I am confident that over 2 million people in the UK have shared thoughts on the Genocide in Gaza that are stronger than anything Natalie Strecker has expressed.
I am quite certain that I am one of those 2 million.
Yet Natalie Strecker, an avowed pacifist, today faces up to ten years in prison under the Terrorism Act when the verdict in her case comes in.
Strecker is charged with eliciting support for Hamas and Hezbollah, based on 8 tweets, cherry-picked by police and prosecutors from an astounding 51,000 tweets she sent, mainly from the Jersey Palestine Solidarity Committee account.
The tweets were rather rattled off in court and referred to occasionally again in whole and in part. There may be minor inaccuracies not affecting sense, but this is the best reconstruction of those tweets that I can make (they were not displayed to the public):
“People will be individually resisting: otherwise we would be asking them to submit to genocide on their knees”
“Solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah has the right to resist in international law, I remind you the occupier does not, and are legally obligated to try to prevent Genocide.”
“Solidarity with the resistance. In the same way that the resistance fought the Nazis in Europe, we must support the fight against the Nazis of our generation”.
“Resistance is their legal right under moral and international law. If you don’t want resistance, then don’t create the circumstances which require it. Solidarity with the Resistance.”
“This nonsense our nation has descended into, where one side is committing genocide, and the other is proscribed for fighting it. I believe Hezbollah may be Palestine’s last hope”.
“Hamas the resistance did not break out of their concentration camp to attack Jews as Jews. We can debate whether armed resistance is legitimate. Of course there should be no attacks on civilians.”
“I am sick of the MSM propaganda about “Hamas-run health ministry figures”. Hamas is the government in Gaza. Every health ministry in the world is run by its government.”
“Are you awake? So it is down to ordinary people like you an me to end it. We must take our power back. Join me in solidarity with the people of Lebanon and Palestine. Solidarity with the Resistance.”
That is it. The prosecution case is that these tweets, both collectively and individually, amount to an invitation of support for Hamas and Hezbollah resulting in up to ten years in jail in Jersey, or 14 years in jail on the UK mainland.
The prosecution explicitly stated, and the judge notably intervened to make sure that everybody understood, that it is the offence of supporting terrorism to state that the Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.
Judge John Saunders interrupted the prosecution to ask whether they were saying that he would be guilty of support for terrorism if, in a lecture, he told an international law class that Palestinians have the right to armed resistance in international law.
After some kerfuffle when faced with such an awkward question, the prosecution replied that yes, it could be the offence to tell law students that.
I should point out, at risk of dying in jail, that the Palestinians are beyond doubt an occupied people in international law, and equally beyond doubt an occupied people have the right of armed resistance.
To state that the Palestinians have the right of armed resistance in international law is not in the least controversial as a statement of law. A few Zionist nutters would try to differ, but 95% of international lawyers on this planet would agree.
I assume by perfectly logical extension that this means the prosecution must believe it is a terrorist crime in UK law, for example, to quote UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43, which:
2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;
3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;
It is also worth stating that on Friday the prosecution stated, in these precise words, that “Resistance is synonymous with Hamas and Hezbollah” and that any support for, or justification of, Palestinian resistance is support for a proscribed organisation.
To repeat, there are millions of people in the UK who have stated stronger things than the tweets above. Including me. And, as the defence pointed out repeatedly, just eight tweets had been found after hundreds of hours of police time, and found amidst tens of thousands of other tweets on the Middle East, hundreds of which specifically urge non-violence.
So why are the police doing this to Natalie? Why did six armed police storm her apartment and rouse her at 7am a year ago, seizing all her electronics and papers, arresting her and not allowing her to have a pee without leaving the bathroom door open so she could be observed?
This is where the story gets very dark indeed.
This is not a local Jersey initiative.
The prosecution is directed from London and Alison Morgan KC, senior Treasury counsel (UK government lawyer) is seated beside the local prosecuting counsel, openly puppeteering him every step of the way.
So why has the UK government chosen Jersey to prosecute a local pacifist whose statements provide possibly the weakest case of support for terrorism that has ever been heard in any court in the Western world?
The answer is that here in Jersey there is no jury.
