How populism went mainstream in Denmark (Migrants)

Countries that saved their Jews in the 1940s need to have open borders. But countries that killed their Jews in the 1940s need to have open borders too. Basically, Western countries need open borders, regardless. 

From 2020:

How populism went mainstream in Denmark

Across Europe, political parties once deemed to be on the far-Right have made huge electoral breakthroughs by moderating their positions and coming in from the cold. They have been able to do this because of the unwillingness of mainstream politicians to address one of the most important issues facing the continent – immigration — coupled with media’s tendency to cast dissenting opinion as extreme.

The story does vary from one country to another, and, just as fringe parties come into the mainstream, so can the mainstream come to the fringe. Few places demonstrate this more clearly than Denmark, where politics in recent years has adapted in a way unlike anywhere else in Europe.

The international press regularly describes the Danish People’s Party as ‘far-Right’. But what precisely does the term mean?

There is no hard and fast definition. That’s part of the problem with the term. But by their fundamental nature, ‘far-Right’ parties do not believe in extending the rule of law to all citizens, and either do not support the democratic process or believe that it should be supplanted.

Other specific platform policies — in particular racism and anti-Semitism — are associated with the extreme Right, but attempts to make legitimate and often common and mainstream opinion into signifiers of extremism have made identifying the phenomenon unnecessarily hard.

The Danish People’s Party was founded in 1995 after a split within the Right-wing Progress Party. In its early years, the party distinguished itself by its criticism of the then existing consensus in Denmark on immigration and multiculturalism, and while not deserving of the ‘far-Right’ label, the DPP might accurately be said to have been (in a non-pejorative sense) a nationalist party.

They argued for immigration restrictions, for the state to put an emphasis on integration of newcomers, and for the primacy of Danish values within the country. As with all such parties, they were easily caricatured by the political centre and their concerns often dismissed. But in Denmark, as in neighbouring Sweden, the events of the first decade of the century caused the political centre to move towards them rather than the other way around.

Throughout the 1990s and 2000s the DPP were consistent in their attitudes: they never advocated for the use of violence as a political tool, and argued for the extension of equal rights to all citizens. So long as people lived up to the provisions of the citizenship laws of the country, they did not advocate for discrimination along racial or confessional lines. But they were early in raising the central question that was going to keep returning to Danish (as in all European) politics during the 2000s: how much immigration is enough?

In the mid 2000s, the state underwent a remarkable stress-test on this question when the mainstream newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran a set of cartoons in response to the discovery that no Danish illustrator could be found willing to do the drawings for a children’s book on Islam in a series on the world’s major religions.

The then culture editor of the paper, Flemming Rose, recognised that this comprised a sort of unwritten blasphemy law in the country and commissioned a number of cartoonists to test the taboo. The results, whipped up by a number of Danish imams who sought to portray the cartoons as unimaginably insulting towards the founder of Islam, led to worldwide protests, many deaths, and a number of threats and plots against those deemed responsible for this ‘blasphemy’.

And in the wake of that incident, Denmark got a dose of international attention of a kind it was unused to. As a result, the country’s politicians — and the country itself — were startled into a discussion centred not just on questions of free speech but of integration. Polls showed almost full opposition among the country’s Muslim population to the portrayal of Mohammed. In wider Danish society there was a split but it was fairly even, one Gallup poll showed 48% against the publication and 43% in favour.

Over the next decade, that was to change dramatically. In 2015 – after the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris — fully two-thirds of the Danish population thought that Jyllands-Posten had been right to publish the cartoons.

The shift was a response not just to the political discussion that raged intensely over the nature of Danish-ness and the centrality of free speech, but also to the global attention, often intensely hostile.

During this period I had one conversation with a number of representatives from the DPP in the Parliament in Copenhagen, and I recall one expressing their belief that the country should not allow in any more migrants of Muslim origin. I questioned whether this wasn’t too stark a conclusion to come to, and the MP in question replied that since opinion polls showed that the vast majority of Danish Muslims did not believe in freedom of the press, why invite more people who also would be opposed almost in their entirety to such a fundamental pillar of democracy?

