No evidence of genocide in Gaza found — ICC Chief Prosecutor - "International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan currently sees insufficient evidence of genocide by Israel in the Gaza Strip. He stated this in an interview... He emphasized that prosecutors should not act under the influence of political slogans or public pressure, but must rely solely on evidence. Hasan pointed out that many experts, as well as his predecessor Luis Moreno Ocampo, already refer to Israel's actions in the war as genocide. However, Khan made it clear that the ICC needs a specific evidentiary basis for such conclusions — and at the moment, he does not see it."
Matthew Taub: Supersizing the fight against Canadian Jew hate | National Post - "antizionism has evolved far beyond criticism of Israeli government policy. It has become a social, political, academic, and institutional movement that increasingly treats Jewish self-determination as uniquely illegitimate among the nations of the world. That distinction matters because the consequences are no longer theoretical. Over the last several years, Canadians have watched Jewish schools shot at. Synagogues vandalized. Jewish students harassed on campuses. Businesses targeted. Community centres threatened. Jewish neighbourhoods subjected to weekly demonstrations that would never be tolerated outside almost any other minority community in the country. At the same time, much of Canada’s institutional class continues insisting that antizionism and antisemitism are entirely separate phenomena. One of the most powerful discussions came during the panel on Islamic antizionism, featuring Rawan Osman, Abraham Hamra, and Loay Alshareef. These are voices the West desperately needs to hear more often: individuals from Middle Eastern and Muslim backgrounds willing to speak openly about extremism, indoctrination, antisemitism, authoritarianism, and the weaponization of anti-Israel narratives inside parts of the Arab and Islamic world. These conversations require courage because dissent in these spaces often comes with enormous personal cost. A panel also examined the collapse of public trust in legacy institutions that many Jews believe have failed to report on antisemitism and anti-Zionist extremism with consistency or moral clarity. That panel, featuring Lizzy Savetsky, Eve Barlow, Jesse Brown, and moderated by Emily Austin, highlighted a growing reality in modern Jewish advocacy: independent voices are increasingly filling the vacuum left by institutions and media organizations unwilling to confront anti-Jewish extremism directly or consistently. Savetsky and Barlow in particular have become prominent public voices willing to endure enormous online harassment, intimidation, and reputational attacks simply for speaking openly about antisemitism, Jewish identity, Zionism, and the climate many Jews are experiencing across Western society. Whether one agrees with every position they take or not, their willingness to continue speaking publicly in an increasingly hostile environment reflects a broader shift taking place globally — Jews becoming less willing to remain silent simply to preserve social acceptance... At a time when trust in media institutions is collapsing across the political spectrum, discussions around what is happening inside journalism, activism, and digital discourse have become central to understanding why so many Jews increasingly feel abandoned by institutions that once claimed to champion minority protection and human rights universally... For too long, many institutions have attempted to fight antisemitism while refusing to directly confront antizionism itself — largely out of fear, political discomfort, or ideological confusion. That strategy is failing. The World Symposium Against Antizionism was significant because it signaled something larger: the emergence of a growing international movement no longer willing to speak about this issue in euphemisms."
McGill withdraws amnesty offer, toughens tone with pro-Palestinian protesters : r/canada - "McGill just announced they’re expanding and continuing their program to train Saudi doctors. Saudi Arabia 1) guns down African migrants trying to reach their country by the hundreds, 2) is involved in the civil war in Yemen that killed 400,000 civilians and starved 100,000 children to death, 3) enforces a gender apartheid on their women, 4) puts homosexuals in prison (after lashing them). Seems like that would be a perfect target for a divestment campaign by students. I wonder what’s different…"
"The orgs supporting these protests are all being funded by Muslim associations. With the recent worldwide investigations into MAC, Muslim Association of Canada, and Qatari funded universities, who’s surprised ?"