Facing this charge on the UK mainland Natalie would have a jury, and there is not a jury in the UK that would not throw this self-evidently vindictive nonsense out in 5 minutes.
Why is it worth the time and expense for Whitehall to send Alison Morgan KC here to direct a weak case against somebody who is obviously not a terrorist?
The plain answer is that this is a pilot for what they can get away with on the mainland when they abolish juries in such trials, as “Justice Secretary” David Lammy has announced that they will indeed do.
In Jersey the system is inherited from the Normans. The judge sits with two “jurats” or lay magistrates. They determine innocence or guilt. These come from a pool of 12 permanent jurats. In practice these are retired professionals and frequently have strong connections to the financial services industry.
What the jurats emphatically are not is Natalie Strecker’s working class peers of a kind who would be represented on a jury. I strongly recommend this brief article on the corruption of Jersey society by a man who was for 11 years the Government of Jersey’s economic adviser.
The judge, Sir John Saunders, seems a decent old stick in a headmasterly sort of way. He has told the court that “Mrs Strecker’s good character is not in doubt”. On Friday he stated that this was “A very difficult and in many ways a very sad case for the court to deal with. But I have to construe it according to strict legal principles”.
In the Palestine Action proscription case, as I reported, counsel for the UK government openly stated “We do not deny that the law is draconian. It is supposed to be”. In the mass arrests of decent people over Palestine Action, people have understood what a dreadfully authoritarian law the proscription regime is.
An intelligent observer cannot sit in Judge Saunders’ courtroom without realising that he thinks this is a dreadful law, but accepts that it is his job to enforce it. He reminds me of the caricature of the lugubrious headmaster stating “This is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you”.
In effect, Alison Morgan and the UK government are attempting through this prosecution to make even the most basic expression of support for Palestine a serious criminal offence. Remember that a terrorism conviction destroys your life – it almost certainly brings loss of employment, debanking and severe travel restrictions.
The International Court of Justice has decided that Israel has a real case to answer on Genocide, and most experts believe that Israel is committing Genocide. In Natalie’s correct image, the UK government is trying to make it a terrorist offence to say anything other than that the Palestinians should quietly submit to Genocide on their knees.
The danger is that the hubris of lay magistrates will lead the jurats to try cleverly to construe Natalie’s comments as support for terrorism in line with the government’s wishes. Natalie has, however, one defence in Jersey not available in mainland UK: here in Jersey the prosecution has to show intent – that she intended to cause support for terrorist organisations.
The prosecution has also relied on the extremely wide definition of support adopted in UK terrorist cases, that “support of” merely means “expression of agreement with”.
In defending the tweet about Hamas-run health ministry figures, Natalie Strecker’s counsel Mark Boothman countered this rather well when he said: “there is no offence of causing people to think less badly of Hamas”
I confess however I am slightly puzzled that I have not heard the defence argue that the prosecution positions are grossly disproportionate violations of freedom of expression in terms of Article X of the European Convention of Human Rights.
I would have thought, for example, that was the natural thing to say in response to the prosecution’s contention that it would be a crime for a law lecturer to tell his class that the Palestinian people had the right of armed resistance in international law.
The verdict was decided yesterday afternoon between the judge and jurats. It will be presented in full written judgment in an hour’s time.
This is a truly horrifying case for Natalie, who cannot afford to lose her job with a Jersey government agency and most certainly does not wish to be jailed. I pinch myself to be sure that this is all really happening.
It is a truly horrifying case in terms of what the Starmer government intends to do on the mainland in further criminalising support for Palestine.
I do not support Hamas nor Hezbollah, being opposed to theocracy. But for it to be illegal to discuss the Genocide in Gaza and the role of these two organisations, unless you do it absolutely without either context or nuance, is Orwellian.
Western dissent is also a victim of the Zionist Genocide.
———————————
My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.
Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.
Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.
Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
PayPal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
I am from Vancouver, Canada and i am pleased that Natalie Strecker has been found Not Guilty. The Charge against her should be condemned. Thousands of people around the world who support the People of Gaza and Lebanese People supports Hamas and Hezbollah not Genocidal Israel who is killing thousands of People in Gaza and Lebanon. I supports Hamas and Hezbollah. They are defending the people of Gaza and Lebanon !