So while the DPP grew on a platform of immigration restrictions and integration, something interesting began to happen in the international media. As Denmark’s politicians were made to come to terms with one of the sharpest edges of the integration debate, parts of the international press muddied things considerably by presenting almost the whole of mainstream Danish politics as having lurched to the extreme Right.

The New York Times, in particular, got into the habit of portraying Denmark as a country which had somehow turned to the dark side. Even the story of Danish citizens saving the country’s Jews by getting them out of the country to safety in neutral Sweden to avoid the Nazis — almost all of its 5,000 Jews survived — was highlighted in order to be used against modern Denmark. Events that had been the focus of civic pride in the country were turned into a weapon against it; if a country had saved its Jews in the 1940s, so this logic went, then it had no right to turn away any of the world’s citizens in the 2000s and 2010s.

There is an interesting technical explanation for this, something Danish journalists and politicians understand. Countries like Denmark (with a population throughout this period of around 5.5 million people) will rarely be a centre of press attention, so that when they are, there is a tendency for international reporters – especially American ones — to fly in and play “find the Nazi” before flying back out again. Few spend much time focused on the country.

What is more, there is a tendency in the international media (as with the story of the Danish treatment of Jews in the 1940s) to know one or two facts about a country and then use these as the basis of all subsequent analysis. Observers who noted the number of international correspondents who referred to Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia while covering the recent Catalan crises (with which Orwell’s book has no connection) might recognise the trend.

While covering this small, Scandinavian social democracy, reporters from the NYT and elsewhere would call people critical of the government and then use these not-very representative Danes as the “voice of the people”. Inside Denmark, these same critics, often campaigners or activists, would then point to the international furore and say “Look, we are clearly doing something wrong: even the NYT is criticising us”.

And when the international media misreported or misrepresented events, any rebuttal barely got further than Copenhagen, meaning that the allegation stuck and the gap between the reality inside the country and the wider international view grew. As a result, few people have tried to understand what it means for a country the size of Denmark to repeatedly become a focal point for major issues, issues that every European country has also been going through.

So it was that, in the mid-2010s, when the migration wave from north Africa and the Middle East began to disturb politics across Europe, the Danes had already lost much of their previous naivety. The Danish government recognised that the challenge affecting every country was not just a problem of numbers, but of the ability of countries to absorb or integrate people.

During the 2015 crisis, the-then Danish government (most notably the immigration and integration minister Inger Støjberg from the liberal conservative party Venstre) made it clear that they would not go the way of their neighbour Sweden — they would not allow the borders to be open.

So in January 2016, the Danes passed legislation stating that any arrivals who had travelled through multiple safe European countries in order to reach Denmark should expect to help pay for themselves in the country, and not simply expect to rely on the Danish taxpayer. The law was passed with the support of all the main parties, including the Social Democrats.

This became known as the ‘jewellery law’ in international media, in spite of the fact that the legislation made it clear that wedding rings and other personal items should not be seized. Still the story went around the world claiming that the Danish government was going to seize jewellery and other valuables from desperate people arriving in the country. Again, the 1940s comparisons were made, with supposedly chilling echoes of history’s darkest moments. Four years on, and there is still no record of even one incidence of such confiscation of personal jewellery.

There was, in 2018, a similar row. Thanks to misreporting in the NYT, the story went around the globe that the Danish government was proposing to create different categories of citizen, specifically separating out people in ‘ghettos’. Once again, the corrections to the reports failed to get anything like the international attention of the original allegation; the more prosaic truth is that all citizens in Denmark continue to have equal rights and the country continues to operate an asylum system.

Throughout this period, the Danish People’s Party did increasingly well in the polls. Their success peaked at the 2015 election in which they became the second largest party in the Folketing, the Danish Parliament, winning 37 of 179 seats. Unlike in neighbouring Sweden, the party had never been excommunicated from politics, in the way that the Sweden Democrats have been. Indeed, within three elections of the party’s founding, it was providing support to the government.

But 2015 was a breakthrough year and Pia Kjærsgaard became the Speaker of the Danish Parliament, reflecting the fact that the DPP’s core preoccupations had proved pertinent. But the other political parties had also realised that they had to catch up if they were to remain politically successful, and rather uniquely in Europe, adapting to the DPP in their platforms.

