Matt Field (@mattfield1) - "On Friday, Mayor Zohran Mamdani posted a City Hall-produced video for Nakba Day featuring Inea Bushnaq, whom he called “a Nakba survivor.” The New York Times covered it as fact. “Bushnaq” is not a Palestinian family name. It is the Arabized form of “Bošnjak,” meaning Bosnian. The surname was adopted in 1924 by descendants of Bosnian Muslim families who emigrated to Ottoman-controlled Palestine after Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia in 1878. The name they took is a record of where they came from. Inea Bushnaq was born in Jerusalem in 1948. Her family’s roots in Palestine traced back, at most, 70 years, to settlers from the Balkans who acquired land in Tulkarm and Caesarea and hired Arab laborers to work it. When the family left in 1948, they did not go to a refugee camp. They went to London. Inea was eventually educated at Cambridge. A British official in Jerusalem told Time magazine in May 1948: “The whole effendi class has gone. It is remarkable how many of the younger ones are suddenly deciding that this might be a good time to resume their studies at Oxford.” Between 30,000 and 75,000 had already departed before Israel was even declared. One more detail. The Mamdani video was decorated with a “Visit Palestine” poster presented as Palestinian cultural art. It was created in 1936 by Franz Krausz, an Austrian Jewish refugee from antisemitism who immigrated to Mandatory Palestine. It was commissioned by a Zionist tourism organization. The “Nakba survivor” is the descendant of Bosnian settlers. The cultural artifact is Zionist. The mayor of New York produced this with city resources, and the Times ran it without a question. That is a press release for a narrative that cannot survive scrutiny."
Ironic. Anti-semites keep claiming that Jews are from Europe. Like with most of their claims, terrorism supporters project
Thomas Lukaszuk says painting the Canadian flag over the Palestinian flag is 'anti-Palestine messaging' - "University of Calgary students were seen painting over the Palestinian flag with the Canadian flag —and Thomas Lukaszuk, former deputy premier, has some thoughts. On Tuesday — Remembrance Day — the Campus Conservative Association of Calgary gathered, waving Canadian flags and painting a rock — known to be repainted quite often — with the Canadian flag. Prior to this, the rock had been painted with the Palestinian flag for over a year."
If you don't hate your country, you're a bigot
Cornell backs university prez held hostage in his car by student radicals after Israel-Palestine debate series - "Cornell University’s board of trustees said it’s standing by the Ivy League school’s president Michael Kotlikoff after a group of students followed him to his car and surrounded him following an Israel-Palestine debate series last month. “The Committee has found that the actions taken by these individuals on April 30th, which included following President Kotlikoff from an evening event into a parking lot and impeding his ability to leave, are inconsistent with university policies governing expressive activity and our standards for respectful conduct, safety, and the prohibition of intimidation,” the board announced following an investigation into the viral incident. Several of the students who claimed at the time that the president’s car had struck them all declined medical treatment and refused to provide sworn statements to campus police despite repeated attempts to collect them... The same group of rabble-rousers have become notorious on the university’s Ithaca, New York campus for spewing abuse toward Cornell staffers both online and in-person, and swarming Kotlikoff’s vehicle as he attempted to exit the campus is the latest escalation in their tactics. The students became incensed following a campus debate series hosted by the Cornell Political Union and co-sponsored by Cornell Progressives, Cornellians for Israel and Students for Justice in Palestine... Although Kotlikoff maintained from the start that the enraged leftists were the aggressors in the caught-on-camera incident, lefty students claimed he injured at least two protesters in the parking lot. “When we tried to discuss campus speech policies, he hit us with his car,” the Students for a Democratic Cornell wrote on Instagram alongside footage of the incident. “Kotlikoff’s violent response to student inquiry is just another example of his administration’s repressive crackdown on student speech.”... Kotlikoff’s exoneration by the board was lauded by several Cornell law professors. “The result of the Board of Trustees’ investigation into the incident between activists and Cornell’s President confirms what the public videos showed — reckless conduct meant to trap and confront the President in a dangerous manner, and highly questionable claims of injury by the activists,” professor William A. Jacobson told The Post. “This incident is just the latest example of a Cornell anti-Israel activist community out of control,” he added. Law professor Menachem Rosensaft said he was “extremely gratified” the board reached the conclusion it did and the message it sent... “I think President Kotlikoff is 100% correct in not pursuing any disciplinary measures against the students involved, because that’s what they would have liked. They would have liked to be turned into martyrs, and instead they can now be relegated back to the obscurity that they so richly deserve.”"