Only Genocidal Israel and Trump would disagree with that !
We seem to have forgotten that our vaunted nation was built on resistance and that Elizabeth I and Drake etc were resistance heroes who passed this tradition to those who for example, resisted the Nazi occupation of Jersey (https://www.jerseyheritage.org/history/jersey-resistance-during-the-occupation/) – a tradition proudly used in tourist literature today.
Isn’t this case a rerun of the seditious libel brought against Sir William Jones’ brother in law, (The Dean of St Asaphs, 1784)?
“… the compulsion of legality can set in motion two very different cycles of legality. In one virtuous cycle, the institutions of legal order cooperate in devising controls on public actors that ensure that their decisions comply with the principle of legality, understood as a substantive conception of the rule of law. In the other cycle, the content of legality is understood in an ever more formal or empty manner, resulting in the mere appearance, or even the pretence, of legality. In this second cycle, the compulsion of legality results in the subversion of constitutionalism – the project of achieving government in accordance with the rule of law. Arbitrariness is covered over by what an English judge referred to recently as a ‘thin veneer of legality.’
On the argument of this article, those who participate in this second cycle risk participating in and legitimizing a sham. That it is a sham demonstrates that it is possible to govern outside the legal frame while pretending, or even believing, that one is inside it. There are, then, to revert to the epigraph to this article, some assertions of jurisdiction by judges and also by other legal actors, most notably legislatures, that are jurisgenerative while not being jurispathic. They make possible the legal frame itself.” (Dyzenhaus, 2009)
“our vaunted nation was built on resistance and that Elizabeth I and Drake etc were resistance heroes ”
Resistance heroes? Elizabeth I was monarch of an independent nation, who engaged in wars, as was usual at the time. Drake was a privateer much of his life, oppressing native populations, as much as attacking the Spanish.
““our vaunted nation was built on resistance and that Elizabeth I and Drake etc were resistance heroes ”
I think it is truer to say that our vaunted nation has been built of the suppression of resistance, given that,from 1066 to the present day, there has not been a single successful popular rebellion.
Your principal point that this is a return of the English Common Law offence of seditious libel is fundamentally true (however your Elizabeth and Drake analogy, I think rather misses the mark). It was indeed no less a jurist than Sir Edward Coke who advised the Star Chamber – the government of the day sitting as a judicial court on a famous case (Case de Libellis Famosis, 1606) that the truth was no defence in the matter. In short the libel was a provocation to revenge by the individual libelled and as such its truth was irrelevant to the magnitude of the crime.
The difficulty was historically specific: the English nobility were deeply reluctant about the then new rule of the King of Scots, even complaining that they couldn’t understand a word of his highly accented English. His homosexual proclivities were also muttered of darkly; and they might indeed be true. Nevertheless, it was illegal to state it, and hence truth was no defence. The law continued in force throughout England through to 2009, by which time it had been absorbed into the Terrorism Act.
The principal issue that troubled later jurists was how seditious libel interacted with freedom of speech. The common approach was that freedom of speech (and writing) was permitted only within the bounds proscribed by the law of seditious libel. In short, no criticism o the Crown, nor its ministers, nor even its policies, was permitted. Eventually the House of Parliament were permitted the special privilege of exemption (a privilege James’s son Charles to revoke provoking a civil war), this itself latterly gave way to His Majesties Loyal Opposition.
The significance of this case is the right of the ruled population to comment on the actions of their political lords and masters. The state is claiming a discretion to incarcerate and destroy any individual who publicly disagrees with their policies.
As Mr Murray sagaciously observed, the UK law differs from the Jersey law in the matter of intent. In the BBC report of the case, they strongly state that this was the sole reason for the jurats granting acquittal. Under English law she would be starting a long stretch.
Disturbingly enough, the absurdity is perhaps not the crackdown against Palestine Action itself, as bad as that is, but how few people, organisations, jurists, journalists, politicians protest against the crackdown.
You are in theory – and practice – free to go out in the streets and support IDF and support their genocide – but there is a high risk that you will get arrested if you protest against IDF and their genocide. This is not orwellian anymore, this is way beyond that.