Such changes are often represented as though they only exist on the political Right, but one of the most interesting aspects of the Danish story is that even a party like the Social Democrats — who have run a minority government since 2019 under the leadership of Mette Frederiksen – now has policies in many ways indistinguishable from the DPP.

And so Denmark’s equivalent of Labour campaigned in 2019 as being tough on immigration, advocating the same policies as the DPP in processing asylum applications outside of Denmark rather than once people had arrived into the country.

They recognised that the country could not absorb large numbers of migrants and that in order for migration to work, the country needed to focus on integrating the people already there. These policies reflected a widely-held belief in Danish politics that the country had inadvertently created ghettoes and failed at the task of integration.

So while the DPP performed remarkably badly at the 2019 election, winning their smallest share of the vote since 1998, and some party members blamed poor leadership, the larger reason would appear to be that the other parties had simply adapted to almost all of the policies distinguishing the DPP from the mainstream.

If one person could be said to demonstrate this shift it would be Mattias Tesfaye. The now 39-year old Social Democrats Immigration and Integration Minister (himself the son of an Ethiopian immigrant to Denmark) has repeatedly said things that are all but indistinguishable from what DPP leader Pia Kjærsgaard used to argue.

Earlier this month the Danish government released an 800-page report from the Ministry of Justice which concluded that while the Danish public are strongly committed to freedom of speech, immigrant communities have far less of an attachment to the principle. The report found that among immigrants and descendants of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries such as Turkey, Lebanon and Pakistan, 76% thought that it should be illegal to criticise Islam. Just 18% of the Danish population as a whole thought the same thing — and in response to these findings, Tesfaye announced that immigrants who didn’t respect Danish values should leave the country.

For elements within the international press, this is one more proof that Danish society has lurched to the Right. It is more plausible that the political class has simply responded to the concerns of a citizenry historically used to consensus, but which has found itself in recent years having to repeatedly defend and stand up for some of their most fundamental societal values.

As in every other country, actual far-Right parties do hover in the wings. In 2017, Rasmus Paludan formed Stram Krus, or ‘Hard Line’, whose policies might be guessed at by the organisation’s name. Having achieved some notoriety for burning a Quran, Paladan stood for election on a platform advocating d the removal of all Muslims from Denmark. Despite some warnings in the international press that this new ‘far-Right’ party was about to enter the Danish Parliament, Paladan’s party failed to make the threshold for election in 2019.

Both the success of the Social Democrats and the failure of Hard Line can in part be attributed to the DPP, a party that has shown how the label of far-Right is so widely misapplied by a media less interested in informing than in setting the boundaries of opinion.

If the policies of the DPP are far-Right, then all major parties in Denmark would also have to be described as such, from centre-left to centre-right, in a country that scores higher than almost any other on any measure of equality, gender freedom and human rights.

Links - 19th July 2026 (1 - Palestine/Middle East Peace [including Scott Wiener])

Hen Mazzig on X - "Governor Josh Shapiro’s house was burnt down.  Congressional candidate Scott Weiner was harassed until he left a Pride March.   Representative Jared Moskowitz received hateful voicemails threatening to kill all Jews.   Representative Dan Goldman was banned from a coffee shop and his office was vandalized.   Harassing and attacking Jewish lawmakers is an attempt to push Jews out of public life.  That is not criticism of Israel. It is the end of a free society."