Hamas Co-Founder’s Son Rips Pro-Jihadi UK Government - "Mosab Hassan Yousef, who defected from his father’s Hamas terror group to Israel and converted to Christianity, has a message for the antisemitic UK government: “October 7 didn’t happen because ‘Palestinians’ were denied a state, it happened because they were given one.” The Muslim Arabs always refused to share a state with the Jews, and the British in the 20th century tried to appease them by arbitrarily creating the Muslim nation of Jordan. That simply allowed the Muslims to launch Jihad against the newly refounded state of Israel. Then Israel tried to appease the Muslims who had begun to call themselves Palestinians by giving them the Gaza Strip. And all that did was provide another base of terrorist operations right on Israel’s doorstep. The two-state solution was tried and failed — spectacularly. Yet the UK and French governments are gung-ho on trying it yet again. It is no doubt excessively frustrating to have seen up close the reality of Hamas and Palestinian jihad and not be able to convince cultural imperialist Westerners of the truth. Yousef wrote on X on July 29, “‘UK to recognize ‘Palestinian’ state unless Israel end war and commit to peace.’ How about no ‘Palestinian’ state unless ‘Palestinians’ release the hostages, elect a moderate leadership, drop their violence, hand over those who planned and participated in war crimes and apologize to the Jewish people.” Britain’s Keir Starmer and France’s Emmanuel Macron simply want to reward jihadis for committing the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Yousef challenged, “Before proposing a state we need to know who are the ‘Palestinians’? Are they jihadists, communists, con artists, mafia savages, rapists? How can anyone propose a state without being able to know who would run it? Another important question: on what land? What’s the capital, what’s the constitution?” It would be on Israeli land, of course, and the Palestinians would not be satisfied until the only Jewish nation in the world is destroyed. In conclusion, Yousef rejected the claim that the UK is working for peace: “Pleasing Muslim voters in the UK and France at the expense of another democracy is rude, provocative, and will not bring peace.” Yousef has repeatedly tried to warn the West about how the Palestinians are overwhelmingly pro-jihad, and that most of them are fully brainwashed into the Muslim religious teachings about raping and killing non-Muslims. As he said last year on Dr. Phil‘s show, if the so-called Palestinians did not have Jews to kill, they would simply be fighting each other based on different tribal groups. Israel is not committing genocide; it is combating attempted genocide. This was why Donald Trump‘s previous plan to deport many people from Gaza and let it be under the control of Israel again was so excellent. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen as Israel keeps trying to make leftist governments happy with it, hundreds of aid trucks line up for the people who teach their five-year-olds to aspire to terrorism, and Hamas terrorists still control much of Gaza and continue to kill Israeli soldiers."
Mosab Hassan Yousef on X - "“Palestinians” should be held accountable for their war crimes. Not rewarded for weaponizing civilians in pursuit of political and financial gain. “Their” unconditional support behind Hamas doesn’t indicate willingness to accept any type of responsibility. And let’s not forget that “Palestinians” placed booby traps in populated areas to maximize civilian casualties, a strategy to gain global sympathy. Unforgivable crime. To take an anti war stance is acceptable, but to support the use of human shields is partnering in the crime."
Mossad Commentary on X - "🚨 BREAKING: A USAID Inspector General review reportedly identified 101 additional UNRWA teachers, principals, and staff members as Hamas terrorists who took part in the October 7 massacre. The U.S. is now considering whether to designate UNRWA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. @UNWatch"
Lee Humphrey on X - "This has been clear for almost 20 years & was why the Harper gov cut all funding to UNRWA. Fast forward to 2016, it’s still clear that UNRWA supports Hamas, teaches antisemitic hate in their schools & allows Hamas to hide weapons, ammunition & fighters in their facilities yet Trudeau restores their funding. In 2017, he doubles it. In 2025, Carney not only extends the UNRWA funding but adds a one time extra $60 million dollar payment to the annual $50 million. Why is Canada funding terrorism & the teaching of hate to children? Why @liberal_party gov?"