“You can support genocide and not be arrested”
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aM7k3Tmo_Q8
Thank’s Jack a very good video, I must express a word of caution, the truth is, it is actually illegal to support Genocide under UK law, i.e. engaging in conduct that is ancillary to Genocide, or being complicit in it, is an offense. Home office legal beagles will be on to this tout suite.
I could give you chapter and verse on this at my usual fee of £2,000 per hour plus refreshers. I await your call /S
The government seem to be in the old Soviet Union mode. “Give me the man and I’ll show you the crime” attributed to Soviet secret Police chief Lavrentiy Beria.
Or, 3 centuries earlier, Cardinal Richelieu’s slightly subtler version:
“If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged”.
He wasn’t as nice as Charlton Heston’s acting might suggest.
I am willing to forgo my fees in this instance and say the placard was pure satire i.e. the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues:
I have publically made statements similar or identical to those made by Ms Strecker, and I stand by them. I have been to a public lecture by an MP, who expressed the same opnions.
But that is the charm of arbitrary law enforcement. Vague laws are passed, and it is left up to the police (or their bosses) to decide which law should be enforced, when, and against whom. The law becomes less like a wall that forbids anyone to pass, and more like a sniper’s rifle that can be aimed at undesirable individuals. As a fringe benefit, this whole technique rapidly brings the law itself into disrepute.
I apologise if I have hurt the feelings of any snipers who read this.
Given a sufficient amount of this vague law and it becomes impossible not to end up breaking some part of it unintentionally. This means that the sniper’s rifle can be used on anyone who the authorities seek to coerce or silence.
I do not agree with you and she should be going to prison. She sounds like she is supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and terrorists. There is no genocide. I’m sure you fully believe what you say but from the outside it seems clear that all your opinions come from a deep seated hatred of Jews – which looks pretty demonic actually. I’m sure it is somewhat below consciousness though which is why you deny it.
It does make me queasy to read your writings now though. I used to read a lot and believe you and even contributed to raising money for your trial and imprisonment – but since Oct 7 the scales fell from my eyes and I could see who exactly were the good people and who were completely and utterly evil and demonic.
It is a shame you cannot see that.
” I used to read a lot and believe you and even contributed to raising money for your trial and imprisonment ” , did ye, aye? and then the ” scales fell from yr eyes ” and landed on yr brain? Everything you say here sounds like a very dim AI melange of stock Pro-Zionist cliches and projections; all that was missing was a reference to the Holocaust. ” It is a shame you cannot see that “, aye, I bet yr REALLY distraught at that idea, ” Gina “; or is it ” John “?
Robert Hughes – my money’s on “John”.
Hi J . Mine too n I’m sure we have the same ” John ” in mind. Hope yr well, compadre
With your ability to discern the activity of the evil spirit, I hope you see it in the racism behind the ethnic cleansing operation by Zionists in Palestine that has gone on for over 100 years. As well as in the kinship of the State of Israel to Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, with Palestinians in the West Bank at the beck and call of Israeli soldiers and under constant threat from settlers, and apartheid in Palestine as a whole. As well as the reaction of genocidal revenge to the uprising permitted under international law against the illegal, violent and oppressive occupation of Gaza by Israel on 7th October. As well as the attitudes of Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Last but not least, in the continual lying by Israeli spokespersons, to whom lying seems second nature almost as much as Trump.
But don’t take my word for it. Read Ilan Pappé’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and The Biggest Prison on Earth, Miko Peled’s The General’s Son and Abigail Abarbanel’s Beyond Tribal Loyalties. Last not least, the reports of Amnesty International that holds Israel guilty of apartheid and genocide.
“There is no genocide”.
I stopped reading there, and I expect most decent people would do so too.
I didn’t even get that far. Thanks to those that struggled through to the end and saved me the pain.
“There is no genocide.”
If you are going to be pedantic then you have to say that the activities of the Third Reich constituted no genocide, at most a brave attempt at one which did not succeed. By the same logic, the only possible logic that can underwrite your argument, there is indeed no genocide in Gaza, but any remotely decent and no less reflective person has to aver that the actions of Israel in Gaza constitute a bloodbath, wildly disproportionate to the offence, grievous though this was, and form part of a state policy whose ultimate goal is something approximating to genocide
I think the piece was tongue and cheek just repeating the standard Israeli spiel.