Matt Field | Facebook - "In January, Scott Wiener stood up and called Israel’s war in Gaza genocide. It was the word his own activist coalition had spent a year demanding from him. It didn’t buy him a single day. At San Francisco’s Trans March this week, a mob surrounded him, screamed, and put hands on him while shouting about his “Israeli handlers.” He fled a march he had walked for twenty-two straight years, the first time he didn’t finish it. Two nights earlier, a man cornered him at a bar, screamed in his face, and got dragged out by staff, then stood outside pounding the wall and shrieking his name into the street. That same man, in December 2023, stalked Wiener through an airport and onto a plane, screaming at him about his “tainted bloodline.” You can recant a position on a war. You cannot recant your blood."
The cope is he doesn't believe it. Clearly all anti-Zionist Jews don't believe it and so need to be condemned. But of course, anti Zionism is totally different from anti Semitism
Comments: "The trans community is bullying Scott Wiener for believing he and his people have a right to exist. Curious."
"And then there are those who are Jewish and live the pick me life. Right up until…The Yevsektsiya were Jews. They blamed Zionists and traditional Jews for alienating Soviet society. They believed that if Jews abandoned religion, nationalism, and every trait the regime found objectionable, Communism would reward them with acceptance.They helped shut down synagogues, persecuted Hebrew teachers, and denounced fellow Jews as enemies of progress. When they were no longer useful, the Soviet state disbanded the Yevsektsiya. Many of its members were executed during Stalin's purges. Others disappeared into labor camps. Their loyalty bought them nothing.The Antizionist League of Iraq was made up of Jews as well. Its members insisted that Zionism was the source of hostility toward Iraqi Jews. They argued that if Jews publicly rejected the idea of a Jewish state, suspicion and hatred would disappear. They were wrong. The League itself was dissolved and its leaders imprisoned. The Farhud left hundreds of Jews dead, Jewish homes and businesses were looted and destroyed, and over the following years an ancient community was driven into exile. Nobody stopped to ask whether their victims were Zionists before burning their homes or stabbing them in the streets.A century ago, Baghdad had one of the largest Jewish communities in the world. Jews made up roughly a quarter of the city's population. Today there are fewer than ten Jews left in all of Iraq. Trying to prove that you are one of the "good Jews" has never altered the outcome.German Jews were among the most assimilated Jews in the world. They were educated, patriotic, and deeply proud of being German. Many of them fought proudly in WWI. They often looked down on poorer Jews arriving from Eastern Europe. Some convinced themselves that antisemitism was directed only at those less refined than themselves. Even the Association of German National Jews sought accommodation with the Nazi movement and declared its opposition to Zionism. The Nazis outlawed the organization anyway. Its members were deported and murdered alongside the rest of European Jewry.Today there are fewer Jews in all of Europe than there are Arab citizens of Israel. So much for Europe lecturing Israel about tolerance.Once a society begins stigmatizing Jews, or even just one category of Jews, the writing is already on the wall. Assimilation has never provided lasting protection. Appeasement has never provided lasting protection. Explaining ourselves politely and hoping to be accepted as the "good ones" has never provided lasting protection.We are living through a dangerous moment. The United States, and perhaps Argentina, remain among the few places where Jews are not broadly stigmatized. But even that cannot be taken for granted. A 2023 Harvard-Harris poll found that two thirds of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 agreed that "Jews as a class are oppressors and should be treated as oppressors." Those young people will shape the future of public opinion.We have no choice but to speak plainly about antizionism.Because if antizionism were merely opposition to Netanyahu, it would not predate Netanyahu. If it were merely opposition to Israeli policy, it would not predate Israel. Long before 1948, Jews were being massacred for refusing to accept their place as a tolerated minority.The uncomfortable truth is that antizionism did not emerge in response to Jewish power. It emerged in response to the idea that Jews should possess power at all.Kind explanations did not save the Jews of Baghdad. Compliance did not save the Jews of Germany. Revolutionary zeal did not save the Jews of the Soviet Union.Clarity matters. Memory matters. And the refusal to lie about what we are facing matters most of all"

Hen Mazzig on X - "U.S. Congressional candidate Scott Wiener was harassed by a Free Palestine activist. 🇺🇸  Scott, who is Jewish, had changed his stance on Israel, parroting the typical Free Palestine rhetoric, in order to get easy votes.  It turns out, to nobody's surprise, that he still isn't spared from falling under the "Zionist" label that the Free Palestine crowd uses."
Joel Pollak on X - "You can see the fear in his eyes, and while I have little in common with him, there is something relatable about this moment. It's no real consolation to point out that he tried appeasing the hatred (letting the rest of us be victimized). This is what we look like before the end."

Mark Dubowitz on X - "Bend the knee and they’ll still kick you in the face. Progressive Jews are discovering that antisemitism has taken deep root on parts of the left. Throwing Israel and fellow Jews under the bus doesn’t earn acceptance—it only feeds the beast."

