Zionism is as far from Judaism as the edge of the observable universe is from Earth.

Zionism is the antithesis of Judaism, and a Zionist the antithesis of a Jew.

And the Little Ones Shall Fall First: On Gideon’s Chariot and the Slaughter of the Innocents

Delivered at the Church of Holy Optics, Third Sunday in the 19th month of the Genocide

Beloved brothers, sisters, and stakeholders in the Heavenly Brand,

We gather today in solemn reflection and holy disbelief at the news from the land once called Holy. A new military operation has been announced. Its name? Gideon’s Chariot.

Praise be! Another chariot. Another prophet. Another press release soaked in scripture and blood.

Now, for those unfamiliar with Gideon, let us recap. Gideon was a man of God—reluctant, humble, called upon to defeat a great enemy with only a few righteous men and a trumpet. A tale of divine justice against overwhelming odds.

But behold! In the Zionist rebrand, Gideon now rides a Merkava tank, flanked by drones and sponsored by Lockheed Martin. This Gideon no longer downsizes his army to show the power of God. No. This Gideon mobilises tanks, flattens cities, and sends precision-guided missiles into crowded shelters—all under the banner of biblical virtue.

Let us pause, dear congregation, and ask: What would Jesus do with Gideon’s Chariot? Would he ride it through Rafah, aiming carefully at hospitals and UN schools, making sure the kill ratio stays impressive enough for Western donors?

Would the Prince of Peace wear night-vision goggles?

Selah.

They say over 18,000 children have been killed. That’s the number documented. A few might argue it’s hard to tell, amid the rubble and limbs, whether a corpse was seven or seventeen. But The Lancet estimates the real number of dead may approach 200,000.

Let us pause again and count, not the dead, but the excuses:

• We warned them.
• They were near a tunnel.
• We do not target civilians, only the 5-year-olds holding hands with militants.

And still they roll out another name from Scripture, polishing the gears of slaughter with the balm of myth. Because what better way to sell carnage than through the voice of the prophets?

What better way to bury the truth than under holy verses, quoted by men with sniper scopes and clean consciences?

We are told this is a war between good and evil. That those children, with their jelly sandals and stuffed toys, were human shields. That every mother screaming in Arabic is a hostage-taker. That food convoys are a threat. That grief is antisemitic.

Brothers and sisters, welcome to Revelations: The Hasbara Edition, where the Beast is a toddler in Gaza, and the Lamb is a 2,000-pound bomb dropped with divine precision.

And so the chariot rolls on.

But let us remember this: no matter how many psalms they staple to their missiles, no matter how many verses they tweet from the Book of Joshua while reducing Gaza to ash, God does not ride in that chariot.

God walks barefoot through the ruins. God holds the charred body of a child and weeps. God, if He speaks at all, is whispering: What have you done?

And perhaps, one day, from the wreckage of all this righteous slaughter, a new Gideon will rise. Not one armed with tanks and dogma, but truth. And he will tear down not altars, but the falsehoods upon which this bloodbath rests.

Until then, beloved, let us not be silent. Let us not be comforted. And let us not confuse the chariot of death for the will of God.

Amen.

A forensic breakdown of an Israeli spokesman’s public unraveling under real journalism.

In an interview with Yama Wolasmal, David Mencer, Israel’s chief international propagandist, visibly crumbles under the pressure of straightforward, honest questioning.

I prompted ChatGPT 4o to critique the interview, using the auto-generated transcript available at the YouTube video page:

Prompt to ChatGPT: Critique this interview of David Mencer conducted by Yama Wolasmal. It is taken from the auto-generated transcript of a YouTube video. Focus on rhetorical strategy, logical coherence, and journalistic standards.

Critique of the Interview

1. David Mencer’s Rhetorical Strategy

• Deflection and Evasion: Mencer repeatedly avoids direct answers, especially on critical points like proof of Hamas battalion destruction, civilian casualties, and Israel’s responsibility for Gaza’s reconstruction. He leans heavily on rhetorical flourishes — e.g., “we are the most humane army,” “gold standard” — without substantiating these claims.
• Moral Inversion: A key tactic is invoking Jewish historical trauma (the Holocaust) to deflect accusations of genocide, implying moral immunity. This conflation of past victimhood with present conduct is a recurring Zionist rhetorical device.
• Ad Hominem and Delegitimization: Mencer systematically delegitimizes all sources critical of Israel — the UN, WHO, aid groups, journalists — by branding them as biased or compromised. His equation of Hamas and ISIS is intended to foreclose any credibility to Palestinian sources.
• Unfalsifiable Assertions: Claims like “13,000 terrorists killed” are presented without evidence but framed as beyond question because they come from a “democratic country with checks and balances.” When challenged, he falls back on “trust us” arguments.

2. Yama Wolasmal’s Performance

• Persistence and Clarity: Wolasmal demonstrates commendable persistence, returning to unanswered questions (e.g., proof of Hamas fighters killed, evacuation plans for Rafah, reconstruction costs). His framing is clear and direct.
• Effective Use of Facts: He leverages international consensus (UN, WHO, donor countries) to challenge Israeli narratives, especially regarding casualty figures and UNRWA allegations.
• Maintaining Control: Despite Mencer’s attempts to steer the conversation or express indignation, Wolasmal maintains focus, refusing to be derailed by emotional appeals or accusations of bias.
• Potential Limitation: While firm, Wolasmal could have pressed harder on the logical contradictions. For example, when Mencer says “we have no problem with civilians” but simultaneously justifies mass displacement and bombing, that moral dissonance could have been more explicitly exposed.