Now the Oct 7th date is made notable by the death of Jews. The reality is that even on this day more Palestinians died than Israeli’s. Worth noting also that the IDF or IAF killed a significant number of Israeli’s through panicked responses.
I was just wondering , do you support the terrorist actions by Haganah, Lehi and Stern, who killed British people in Palestine in 1947\8, a couple of years after the British people saved European Jews from the Nazis?
Have you read Einstein’s letter to the NYTimes, 1948, signed by him and 40 other prominent Jews, decrying the fascist nature of Begin’s Freedom party?
Its a good read, but doubtless the letter would come under today’s proscription and Einstein would be jailed
Haganah? They had Herbert Hagen and Adolf Eichmann as guests in Palestine in 1937. Nice people.
Why would people who want justice for the Palestinians by antisemites? The zionists who occupy Palestine are the antisemites, ask Theodore Herzl.
I think Trump has lost his mind, not good when he has the nuclear trigger within reach. I often wonder why insults to female reporters do not have any retaliation, for instance Trump called a reporter from the NYT “Ugly both inside and out” and another “Quiet, Quiet Piggy” surely in order to retain any dignity the insulted person had a right to reciprocate, for instance Quiet Piggy should have been met with ‘that’s rich coming from a fat slob like you’, and its Miss Piggy to you’ That’s only fair.
Harry Law
December 3, 2025 at 16:24
Harry. Nice that we agree on something.
I suppose the craven behaviour of the journos in the WH press corps is on the orders of the media owners who want to maintain access to the Mango Mussolini?
Glad she’s been found not guiilty but anyone responsible for 51,000 tweets arguably needs help!
I do think you have a point.
Let us say she’s been tweeting for the last 10 years. That makes on average 5100 tweets a year, which in turn makes around on average 14 tweets a day every day of the year..
But at least tweets are fairly short in general. There are correspondents on blogs who also keep up a cracking pace and achieve 14 lines (not tweets) or (many) more a day!
Makes you also wonder what she does for a living. Maybe tweeting is her job.
She looks young enough to be a full-time mother.
I read somewhere she is around 50 years old.
Too young to be a retired old codger with nothing better to do. Perhaps she’s very efficient overall in all her activities?
It is quite amazing how stupid a significant part of the population really are on this issue – a stupidity that stems from the smearing mainstream media and their bold, anti-palestinian headlines: Brave, couragous people that merely protest against obvious human rights abuse, even genocide – are still not getting support by the public:
YouGov poll: 39% have a negative view on Palestine Action, 20% support them. 40% have no opinion:
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/53235-britons-split-on-the-banning-of-palestine-action
Taking a stance against a genocide – what is it not to support??
Jack, ‘the masses’ don’t have access to the sources that we have. Many, still, rely on sources like the BBC, ITV, Sky, Daily Mail, etc. As such they have no idea as to what is going on, although that may be changing albeit very slowly. It’s not necessarily stupidity; it’s ignorance – interestingly no defence in law on that. I’m personally not surprised, I see this ignorance every day, and I see the lies the MSM peddle. You might question who controls the media, then it all becomes clear.
I lost a great amount of sympathy and support for Craig, after his defence, and the ridiculing of the evidence of the Russian poisoners at large and loose in Salisbury, on the day in question.
Craig (along with many others) pointed out that the so-called evidence regarding the Salisbury poisonings was absurd and inconsistent as it stood. He admitted he did not know what happened on that day, but he could be sure that it was not what the government were saying it was. That’s pretty honest and an official report doesn’t disqualify it just by virtue of it being official.
Ah yes, the familiar cry of the Greater Spotted Conspiracy Theorist, ‘I don’t know what happened, I just know the official version is wrong’. Purely because it is the official version probably.
“Greater Spotted Conspiracy Theorist, ‘I don’t know what happened, I just know the official version is wrong’.
As opposed to the Common Gull, ‘I don’t know what happened, I just know the official version must be right as the government has never lied to us.”