EducatëdHillbilly™ on X - "This dude actually changed laws making it legal to fuck kids and give people aids on purpose and he’s STILL not left wing enough for the modern democrat party….."

Spencer Pratt on X - "I hope this is a wake up call for the Wiener guy. It's all fun & games indulging vile commie street animals when their chaos benefits your goals, but they never stop there & they'll eat you, too. Socialism is a religion of malcontents; this frothing rage is a feature, not a bug."
Left wingers are just miserable and angry and want others to be too

Meme - Purple haired individual with shaved temple, large earring & moustache in orange tank top baring midriff, with female symbol and hammer and sickle tattoos with bound hands facing the wall, with 3 others to uniformed Communist: "but i'm one of you!!!"
*hapless Scott Wiener accosted by activists*

Meme - Jon Levine @LevineJonathan: "Same energy" *hapless Scott Wiener accosted by activists* *Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine, being confronted by a crowd while attempting to enter Little Rock Central High School in 1957*
David Weigel @daveweigel: "You stopped being queer the moment you started supporting Israel, you piece of shit."

Andy Ngo on X - "San Francisco (June 24) — Leftist lawmaker @Scott_Wiener was aggressively accosted in the Mission district by a far-left extremist demanding he chant “Free Palestine.” The demand mirrors how leftists and liberals hounded people to support BLM in 2020, or to wear masks."

Libs of TikTok on X - "Creepy California State Sen Scott Wiener was ambushed by lgbtq activists at a trans rally despite spending his entire career pandering to them
“We f***ing hate you! You don’t belong here!”
LMAO
He helped create this"
Left wingers criticise "respectability politics", but trying in vain to meet the left's endless demands shows you are a decent human being

James Lindsay, anti-Communist on X - "This opinion might not be popular (but not too unpopular), but I disagree that Scott Wiener was harassed in this park because he is Jewish, and empathy for him on that front is semi-suicidal and misplaced.  In my view, Wiener was not harassed because he is Jewish but rather because he didn't take the full Leftist-approved Gaza line voluntarily before being challenged. Saying he was harassed for being Jewish misses the crucial point and gives him cover he doesn't deserve.  Radical Muslims would harass him for being Jewish, of course, and so would Woke Right chuds and their Neo-Nazi friends, but Leftists wouldn't. Not directly, anyway, and probably not actually intentionally. Leftists don't think like that, and this is very important  For Leftists, the crucial variable in play is whether or not you espoused their fully correct ideological point of view spontaneously without having to be told because you recognized it on your own (that is, you're socially enlightened, by their definition). The "transformed" person in Leftism, who is the only person who has worth, recognizes the world "from the people's standpoint," and to fail to recognize it is to prove that you are not correctly oriented and thus in line with the oppressor.  This is a completely different line of thought than harassing him because he is Jewish.  All the way back to Karl Marx in his 1843 (very early Marx) "On the Jewish Question," it's clearly articulated that the Left's problem with Jews is that they have a different way of viewing the work, which is being Jewish. The problem, though, is the worldview being wrong. Marx's solution is to "remove the Jewishness from the Jew," to paraphrase.  This difference is crucially important. These two things are not the same.  Scott Wiener built and nourished the revolutionary Leftist ideology and advanced it considerably. Then he failed it on its own terms. He deserves no sympathy for this, especially given how much information there is about this being inevitable and the fate of every single one of the people pushing Leftism.  Don't give him sympathy for something he doesn't deserve for reasons that aren't correct."

Andy Ngo on X - "“In California, we believe everyone deserves dignity and respect, regardless of political differences.” California Democrats in the state senate have released a statement condemning the mob intimidation of woke lawmaker @Scott_Wiener. The statement does not mention that trans extremists were responsible."