Australian Jewish Association on X - "ANOTHER 70 UNRWA STAFF FIRED DUE TO TERROR LINKS - Credit: UN Watch AJA conducted a major campaign to expose the terror links of UNRWA and the nexus with Australian foreign aid. The previous LNP govt substantially cut UNRWA aid but as soon as Labor was elected it restored and increased our foreign aid to UNRWA. Now although UNRWA has tried to resist responding to the strong evidence, it has been embarrassed and reportedly forced to sack 70 of the worst and most obvious - still probably just the tip of the iceberg. So why does Labor insist on pouring even more $ millions into UNRWA? And credit to our friends at UN Watch for their tireless efforts gathering "
Alaa From Gaza on X - "Last Thursday, as a former @UNRWA employee myself, I received an email from UNRWA's Commissioner-General ad interim, Christian Saunders @CFSaundersUN , informing staff that he had decided to terminate the employment of 70 UNRWA employees in Gaza with immediate effect. He stressed that the decision was neither a disciplinary measure nor a validation of the allegations made by Israel, noting that UNRWA had repeatedly requested evidence from the Israeli authorities and had received none. Instead, he said the dismissals were intended to mitigate what the Agency considered growing security risks to its staff, beneficiaries, premises, and operations. There is something deeply unjust about dismissing 70 people while admitting that no evidence was ever provided against them. Allegations are not proof. When accusations alone are enough to end careers and devastate families, due process ceases to be a principle and becomes a privilege. PS: @UNRWA terminated my contract, along with those of 621 of my colleagues, simply because we escaped the genocide in Gaza and didn't want our children to be killed in front of our eyes. Many of my colleagues were injured and left on medical evacuations. Others accompanied family members who were seriously wounded. We were all terminated in January 2026 after spending an entire year on forced exceptional leave, despite the fact that many of us continued working online throughout that period. The funny thing is that "Western" UNRWA employees were not terminated, even though many of them are also outside Gaza. They continue to receive salaries that are at least 15 times higher than ours, not to mention the benefits that come with them. An agency established to care for Palestinian refugees ended up firing Palestinian refugees like myself while retaining and generously paying international staff. It's a joke. Except it's not funny, because it's real. @UNWatch"
Not that any evidence will ever be enough for terrorism supporters. Like they claim Israel has a Greater Israel project and the proof is invading Lebanon to clear out Hezbollah. But when you point out they don't invade Egypt and Jordan because no one is attacking Israel from there, the cope is that it's proof Mossad control Egypt and Jordan. Which is revealing because that's a tacit admission that they think Israel needs to be violently attacked till it's destroyed, even if they pretend Israel is and has always been the aggressor, and that Muslims who don't do that are traitors
Ex-TDSB legal executive claims antisemitism in lawsuit against board | National Post - "The lawsuit, filed by Paul Koven, the interim general counsel for TDSB since January 2023, argues that the school board failed “to address rampant antisemitism affecting TDSB students and staff, while prioritizing other forms of racism”... Koven, whose lawsuit claims he “was the only Jewish executive at the TDSB before his medical leave,” accused Leola Pon, the board’s associate director of organizational transformation and accountability, of sidelining him and making “overtly antisemitic and racially divisive remarks.”... Among the incidents alleged in the lawsuit are Pon’s alleged refusal “to support a Jewish lawyer for an award because he was a ‘Zionist’” and her alleged insistence that “no Black or Jewish investigator be used in an incident involving a Board Superintendent using the ‘N-word’ due to a supposed ‘race war’ between Jewish and Black staff.”... Canada’s most populous school board has been plagued by several high-profile antisemitic incidents since late 2023, including high schoolers giving Nazi salutes and bathroom graffiti of swastikas, “Hitler was right” and “#KillTheJews.” Figures released by TDSB from 2024 show that Jewish students in the board made up just three per cent of the student body but 15 per cent of all recorded racist incidents. Koven’s lawsuit placed his treatment in the broader context of TDSB’s attempts to combat antisemitism since October 7. The legal filing accused TDSB of “systemic indifference” in the wake of the Hamas atrocities, which has “had a direct and severe impact on his physical and mental health and that of other Jewish employees at TDSB.”"
