel ‘Genocide’ Purge - WSJ - "The United Nations long ago lost credibility as a moral arbiter, but its assault on Israel is hitting a new low. On Wednesday the U.N. will refuse to renew the contract of Alice Wairimu Nderitu, the Kenyan who is the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide. Ms. Nderitu is an accomplished mediator, whose U.N. bio describes her as a “recognized voice in the field of peacebuilding and violence prevention.” She has served in that role since 2020 and her tenure has been marked by careful study of humanity’s worst crime. She is being dismissed because she has stood firm in her belief that Israel’s war with Hamas isn’t genocide. In 2022 her office issued a guidance paper on “when to refer to a situation as ‘genocide.’” The paper noted U.N. officials should “adhere to the correct usage” of the term because of the political and legal sensitivities that surround it and “its frequent misuse in referring to large scale, grave crimes committed against particular populations.” Her paper explains that the term “genocide” was coined in 1944 by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to describe massacres of entire ethnic groups with the intention of eliminating them. That definition, Ms. Nderitu has said, includes the Holocaust, the Hutus’ genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Serbian slaughter of Bosnian Muslims, and may include the ethnic killings now unfolding in Sudan. As a legal matter, establishing a pattern of violence as a genocide requires demonstrating intent. Israel’s campaign of self-defense doesn’t qualify. The war against Hamas has had many deaths, but Israel’s strategy is intended to dismantle a terrorist regime, not eliminate an ethnic group. The Jewish state has gone to great lengths to minimize Palestinian civilian casualties, even as Hamas uses civilians as shields so their deaths can be used as propaganda. That’s not what the anti-Israel cabal at the U.N. want to hear. On Nov. 14 the U.N. Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices issued a report supporting accusations of genocide. The report announced it had found “serious concerns of breaches of international humanitarian and human rights laws” and “the possibility of genocide in Gaza and an apartheid system in the West Bank.” The committee is taking its cues from Austrian Volker Turk, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, who has spent the past year assailing Israel. His claims are often echoed by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Israel’s critics. The committee is comprised of member states Malaysia, Senegal and Sri Lanka. Senegal and Malaysia are majority Muslim nations with a history of hostility to Israel. Ms. Nderitu serves at the pleasure of Mr. Gutterres, and Mr. Turk and the anti-Israel faction want her out... Beyond Ms. Nderitu’s fate, the damage here includes defining genocide down. The word has become a weapon of political propaganda that will erode its moral authority when it’s needed to describe genuine horrors. Ms. Nderitu may be out, but her refusal to endorse a lie in service of a political agenda has been a profile in courage. Can anyone with integrity survive at the U.N.?"
An ‘OCTOBER7’ plate triggers overhaul of Ontario’s custom licence process
Meme - Eyal Yakoby @EYakoby: "The photo Bernie Sanders used is a child suffering from a degenerative neuromuscular disease and not starving because of Israel. Where is the media debunking this? They were all over the “cats and dogs” line from the debate, why aren’t they reporting on this?"
Meme - Josh Howie @joshxhowie: "My kid’s school. This is because of racism. This is because the BBC, and pathetic politicians, and corrupt institutions, and Islamists, and far-left assholes, and far-right assholes, have spent more than a year spouting utter shit about Jews. Thanks you fucking pricks."
"Teen thugs attack and board JFS school buses while shouting 'f**k Israel' at children. Police called after attackers threw rocks at buses carrying children returning from school"
Damn suppression of "pro-Palestinian" speech! This threatens freedom of speech because peaceful protesters aren't allowed to hold "Zionists" accountable!
'Zionists leave Britain or be slaughtered': Leaflets distributed in London Jewish neighbourhood - "Leaflets with the writing “every Zionist needs to leave Britain or be slaughtered” were found spread around the streets of Hendon, a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood in north London. The threatening message was written in Hebrew, and the leaflet also stated in English “Zionist Free Zone.” It also read “Ha, made you pick up litter you zianazi freak.”... This incident comes after the neighbourhood was also targeted in October, when antisemitic messages were left at Hendon Golf Club. Swastikas and messages reading “f*** the Jews” and “Heil Hitler” were raked into bunkers on the golf course right before the start of the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur."
Clearly, death threats and violence are good when directed at "Zionists", as long as we're assured that they're not anti-Semitic
Pro-Palestinians swarm an RCMP vehicle belonging to Justin Trudeau's protection detail. RCMP retreat. : r/Canada_sub - "Wow they let them get away it, amazing, what joke. But when actual citizens start protesting he'll call in the cavalry."
"And yet, a bunch of rowdy truckers honking horns was an “emergency”"
"Interesting...pro-terrorist sympathizers are retreated from. The citizenry of the country treated differently. Almost makes one think that the citizens of the country, are the real problem...are they?"
Pro-Palestinians swarm an RCMP vehicle belonging to Justin Trudeau's protection detail. RCMP retreat. : r/Canada_sub - "Orcs don’t care if you are one of their biggest allies/enablers they will attack anyone who isn’t fully committed to their objectives. Notice how they are all fully masked and unidentifiable while committing their crimes? It’s like they know if they get identified for their criminal behaviour and activities or something."
Meme - "GAZA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL"
Teacher: "JUST IGNORE THE MAN WITH THE ROCKET"
American-Israeli hostage Omer Neutra announced dead in Gaza captivity : r/worldnews - "also a reminder that among the hostages are americans who america basically did nothing for. had this been any other conflict the public would have demanded the US take care of its own. but for whatever reason in this particular instance, half the country basically came out in support of the hostages takers."