The UN’s toxic obsession with Israel lets the world’s worst regimes off scot-free - "The United Nations has taken its unhealthy obsession with Israel to a new extreme, with the claim by an independent UN commission that it deliberately targeted Palestinian children in Gaza... As has been the practice in much Western media coverage throughout the conflict that Hamas initiated with the Oct 7 massacre, the BBC breathlessly reported it, without mentioning until paragraph eight that the body’s three-person panel “does not officially speak for the UN”.  The old Carl Sagan axiom – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – appears lost on the panel. The report claims that Israel targeted Palestinian children in Gaza directly by shooting at their vital organs using precision weapons, such as quadcopter drones (yes, really) and snipers, and by using high-impact weapons in strikes on residential buildings, schools, and displacement camps crowded with children.   And yet, despite being the most broadcast war of all time, the evidence that is actually provided for such bold claims is extraordinarily thin. Of course, for the usual suspects, this is enough: there’s nothing so devilish about the Jewish state that they won’t swallow it. Then there’s the charge of genocide made by what the BBC calls an “expert panel”. This charge isn’t even claimed by the disgraced ICC chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, who sought arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes. Genocide, after all, has a specific meaning in international law and requires demonstrable intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. The threshold was deliberately set high. It is not satisfied merely because a war costs the lives of a large number of civilians, however awful those deaths may be.  For decades, the UN has displayed a remarkable capacity to reserve its greatest indignation for Israel while relegating genuinely catastrophic abuses elsewhere to the diplomatic margins. Year after year, Israel attracts more country-specific resolutions at the General Assembly and Human Rights Council than the rest of the world combined, while the mass internment of Uyghurs in China, the slaughter in Syria, the devastation of Sudan and the systematic starvation of civilians in conflicts from Ethiopia to Yemen struggle to command any institutional energy.  The Human Rights Council maintains a permanent agenda item devoted exclusively to Israel – a distinction enjoyed by no other country on earth, including North Korea, Iran and Russia. Even former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged the UN had produced a “disproportionate volume of resolutions, reports and conferences criticising Israel”. I encountered this phenomenon during my own time at the United Nations. It was impossible for any Israeli to secure a senior appointment in the organisation, no matter how well qualified. Israel is the only country of its political and economic weight never to have held a position at Assistant Secretary-General level (roughly a two-star general equivalent) or above. I also encountered cases of UN staff and contractors self-censoring on issues related to Israel for fear of being accused of anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim or anti-Arab bias, as damaging an accusation as one of racism. But by far the worst example of this bias is embodied by UNRWA – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, some of whose staff have been accused of being directly involved in the Oct 7 attack on Israel. As recently as 2024, the UK maintained a longstanding position of condemning the UN’s hostility towards the world’s only Jewish state. Successive British governments rejected the Commission of Inquiry’s open-ended mandate and criticised its obsessive focus on Israel. But that consensus has been overturned by a Labour government more ideologically and politically sympathetic to this excessive level of scrutiny, or more in hock to special interest groups as obsessively hostile to Israel as the UN is. The tragedy is that, while the UN has rightly attracted condemnation from informed critics, it has somehow retained an almost sacrosanct halo among much of the wider public. To many, the UN remains the ultimate authority in international affairs. That reverence allows weak evidence, activist assumptions and ideological predispositions to be laundered into accepted wisdom.  The UN’s disproportionate focus on Israel has long ceased to be a curiosity of UN procedure. It has become a pathology that distorts priorities, consumes diplomatic bandwidth and allows some of the world’s worst regimes to escape meaningful scrutiny by sheltering in the comforting consensus of anti-Israel indignation. It has also become a cottage industry, with networks inside the UN acting in concert with well-organised bad actors like Qatar and Turkey to sustain a relentless momentum of anti-Israeli attacks. Many casual observers may believe the Commission when it claims to be defending vulnerable children. In reality, by substituting ideology for evidence and prejudice for impartiality, it undermines the credibility of international law itself. And, in the process, demonises Israel, Israelis, and Jews at large as bloodthirsty child killers."
Weird. Terrorism supporters keep claiming that the UN proclaimed that Israel was guilty of genocide

Jews Fight Back 🇺🇸🇮🇱 on X - "🚨 BREAKING: Loay Alnaji, the former Moorpark professor who bashed Paul Kessler with a megaphone and killed him, just got probation and 365 days in county jail. The DA asked for prison. The judge refused. This is California. Absolutely shameful."