Banning Palestine Action was lawful, Court of Appeal rules - "The decision to ban Palestine Action as a terrorist group was lawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled. Five senior judges said Palestine Action was no “ordinary protest group” after siding with the Government over the proscription. The Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said the group had engaged in a criminal campaign of direct action against “key national infrastructure and defence firms”, including those providing support to Ukraine and Nato. The proscription, which began on July 5 last year, made membership of, or support for, the direct-action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Judges at the High Court ruled in February that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful, following a legal challenge from Huda Ammori, the group’s co-founder. The Home Office appealed the ruling, arguing that criminal sanctions for dealing with the group had become “insufficient” following an “escalation” in the scale and intensity of its actions... In their 44-page judgment, the judges said Palestine Action encouraged its activists, in its Underground Manual, to “cause serious damage to property”. They added: “It presented a very real risk of injury not only to property but also to members of the public. Its campaign was intended to close down the operations of a company pursuing a lawful business by intimidation, not persuasion”... The judges said people were free to express support for the Palestinian cause, opposition to Israel and the Israel Defense Forces. They said: “But it is a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. “It is not – as claimed – a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open. Palestine Action has little or nothing in common with the suffragettes or the anti-apartheid or Iran War protest groups.”... The Court of Appeal’s decision comes days after four Palestine Action activists were jailed following a on Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems’ UK factory. The group used sledgehammers and crowbars to destroy computers, drones and other equipment before police and security intervened. The Elbit raid, near Bristol, was one of the triggers for Palestine Action being banned as a terrorist organisation. The judges said the decision to proscribe it also came in the wake of an attack at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire in June 2025, in which two military aircraft were damaged. They said: “Palestine Action’s campaign was intended to close down Elbit and other lawful businesses. It took direct criminal action against businesses and institutions, including key national infrastructure and defence firms that provide services and supplies to support Ukraine, Nato, the ‘Five Eyes’ allies and the UK defence enterprise.”"
The terrorism supporters are very upset, of course
The suffragettes were terrorists also, so
New pro-Palestinian group should be banned, says former anti-extremism tsar - "The Government’s former anti-extremism tsar has called for the People Against Genocide protest group to be banned. Lord Walney, a former aide to Gordon Brown and ex-government adviser on political violence, accused People Against Genocide of being a “successor group” to Palestine Action. People Against Genocide has claimed credit for raids on sites linked to Elbit Systems, an Israeli arms company, and other businesses... People Against Genocide also promotes Direct Action Training, whose website states: “Direct action is for everyone who is committed to the anti-colonial struggle. If you would like to gain the skills to dismantle the Zionist machine brick by brick, drone by drone, then register.” Posters on the website include calls to “smash the supply chain”, “pick up a sledgehammer”, “occupy the death factories” and “join the resistance”... Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: “Political violence of this kind is totally unacceptable. In this country, we decide things through debate and elections, not smashing up property and attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer. “If a new group replicates what Palestine Action has done, then they should be treated the same way.” David Taylor, a Labour MP, said: “Anyone joining organisations like this aren’t virtuous activists – they are dangerous criminals, plain and simple. The Government must crack down on any group that promotes committing violent crimes in the name of a political cause.”"
Court of Appeal’s Palestine Action judgement: Are juries still willing to do their duty? - "Menon’s defence strategy – that those on trial should be judged not by what they do but by how they (and jurors) feel – has been proving increasingly successful. It threatens to upset the delicate balance that makes trial by jury worth protecting from a Government seeking to limit its use. That risk was all too obvious last Friday when the pro-Palestine protest outside the court was addressed by Maud Dromgoole, a juror from the initial trial, who claimed that Mr Justice Johnson’s decision to treat the defendants as having a terrorist connection amounted to a “secret extra charge”. “I feel really sorry for the jury that did [convict]. They didn’t know what they were convicting the defendants of,” she said, having also urged social media followers to “mobilise” and join her at the protest. Jurors are instructed by the judge not to let any sympathy they may feel for a defendant influence their verdict. A summary of the law in the Crown Court Compendium