It's literally attempted murder if you don't let "pro-Palestine" "protesters" swarm your car and potentially pull you from it and lynch you. The President needs to be jailed forthwith!
Hail Cornell's prez for refusing to let student brats take him prisoner : r/NewsWorthPayingFor - "Let's get this straight. He presided over a debate featuring the original "anti-Zionist loudmouth", Norman Finkelstein, whose presence on campus he not only tolerated but actively promoted. He participated in "dialog" for hours. But it was not enough. It's never enough. The spirit of 1966 is strong in these activists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bian_Zhongyun"
'Shocked and deeply troubled': Swastika flag raised at NYU, with school denouncing display - "New York University (NYU) condemned what school officials called an antisemitic act after a flag bearing swastikas was raised above a campus building during this week's graduation festivities... According to campus reports, the flag featured two swastikas, a Star of David, and the letters "NYU"."
Damn suppression of "pro-Palestine" speech!
Our Nakba - "The German ambassador to Egypt works out of a house that used to belong to a Jewish family. So does the Swiss ambassador. So does the American one. The homes were confiscated in 1956, when the Egyptian government declared, in a proclamation read aloud from the minarets of Cairo and Alexandria, that all Jews were Zionists and enemies of the state. The families were given one suitcase. They signed documents “donating” everything else to the government. Then they left. The houses are still there. The families are not. This is where the argument about Israel begins. Not in Europe. Here. There is a story told about Israel with remarkable confidence in universities, at the United Nations, in the opinion sections of newspapers that should know better. The story goes like this: European Jews, traumatized by European persecution, arrived in a land populated by indigenous Arabs and established, by force, a settler state. European guilt. European migration. European power. Colonialism wearing a Star of David. The story requires you to ignore the majority of Israelis. Mizrahi Jews, those whose ancestry traces to Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, and Lebanon, constitute the largest demographic bloc in Israel’s Jewish population, somewhere between 45 and 61 percent depending on how intermarriage and self-identification are counted. No serious demographer disputes the basic fact. They are not European. They are the descendants of communities that lived in the Middle East and North Africa for over two thousand years before the word “Europe” carried any political meaning. Many trace their origins to the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE. Their families were in Baghdad before Rome was a city. They were in Sana’a and Cairo and Tripoli while the ancestors of today’s loudest anti-Zionists were still pagans in northern forests. By every definition that the language of indigenous rights claims to honor, they are indigenous people of the Middle East. The colonial thesis does not complicate this fact. It requires its erasure. These communities did not arrive in Iraq and Yemen and Egypt from Europe or from nowhere. They arrived from the Land of Israel, carried there by the conquests and expulsions that defined the ancient world. The Babylonian exile of 586 BCE brought Jews to Mesopotamia when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the First Temple and deported the population of Judea. Later waves followed the Assyrian conquest, the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, and the subsequent dispersions that scattered Jewish communities across the region. The Jews of Baghdad, of Sana’a, of Cairo, of Tripoli were not immigrants to the Middle East from somewhere else. They were the exiled children of the Land of Israel, living in the lands to which conquest had driven them, maintaining their language, their texts, and their memory of home across two thousand years. When they came to Israel in the twentieth century, they were not arriving as colonizers. They were returning. To understand what was lost, you have to know what existed. The Jews of Iraq were among the oldest continuous Jewish communities on earth. Their roots in Babylonia stretch to the destruction of the First Temple. They did not merely survive in Iraq. They built there. The Talmud, the central text of Jewish law and life that has governed Jewish practice for fifteen centuries, was composed in Babylon, in the academies of Sura and Pumbedita, on the soil of what is now modern Iraq. By the early twentieth century, Jews made up roughly a third of Baghdad’s population. They were merchants, musicians, government officials, doctors, bankers. They spoke Judeo-Arabic and prayed in Hebrew and had done both, without interruption, for two and a half millennia. The Jews of Yemen maintained a liturgical tradition so ancient and so isolated from the