Meme - "r/legaladviceUK
All my bank accounts has been frozen and none of my banks are telling me why
As far as I'm aware, the organisation I used to work with was not a proscribed organisation until 2019. What'a funny is that it was a political decision, not a decision of national security. I provided financial aid to deal with the crisis in Beirut and now they have frozen my accounts? Is this illegal and if so how can I pay for my solicitor if I can't access my bank account?"
"You used to work with Hezbollah, and then you sent them or a closely affiliated organisation funds from your UK bank account? You could quite possibly have violated the Terrorism Act 2000; in this case, the police will be in contact soon."
"There is a DISTINCTION between the military wing and the political wing of the organisation."
"It's worth noting that Hezbollah themselves deny distinction between its military and political wings. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2 on page 14.  This quote from Hezbollah's second in command Naim Qassem:      “All political, social and jihad work is tied to the decisions of this leadership,” he said. “The same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel.”  Source: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-13-fg-lebanon-hezbollah13-story.html  So it seems even Hezbollah don't agree they aren't terrorists."
Of course, OP's cope was that if the LA Times Hezbollah's second in command Naim Qassem, then it means he never said it

Muslim Author: Palestinian-Israeli Conflict is About Religion, Not Land - "Dr Tawfik Hamid, a Muslim author and journalist, explains that the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is a purely religious issue, and not about land.  He says that the problem is that they don’t want Jews to live there, and that if all Jews were to become Muslim, they would not have a problem with Israel.  He says that the Arab media confirms that the conflict is a religious one and that they talk about the prophecies to kill and murder Jews.  He goes on to say that if you listen to the sermons given in mosques, you will understand that it is a religious issue, not over the land."
He says that if you listen to Arab media, they are very open about their religious motivation to fulfil prophecies (as in the Bukhari) to slaughter every Jew in the world, and if the US pushes Israel to concede land and to establish a Palestinian state, it will encourage the jihadists, so they should do the reverse: don't show the jihadists that you are weak or they will attack you even more because they'll feel they are losing

Zineb Riboua on X - "Documents seized by Israel in the Gaza Strip show that Hamas leaders discussed efforts to derail Saudi-Israeli normalization before the October 7, 2023, massacre, KAN News reported on Sunday, citing material processed and analyzed by the Amit Institute for Terrorism and Intelligence Research.  According to the report, the documents include internal protocols from Hamas leadership meetings in which the group described normalization between Jerusalem and Riyadh as a strategic threat to Hamas and to the Palestinian issue."
Damn Israel making peace impossible!

The Unpersuadable Audience (The Problem Isn't Israel's Messaging) - "One of the more frustrating criticisms I hear from supporters of Israel is that Israel’s public relations are bad. The complaint comes in many forms. Israel’s spokespeople are ineffective. Its social media strategy is weak. Its advocates miss opportunities. Its messaging is clumsy. If only Israel communicated better, the argument goes, the world would understand.  None of that makes much sense to me.  The criticism reminds me of someone standing at the edge of a raging wildfire complaining that the local fire department isn’t doing a very good job—without noticing that the firefighters have been equipped with squirt guns while everyone else has fire engines and endless reservoirs of water.  Israel is a nation of roughly ten million people, with about seven million Jews—that’s nearly half of the world’s entire Jewish population of fifteen million. Fifteen million might sound like a large number until you place it beside a world population of eight billion. If every Jew on earth stood shoulder to shoulder in a single crowd, they would represent less than two-tenths of one percent of humanity. That is the communications battlefield on which Israel is expected to prevail.  And on the other side we do not see merely opposing viewpoints. There are states, media networks, political movements, universities, NGOs, influencers, bots, and vast oceans of money invested in the creation and dissemination of anti-Israel—and often overtly anti-Jewish—sentiment. There is the propaganda machinery of Iran. There is Qatar's immense financial reach and its state-sponsored media network, Al Jazeera, arguably the most influential anti-Israel media platform in the world. There are Russian and Chinese information operations—coordinated networks that seed anti-Western narratives across social platforms, for which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a reliable accelerant. There are social media algorithms that reward outrage and flatten complexity. There are hundreds of millions of people predisposed to see the conflict through ideological, religious, or historical lenses that Israel has little power to alter.  Against this backdrop, people ask why Israel’s messaging isn’t winning. Winning against what? What exactly is the statement Israel has failed to make? That Jews were massacred, raped, kidnapped, and burned alive on October 7? Shouldn’t that alone have been enough? That Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran openly seek Israel’s destruction? Shouldn’t that have been persuasive? That Israelis simply want to live in peace and security? All of these things have been said. They have been said repeatedly.  And then come the historical arguments: Jewish indigeneity, the Mandate, the Peel Commission, the Balfour Declaration, the United Nations vote, and endless debates over Israel’s supposed “right to exist.” In a sense, October 7 achieved one of Sinwar’s aims beyond the immediate horror—it helped create an atmosphere in which Jews are forced to explain why Israel should exist at all.  I refuse to participate in that exercise. I do not defend my own right to exist. I do not defend the right of my family to exist. Mexico does not defend its right to exist. Jordan does not defend its right to exist. No other nation on earth does—not even North Korea. Israel is a reality, not a hypothesis... when someone suggests that concern for one’s own people is only legitimate if their suffering can be proven to exceed all others, I’d note that no one applies that standard to anyone else."