handbook says: “The jury need to be directed that they are responsible for decisions of fact; the judge for decisions of law.” This division of responsibilities lies at the heart of our jury system. If juries make up the law as they go along – if they rely on the defendant’s view of the law rather than the judge’s – then people on trial will be wrongly acquitted. There will be no consequences for individual jurors; but trial by jury as a concept will be slowly poisoned. Such toxicity took on particular significance on Monday, when Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, won her appeal against a High Court ruling in February overturning the ban on Palestine Action, the group to which Head and her fellow defendants belonged. Prosecutors will now have to decide how to handle thousands of people arrested after expressing support for Palestine Action after its initial proscription in July last year – including scores more arrested outside Woolwich court on Friday. It remains to be seen whether Palestine Action activists carry out further acts of criminal damage. And if they do, we may see them – and their defence lawyers – appealing to the consciences, prejudices or political predilections of juries... As with so much in the United Kingdom’s unwritten legal-constitutional framework, this tension remains usefully unresolved because it is thought to produce an acceptable outcome. Jurors generally strive to respect judges’ directions. And past occasions when juries appeared to acquit in the face of the evidence have been seen as a warning to over-enthusiastic prosecutors. One of the clearest examples is the case of Pat Pottle and Michael Randle, two peace activists who helped the Soviet spy George Blake escape from Wormwood Scrubs prison in 1966. After owning up in a book they had published in 1989, they were tried and acquitted in 1991. Another “perverse verdict”, as they are sometimes called, came in the form of Clive Ponting, a civil servant who had leaked secret documents about the sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano during the Falklands war, being found not guilty of breaching the Official Secrets Act in 1985. Lord Devlin, the judge who in 1956 famously described trial by jury as “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”, told me after Ponting’s acquittal that a jury had a right to be perverse in the exercise of what he called its legal and constitutional spirit: “If it’s asked to enforce law which it really feels is against its conscience, it says no and it acquits. And that’s to my mind our proudest constitutional achievement.” But these were exceptional cases. Now juries are routinely facing pressure to let conscience rule their decisions in trials involving pro-Palestine and eco-activists. One such case involved David Lambert, a parks and gardens conservationist from Stroud, who was one of six defendants cleared by a jury of criminal damage after a two-week trial in 2021. As part of the Extinction Rebellion protests, he and others had broken windows, spilt fake oil over the front of the Shell building on the South Bank and sprayed messages on the wall about the climate crisis... We have seen other such acquittals in recent years. Four protesters accused of damaging a monument to the 17th-century slave trader Edward Colston, which had been pulled down in 2021 and thrown into Bristol harbour, were acquitted by a jury the following year after claiming they had lawful excuses for their actions. Two of the defendants said they believed that the people of Bristol would have consented to any damage caused by the statue’s removal. In 2023, an un-named activist was cleared of conspiracy to damage a building after asserting that those responsible for the premises would have consented to the damage if they had known its purpose was to alert them to the nature and extent of man-made climate change... six medical professionals were acquitted of criminal damage after a retrial. They had damaged windows at the European headquarters of a bank, arguing that they were attempting to save lives in the face of a climate and ecological emergency... When Parliament said that anyone accused of criminal damage would have a lawful excuse if they believed the property-owner would consent, it was not authorising unlimited damage based on a subjective belief about how to solve some of the world’s most intractable problems. Criminal damage has to be paid for – either through larger insurance premiums or increased taxes, both of which lead to higher prices. Such offending is selfish and solipsistic, allowing perpetrators to feel good about themselves while disrupting public services and making the environment more miserable for the rest of us... there are legitimate concerns about how willing juries are to do their duty. Is this because we now show too much respect to the feelings of others? Has the distinction between facts and opinions become so blurred that objectivity has been replaced by the concept of “my truth”? Has society become so fragmented that members of the public are no longer willing to take direction from those who society has placed in a position of authority? Perhaps all of the above. How else can we explain why thousands of ordinary folk – just the sort of people you might expect to find on a jury – allowed themselves to be arrested after expressing support for a banned terrorist organisation?... the biggest threat to trial by jury is the perception by too many potential jurors that the ideological end justifies the legal means."