rest of the Jewish world that scholars of Hebrew phonetics study it today to understand how the language was originally pronounced. They had been in the Arabian Peninsula since before the rise of Islam. Their piyyutim, their sacred poetry, carried melodies that the rest of the Jewish world had forgotten. The Jews of Morocco and Algeria predated the Arab conquest of North Africa. The Persian Jewish community traced its origins to the era of Cyrus the Great, who is named in the book of Isaiah as the instrument of Jewish liberation. The Jews of Egypt were ancient. The Jews of Syria were ancient. These were not transplanted peoples. They were rooted ones, with sacred texts, living languages, and unbroken communal memory reaching back to the earliest chapters of Jewish history. In 1948, there were 135,000 Jews in Iraq. 265,000 in Morocco. 140,000 in Algeria. 105,000 in Tunisia. 100,000 in Egypt. 60,000 in Yemen. 38,000 in Libya. 30,000 in Syria. Today, there are fewer than ten Jews in Iraq. Fewer than ten in Yemen. Fewer than ten in Libya. The end of each community had its own texture, but the pattern was the same everywhere.
The colonialism no one talks about: Arab imperialism - "When the Arab armies surged out of the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century, they created an empire larger than Rome in barely a century. By 750 C.E., they controlled 13 million square kilometers, ruled more than 50 million people and redrew the map of three continents. Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, North Africa, Persia and as far as Spain were absorbed into a vast imperial system built on conquest and domination. However, when “colonialism” is invoked today, this empire is rarely mentioned. Only Europe and other Western nations are put in the dock. This selective memory distorts history. It erases the suffering of entire peoples and presents conquest and subjugation as if they were merely cultural diffusion. The Arab-Muslim expansion was not a benign flowering of civilization, but a deliberate project of empire, motivated by religious and political ambition. From its inception, Islam carried an imperial vision. Under Muhammad, the warrior-prophet, the early Muslim community saw expansion as a divine mandate. Conquest was central, creating a model of domination that endured for centuries. The world was divided into Dar al-Islam, the “abode of Islam,” lands ruled by Muslims, and Dar al-Harb, the “abode of war,” lands yet to be subdued. Non-Muslims under Arab rule were tolerated only as dhimmis, second-class subjects compelled to pay the humiliating jizya tax and live under laws marking their inferiority. The human toll of this imperialism was immense. When Arab armies conquered Egypt around 639 C.E., Coptic Christians formed the majority of the country. Within centuries, heavy taxation, social restrictions and pressures to convert reduced them to roughly 10% of the population. Churches were destroyed, and the administration was Arabized, leaving Copts politically marginalized for centuries. Sassanid Persia, conquered by Arabs in 651 C.E., was a fully Zoroastrian state. Arab rule brought the destruction of temples, forced conversions and an imposed Islamic administration. By the 10th century, Zoroastrians had become a tiny minority. The Berbers of Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco, indigenous polytheists, were gradually Arabized and Islamized. Their languages, religions, and cultural identities were replaced or suppressed under Arab rule, and many were incorporated into the Arab military as auxiliaries, losing their indigenous traditions. The Arab slave trade, spanning from the 7th to the late 19th century, lasted more than 1,200 years, far longer than the Atlantic slave trade. Between 10 million and 18 million Africans were captured and transported along multiple routes across the Sahara, through the Red Sea into the Arabian Peninsula, and via the Indian Ocean to Persia, Arabia and India. Male slaves were often castrated, while women were assimilated into Arab households, leaving few Afro-descendant communities able to preserve cultural memory. Yet Western academics and activists—eager to atone for Europe’s sins—speak of colonialism as if it were an exclusively European phenomenon. Meanwhile, Arab imperialism is celebrated as the “Golden Age of Islam,” highlighting contributions to science, philosophy and culture, while its legacy of conquest, forced conversion and subjugation is ignored. It is as if history itself began in the seventh century, with Islam’s spread erasing all who came before: Copts, Persians, Assyrians, Berbers, Jews. Nations that thrived for centuries vanished into the shadows of Arab rule. The legacy of Dar al-Islam is not confined to the past. Arab nationalism and Islamist movements still assume the Middle East “belongs” to Arabs and that minorities must submit. The persecution of Copts in Egypt, the oppression of Kurds in Syria and Iraq, the near-erasure of Assyrian Christians