It’s perfect;y possible not to know what happened, but still know what didn’t happen. Take the old magician’s trick of “cutting a woman in two”. You can have no idea how the trick is performed, but one thing you know has not happened is that the woman has not actually been cut in two, mainly due to the absence of large amounts of blood and the woman not being dead. Or does that make you a conspiracy theorist?
But the BBC and the government said it was the ruskies, so we know it’s all true !
Let’s put more money into ‘defence’ that’ll give us a nyet zero, safe and effective solution.
Of course the Russians were guilty!
Why, only just now, in one of my favorite news blogs, I see that a Labour MP (I forget his name, but apparently he is also former RAF, so he must know what he is talking about) is saying that the Russians have been “active” on the streets of…..the East End (of London)!
I’m trying to get a friend of mine who lives in London to get along down to the East End to see if there is any snow left on the pavement (from those Russian boots).
Perhaps you can explain, Pears, why The Mill & Zizzi’s restaurant, in which traces of Novichok from the Skripals were reportedly found, had to be closed for a year and 8 months respectively for decontamination and refurbishment, whilst the hotel room in which Petrov & Boshirov stayed in London was allowed to remain available to paying guests, despite traces of Novichok allegedly being found there as well. I would posit that it was because the authorities (i.e. MI6) knew that in reality there had never been any Novichok in there, because P&B didn’t poison the Skripals.
This may be of some interest John:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/the-salisbury-poisonings-episode-was-all-staged/page/6/#post-103404
Just finished reading Lord Hughes’ report, which proved to be even more of a whitewash than I thought. It’s here if anyone’s interested:
https://dsiweb-prod.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/Web_Accessible_E03283426_Project-Orbit.pdf
I’d recommend reading my report instead.
I wonder who it was that spent hours and hours and hours going through Natalie’s 50,000 odd posts. And selected – cherry-picked – just eight of them?
Now who would do something like that?!
Isn’t it strange that out of all the kibbutzim that Hamas attacked on October 7th, that the media just happen to be invited to one of them several days later, that just happens to be one where fourty babies were beheaded, and it just happens to get mentioned to one of the journalist (and only ONE!).
My point is of course that it was all planned – concocted and contrived – in advance of the Hamas attack, along with the other baby atrocity stuff, because it might have looked a bit suspect to people had babies only been killed by Hamas at the one location – ie one kibbutz.
As we all know, just one Israeli baby was killed on October 7th, ten-month old Mila Cohen, albeit unintentionally, as Israeli records themself show. And the youngest person killed at the kibbutz where the fourty babies were supposedly beheaded was fourteen years old. But hundreds of millions of people in N. America and Europe etc are not aware of the fact because the MSM in general have kept schtum about it so that they will carry on believing that Hamas did that.
Israel social security data reveals true picture of Oct 7 deaths
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths (France24 – 15.12.2023)
I reckon there is even as much as 98.6k tweets from her account (see top) https://x.com/JerseyPSC which of course make mere 8 cherry-picked tweets look even more ridiculous.
Jack
Takes a lot of work to trace that number of Tweets s, not down to an irate Pro Israel Peron or persons.
Only a State could organise the tracing of that as it involves a lot of people looking at all the tweets.
Which one had a look is easy too.
They give themselves away all the time.
As expected, Eurovision (that is european states) voted, in a secret ballot, not to suspend israel, remember, it took the same Eurovision organization 1 single day to ban Russia from the competition. 1 single day. But apparently, Genocide in Gaza was not enough of a crime for the nasties in europe to keep israel in the competition. Not to mention israel’s attack on Iran, West Bank, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Qatar, Sumud Flotilla and so on.
Kudos to nations like Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Slovenia that atleast voiced their condemnation against israel’s continued participation. Hopefully they will now exit the competition and by that move tarnish the competition’s brand/reputation.
Just like NATO, EU, BBC and Western democracy, Eurovision is well past its sell by date.
I have occasionally seen the contest in the past. Why do they call it a “song” contest?
Hopefully Craig’s not flying today – Edinburgh airport suspends all flights.
This is what comes of privatisation and outsourcing of essential services.
An amusing Indian TV cartoon showing Modi and Putin, with Trump as a disgruntled petrol pump attendant (if he gets fired for sleeping on a previous job, what can he do?)