Basically, you can break the law if you push the left wing agenda
The Green Party could be about to get even more sinister - "The dangerous cause of Palestine, which has been adopted by countless progressive grifters to render baying mobs spell-bound to their venal ambitions, is now at the heart of the growing struggle between the traditional Greens and their newly acquired allies in the green-headband faction – now bizarrely dubbed the “Global Majority Greens”, or GMG. What values does the GMG stand for? In a nutshell, it wishes to saturate every aspect of the party with an obsession with race. Slavery reparations are a must, as is (according to their website) the wholesale elevation of the interests of “people from African, Caribbean, Asian, Latin American and others of Global Majority ethnic descent in England and Wales” above those unlucky enough to have been born in the racial majority. Predictably, all of this is most vividly expressed in a rabid hatred of “Zionists”. Enter Zack Polanski. The big softie may never tire of reminding us of his identity as Britain’s only Jewish political leader, but he has played the Islamist game with grim commitment. No bigotry, it seems, has been beyond the pale for the former breast hypnotist, from claiming that Israel “kills a child every 45 minutes” to defending the “globalise the Intifada” chant, to condemning the police for being too rough with the alleged Golders Green stabber while placing him under arrest. This has won him significant polling success. Even this performance, however, is apparently not “anti-Zionist” enough for the GMG and its tribune – deputy leader Mothin Ali. Here is a man who greeted news of his election as Leeds councillor with a cry of “Allahu Akbar”, and who defended Hamas’s October 7 atrocities on social media (he later apologised). According to transcripts of messages obtained by the Spectator – Ali has been fomenting a GMG mutiny against Britain’s only Jewish political leader because of his supposed favouritism towards the Jews. At the heart of the matter is allegedly Ali’s resentment of the way Polanski suspended party members accused of levels of anti-Semitism too grotesque even for the Greens. To give you a sense of the tone here, one example is the case of Sabine Mairey, who shared a post that included a picture of a man holding a placard that read “ramming a synagogue isn’t anti-Semitism. It’s revenge.” Just healthy anti-Zionism, am I right? More than 30 local election candidates were accused of spreading such venom on social media last month, leading to nearly a dozen suspensions and two arrests. Yet this, the GMG insists, is an example of persecution of “Global Majority candidates and those who support Palestinian liberation”, supporting an atmosphere that supposedly “demonises migrants and Muslims” as well as “women”. Why all the focus on anti-Semitism? If the GMG had its way, there would seemingly be no limit to the hatred permitted towards the “Zionists” (Jews, the GMG concedes – by which I suppose it means that small number of Jewish Leftist cranks who are shoved into the vanguard at Gaza marches – must be kept “safe”), coupled with a greatly magnified pre-occupation with perceived slights against anybody non-white... if the “Israel lobby” were so powerful, would the Government have recognised a state of Palestine? Methinks the growing power lies elsewhere. All this raises the dilemma of our times: How can liberal democracies stop their freedoms from being subverted from within without sliding into authoritarianism? Depressingly, our political leaders have not even started asking this question, let alone answering it."
If you don't support the killing of Jews, you're guilty of anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobia
‘Pro-Hamas’ TV channel blamed Israel for Golders Green attack - "A “pro-Hamas” TV channel blamed Israel for provoking the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green. Campaigners are demanding a clampdown on Al-Hiwar TV after guests claimed the attack in north London was not the result of anti-Semitism, but a reaction to Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. The Ofcom-licensed channel, which has more than 6.4 million followers on Facebook and 1.9 million subscribers on YouTube, has also been accused of peddling Hamas propaganda. One of its presenters described the Oct 7 attacks as “like a fantasy”, and it has broadcast sympathetic interviews with supporters of the banned terror group... One argued that the incident was not anti-Semitic but an act of opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza and that the Jewish state bore “the lion’s share” of responsibility for what happened. Jafaar El-Ahmar, a London-based journalist, told the channel: “This is not anti-Semitism but rather an expression of his [the attacker’s] rejection of the Israeli attacks against the Palestinian people.” Contributors to Al-Hiwar also described last December’s Bondi Beach attack in Australia – when 15 civilians were shot dead at an orthodox Chabad event – as a reaction to Israel’s military offensive in Gaza rather than an anti-Semitic attack on Jews. Campaigners have called on Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, to examine whether the channel, which is also available to British audiences via a number of foreign satellite TV providers and through multiple websites and apps, has breached UK laws against promoting terror groups. Azzam Tamimi, Al-Hiwar’s co-founder and chairman, has previously called on Muslims to support the Tehran regime against Israel... Bilal and Mr Tamimi also described the Oct 7 terrorists – along with the IRA – as individuals who “struggle for the sake of freedom”. The interview with Bilal took place in Turkey, following his release from an Israeli prison in exchange for hostages held in Gaza. Bilal had been jailed by Israel for his part in two suicide bombings in 1995, with the attacks killing 12 – 10 of them civilians – and injuring another 140 people. He admitted to having prepared the explosives and provided transport for the suicide bombers. Since the Oct 7 attacks the station’s presenters have described Hamas and Hezbollah fighters as “martyrs” and “the resistance”, described suicide bombings as “legitimate resistance under international law” and called for the “dismantling of Israel”... The channel was previously found by Ofcom to have breached its broadcasting code on two occasions, in 2009 and 2018, after it broadcast “highly offensive” comments by guests encouraging violence without being challenged."
So following terrorist supporter logic, we can blame Islamist terrorists for "Islamophobia"