and the Yazidi genocide by ISIS echo the imperial mindset of conquest. Jihadist groups such as Hamas, ISIS and the Taliban invoke the division between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb to justify perpetual war and terrorism. To criticize Arab imperialism today risks accusations of Islamophobia. Any attempt to highlight early conquest violence or centuries of Arabization is dismissed as reactionary. By contrast, condemning Western colonialism is encouraged as it fits neatly within progressive, anti-racist frameworks dominating Western academia. This asymmetry produces a distorted historical consciousness. The Levant and North Africa are thought of as “naturally Arab,” as though Arab identity were indigenous. But Egypt was overwhelmingly Coptic, the Maghreb largely Berber, Mesopotamia Assyrian and Aramaic-speaking, the Levant a mosaic of faiths and languages. These were not “Arab lands,” they were made Arab by conquest and cultural suppression. Modern Arab nationalism, born in the 20th century, compounded the distortion. Figures like Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser or the Ba’ath Party built legitimacy by denouncing Western colonialism while ignoring earlier Arab imperialism that defined the region for centuries. The irony: Arab nationalism, hailed as anti-colonial, was itself built on a colonial legacy. Absurdly, Israel is routinely accused of “colonialism,” a grotesque inversion of reality. Zionism is not colonial but the most successful anti-colonial movement in history: The return of an indigenous people to their ancestral land after centuries of foreign rule. To call Jewish self-determination “colonialism” while ignoring the Arab conquests that Arabized and Islamized the region is not only intellectually dishonest; it uses historical erasure as a weapon against the one nation in the Middle East that decolonized itself. The debate on colonialism remains strikingly one-sided. While Europe’s colonial crimes are scrutinized, the Arab conquests transforming North Africa and the Middle East are often celebrated. Such silence is not oversight; it is political. It fosters the illusion that imperialism is uniquely Western, when in truth it has been recurring throughout human civilization. Acknowledging Arab imperialism does not diminish Europe’s colonial crimes. It restores balance, reminding us that domination is not the monopoly of one continent or culture. It gives voice to forgotten nations such as the Copts, Berbers and Assyrians, whose suffering predates European ships in the Americas. A real reckoning with empire means holding Arab imperialism to the same standard as Europe. Until then, colonial history is a half-truth, and politics built on it a dangerous fiction. This selective outrage twists history into a weapon instead of a mirror."
Joel Engel on X - "As true now as it was 57 years ago:
Israel's Peculiar Position
By Eric Hoffer
Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1968
The Jews are a peculiar people: things do not happen to them, they happen to other people. Other people have a destiny, the Jews have a rendezvous with God. Yet there is in apparent contradiction a sustainability and unfailingness about the Jews and their impact on history. Consider their tiny population. They number about 15,000,000, less than 3% of the world's total. One would expect them to be statistically lost and to remain but an obscure footnote in human history. Yet they have been a most conspicuous people and their impact on history has been overwhelming. Consider again their survival. They have been repeatedly decimated: by the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, the Russian Czars, the Nazis. Yet they persist. No other people in history have so miraculously survived. Consider their contribution to civilization. In the field of religion, they gave the world Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In philosophy, they produced Spinoza and Marx. In science, Einstein and Oppenheimer. In literature, Heine and Kafka. In music, Mendelssohn and Mahler. Consider finally their role in the contemporary world. They are the only people who have returned to their homeland after 2,000 years of exile. And they have made it bloom.Yet in spite of all this, the Jews are the most hated people in the world. Why? Is it because they are a success? No. Success breeds envy, but envy does not breed hatred. Hatred is bred by fear.The Arabs fear the Jews. They fear the Jewish success, the Jewish survival, the Jewish return to their homeland. They fear that the Jews will succeed again as they have succeeded before. The Arabs say that Israel is a cancer in the body of the Arab world. But it is the Arabs who are the cancer. They are the ones who refuse to live in peace with Israel. They are the ones who teach their children to hate the Jews. They are the ones who launch terror attacks against Israel. The Jews want to live in peace with the Arabs. But the Arabs want to destroy Israel. They say that