Hen Mazzig on X - "BREAKING; A Hamas operative from Gaza, granted asylum in Greece, was just arrested in Crete.   He’d built a bomb lab in an Athens apartment, trained in explosives in Gaza and Malaysia, and is tied to four others held in Cyprus. He confessed he was waiting for instructions to attack Jews.  Greek police are checking whether the target was the Crown Iris, the Israeli cruise ship arriving Tuesday. The same one mobs greeted last year with throat-slitting gestures."
Time to go on about Jewish terrorism in the 1920s

SJP political program calls to 'usurp' universities to 'weaken the US' - "National Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is seeking to usurp university institutions in order to weaken the United States of America, according to an official political program published on Wednesday, as they saw themselves engaged in a class war against what they saw as pillars of economic and social support for the existing political system.  “The University and the Reproduction of Capitalist-Imperialist Society,” SJP position paper, written in 2025, largely reviewed the role of universities through a Marxist theoretical lens but also set out a seven-point strategic program for the anti-Israel organization’s operations.  The points and analyses in the program establish that the tactical objectives of divestment, campus radicalization, and confrontations are in service of the strategic objective of replacing the current universities with revolutionary education camps, which in turn would serve the grand strategy of undermining the US.  “Universities have functioned as pillars of colonial domination and imperialist conquest. To not just achieve divestment, but to weaken US imperialism, we must unite with disenfranchised sectors of the university to develop the structures and capacity to weaken the power of the war profiteers as a whole,” read the seventh point in the programming, which called to control all sectors of the academic institutions and unseat boards of trustees.  “By asserting our democratic will in the university, we transform the campus into an incubator for ideas and a platform for struggle, not a site of capitalist reproduction.”  The sixth point in the program, calling for alliances with other revolutionary movements within and outside university systems, explained that advancing the “global cause for justice” was required to “weaken the US empire within its core” and advance the Palestinian movement... According to the analyses within the document, to “dismantle the university” would entail eliminating competitive grading and “liberal civility” so that they could engage in “mass-based political education” to foster a Marxist revolutionary “class consciousness.”... The two-year “student intifada,” which the organization saw as a “war between SJP and the university,” was therefore not a conflict targeting those specific institutions but against a “ruling class.” The boards of trustees were part of this ruling class, necessitating the “complete dissolution of the board of trustees and the transfer of the university into the hands of the masses.”  Those who showed loyalty to the academic institutions, engaging in fraternities and sororities, university athletics, and other school societies, were seen as the “good student” and compared to the “petty bourgeois.” They were part of an opposing social force, according to SJP."
We are still told that left wingers don't hate their countries

UK sends extra £10 million to Palestinian Authority despite lack of progress on reforms - "The UK will provide an extra £10 million for the Palestinian Authority (PA) across 2026 to help pay salaries, Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has confirmed.  The money will be handed over despite an apparent lack of progress on the PA’s part in implementing reforms demanded by the UK, US and EU, including greater democratisation in the West Bank and the end of the pay-for-slay programme, which provides stipends to the families of convicted Palestinian terrorists."