Israel has no right to exist. They say that the land belongs to them. But the land was desolate when the Jews came back to it. The Jews made it bloom. The Arabs can have their own states, but they want Israel's land too. Now, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War, the world is turning against Israel. The United Nations condemns Israel. The Soviet Union arms the Arabs. The Europeans are neutral, but their neutrality favors the Arabs.Even in America, there is a growing anti-Israel sentiment. The intellectuals, the media, the churches—all are turning against Israel. Why? Because Israel is strong. Because Israel won the war. Because Israel is a success.But success is not a crime. Strength is not a sin. Victory is not a vice. The Jews are accused of being aggressors. But who struck the first blow? The Arabs. Who refused peace? The Arabs. Who blockaded the Straits of Tiran? The Arabs. Who launched the war? The Arabs. The Jews are accused of displacing the Arabs. But Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it, Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese—and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become the eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover, but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. We, the Jews, stand alone in the world and always will. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all."
Why did Arab nations choose full-scale war with Israel in 1948 over such a small territory? : r/AskHistorians - "One issue was domestic politics. None of the Arab countries involved had been countries as such for very long themselves. Even after independence from the Ottoman Empire, they weren't truly independent. They were dominated by European powers or elites linked to those powers, particularly the UK and France. Their power was not secure. The creation of Israel, backed by those Western powers, against popular opinion in the region, risked making regional leaders look so weak and ineffectual that it threatened their hold on power. That was a direct threat. There was also some real feeling in this regard. Arab leaders genuinely did not want to be just European proxies. They were right to be concerned. It was a hard time for those leaders. For example, Egypt in 1948 was not doing alright. The monarchy had lost legitimacy and the economy was not doing well. The monarchy fell in 1952. Syria was only two years old, and was still struggling to assemble working institutions. In 1949, that government fell to a military coup, the first of many coups over the next decade. In Iraq, the political landscape was divided, and the monarchy was losing support. They were undergoing their own internal uprisings, following the failure inJanuary 1948, to achieve real independence from Britain with the Portsmouth Agreement. It was widely denounced as a sham extension of British control. The monarchy fell in 1958. Lebanon was just five years old, with a political system based on the major competing groups. They made it 27 years before a civil war between those groups broke out. In contrast, Jordan was doing a bit better. The King felt safe enough from domestic pressures to please another key supporter, the British government, and make a deal with Israel that he would only attack the Arab-controlled areas to stop his rivals from getting them, but not the areas assigned to Israel. That monarchy is still in power.
Not only did they worry about their positions at home, regional leaders worried about their positions vis-a-vis each other. Each set of leadership wanted to be seen as the defender of the Arab cause to help their own power, but also, they didn't want their rivals in the other countries to be seen that way, at their expense. The Palestinian cause was just one in which they competed with each other for leadership. This extension continued into Palestine itselff. Some Arab leaders wanted a piece - at the expense of others. Some didn't want it themselves, but they feared losing power to.a rival state that did take Palestinian territory. For example, Jordan sought to annex the Arab areas of the UN partition plan to prevent them from falling under Egyptian or Syrian influence. The land was more than some acreage. It is very symbolic land, both in the larger picture of Arab self-determination, but also in religious and cultural terms. Jerusalem and the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount were important symbols for religion, and of foreign occupations and dominance. The Arabs aren't the only people who felt that way (which is how we got so many crusades).
Palestinians expected help, refusing would look very bad. Already the Muslim Brotherhood - rivals for power - were in Palestine fighting- The Arab League had themselves organised the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) of volunteers. To back down now would look weak and cowardly indeed. That was a political threat, bust also a personal one in a culture that valued strength and bravery.
They thought it would be easy. In the minds of the the Arab leaders at the time, their valiant fighters would obviously beat a few, disorganised Jews without major weaponry. They did not expect a mobilised society, trained soldiers, capable officers and better logistics than their own forces had. At least some believed their own propaganda about Jews as outsiders, and assumed Israelis would flee "home" when faced with force. They also expected a lot of assistance, given the popularity of the cause. For example, Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam, secretary-general of the Arab League from 1945 to 1952, declared in 1947 that, "I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honour of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine ... You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews." Since victory wouldn't cost much, but inaction could cost them a lot, why not do it?
They felt they had to. The situation was such that to back down would be to surrender without fighting, and that the moral and political pressure was all on action. That same secretary general told representatives of the future state of Israel, "We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions." Looking at it that way, there was no decision to make. They would attack."
It's only a nakba because they didn't get to genocide the Jews
Meme - "THE OLDEST ULTIMATUM, SAME SCRIPT, NEW DAY
WE'RE NOT ANTI-JEW. WE JUST NEED YOU TO AUDITION FOR YOUR ACCEPTANCE.
THE SCRIPT NEVER CHANGES
Jew thinking: IS HUMILITY ENOUGH? OR DO I NEED TO HATE MYSELF MORE?
THE ROLE: ACCEPTABLE JEW (RECURRING)
DENOUNCE ISRAEL
REJECT JEWISH SOVEREIGNTY
AGREE JEWS DON'T NEED A HOMELAND
BE STATELESS, DEFENSELESS, AND GRATEFUL
AUDITION OR ELSE.
PERPETUAL OUTRAGE PRODUCTIONS
DIRECTOR: HISTORY
SAME ENGINE. DIFFERENT PACKAGING. THREAT UNDERNEATH. MERCY ON TOP.
PREVIOUS SEASONS:
THE INQUISITION "CONVERT OR ELSE."
THE POGROMS "LEAVE OR ELSE."
THE EXPULSIONS “GO OR ELSE."
THE EXTERMINATIONS "DISAPPEAR OR ELSE." *Auschwitz Nazi train car*
TODAY
FROM THE RIVER TO THE SEA
GLOBALIZE THE INTIFADA
ZIONISTS NOT WELCOME
"DENOUNCE OR ELSE."
DIFFERENT COSTUMES. SAME ULTIMATUM.
THE ONES WHO READ THE FINE PRINT DON'T FALL FOR REBOOTS.
WE'VE SEEN THIS ULTIMATUM WEARING EVERY COSTUME IMAGINABLE. WE KNOW HOW IT ENDS.
HISTORY
PATTERNS
READING THE FINE PRINT
NEVER AGAIN # OPTIONAL
CAFFEINATED BY SURVIVAL & SARCASM"
Of course, with "minorities" the left loves, Solidarity is unconditional and they get support no matter how awful people they are. But groups the left hates must check off a never-ending list to be worthy of basic human decency
The Patriot Oasis™ on X - "🔥🚨 BREAKING: More Footage of US Marine Corps veteran Brian McGinnis is resurfacing—the man who was thrown out of the Senate hearing yesterday by Sen. Tim Sheehy. McGinnis, while wearing a muslim Keffiyeh, says that he supports the "Free Palestine Movement." He said he and his family are Palestinian. While he was assaulting Capitol police yesterday, McGinnis was ranting and screaming about his hatred of Israel. The Islamic and Palestinian movements are both extremely violent and anti-American movements that have no place in America. McGinnis has tried for years to leverage his position as a Marine Corps veteran to gain traction for his movements."
Left wingers are pretending he's a victim. The contrast with Jan 6th is telling
Comment (elsewhere): "🤣 you're absolutely clueless as there's multiple things wrong with this let's start with him disrupting the meeting (illegal act), refusing to leave (illegal act called trespassing), resisting the police (illegal), fighting the police (illegal), actively undermining his leadership in uniform(illegal under multiple separate UCMJ articles), attempting to speak on behalf of other people while in uniform (illegal under UCMJ) and i could go on.... Regarding your "he was right" or "speaking the truth" comment now that's just funny and absurd this is a policing action to prevent a homicidal dictator from possessing nuclear wealth which would have severe global repercussions."