3. Key Themes and Their Handling

• Civilian Casualties and Genocide Allegations:
  • Mencer offers no credible rebuttal to accusations of genocide beyond invoking Jewish suffering and dismissing international institutions. His reliance on “we’re targeting terrorists” collapses under Wolasmal’s examples of safe zones being bombed, hostages shot, etc.
• Proof of Military Claims:
  • The absence of evidence regarding Hamas battalions or the Shifa Hospital command center is glaring. Mencer’s frustration is tactical — portraying the demand for proof as unreasonable, thereby shifting scrutiny onto the questioner.
• International Law and Ceasefire:
  • Mencer’s argument that the UN resolution is non-binding because “the Americans said so” exposes Israel’s reliance on U.S. cover rather than legal principle. Wolasmal rightly highlights this but could have underscored the implication: that Israel respects power over law.
• Media Access and Transparency:
  • Mencer’s justification for blocking independent press — “protecting soldiers and hostages” — is weak, especially when compared to Ukraine. Wolasmal effectively highlights this double standard.
• Reconstruction Responsibility:
  • Mencer’s repeated refusal to answer whether Israel will pay for Gaza’s reconstruction is damning. Wolasmal handles this well, exposing Israel’s unwillingness to assume responsibility for the destruction it caused.

4. Logical and Ethical Failings

• Collective Punishment Denial: Mencer claims Israel distinguishes between Hamas and civilians, yet defends actions (e.g., starvation tactics, mass bombings) that clearly constitute collective punishment.
• Shifting Burden of Proof: He demands absolute proof from critics while offering none himself, expecting Israel’s word to suffice.
• False Equivalence: Equating Hamas to ISIS, or Gaza to Nazi Germany, serves to morally license any action Israel takes, precluding proportionality or ethical constraint.
• Victimhood as Justification for Aggression: The invocation of Jewish suffering operates as both shield and sword — denying culpability while legitimizing violence.

Summary Judgment

This interview exposes the fragility of Israel’s official narratives when subjected to rigorous questioning. Mencer relies almost entirely on rhetorical devices: moral posturing, delegitimization of critics, emotional appeals, and evasive generalities. His inability to provide concrete evidence, coupled with his indignation at being asked for it, reveals a deep dependence on the presumption of Western goodwill and deference.

Yama Wolasmal performs admirably, refusing to be browbeaten or distracted. His approach is methodical, factual, and grounded in widely accepted international perspectives.

If anything, the interview highlights how rare such journalistic integrity is when confronting Israeli officials. It serves as a case study in dismantling state propaganda through disciplined questioning.

David Mencer is Israel’s chief international propagandist. In an interview with Nick Robinson of BBC Radio 4’s Today program, Mencer expressed the repugnant claim that the picture of a starving child in Gaza, a 6 month old baby called Siwar Ashour, is “a political PR tool of Hamas.”

To all right thinking people, Mencer is morally unfit.

The comments on Mencer’s one video page at his YouTube channel demonstrate this with universal clarity. They view him as a grotesque Zionist mouthpiece, lying to one of Britain’s most loved radio broadcasters.

W hen I visited the video page, Mencer’s interview had nearly as many comments (901 ) as subscribers to his YouTube channel (954). The comments present a powerful and unanimous expression of public outrage and revulsion, not just at Mencer’s callous disregard for Palestinian life, but his dedication to lying about the live-streamed genocide he is propagandizing.

In nearly all his encounters with journalists, especially those who are good at their job, Mencer quickly unravels, resorting to overt deflection, evasion, demonisation of Hamas and Palestinians, bullying, Holocaust exceptionalism, and pleas of Jewish victim hood.

In one interview with Yama Wolasmal, Mencer visibly crumbles under the pressure of honest questioning, responding to Wolasmal with ad hominem and stuttering indignation at the impertinence of being asked such questions. To get through it all, as Alexei Sayle so wonderfully puts it, he just lies, and he lies and he lies and he lies…

This slogan frightens those in power not because it calls for violence, but because it calls for justice. It calls for the restoration of a land stolen, and the equality of a people erased

Zionists and their allies routinely attack the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as a call for the destruction of Israel. But what exactly does this claim reveal—about the slogan, about Zionism, and about the underlying truth they seek to suppress?

To understand the accusation, we must first understand the slogan: What does “from the river to the sea” mean? What is Palestine? What does it mean for Palestine to be free?

What the Slogan Actually Means

The phrase “from the river to the sea” refers to a specific geographic region: the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This was known, universally and officially, as Palestine prior to 1948. Every map, every British and Ottoman administrative document, and every global reference to the area used that name: Palestine.

So when we speak of Palestine, we are not invoking a fantasy or a fabrication. We are referring to a real, historically recognised land, which has been subjected for over a century to colonisation, partition, ethnic cleansing, and military conquest. Out of that violence emerged the State of Israel, along with the continuing occupation of Palestinian land.

The call for Palestine to “be free” is a demand for liberation from that condition.

Why Zionists Fear It

Zionist opposition to the slogan is revealing. If the freedom of Palestine between the river and the sea necessarily implies the destruction of Israel, what does that say about Israel’s nature? It suggests, quite directly, that Israel cannot coexist with a free Palestine—because Israel, as it currently exists, is predicated on the denial of Palestinian freedom.

The history bears this out. In 1947, the United Nations proposed a partition of Palestine, giving over half of it to European Jewish settlers, despite them making up only a third of the population and owning under 7% of the land. Palestinians were not consulted. They rejected the plan, not out of irrational hostility, but out of a simple and universal moral principle: no people can accept the foreign partition and gifting of their homeland to others.

From this rejection followed war, dispossession, and the mass displacement of over 750,000 Palestinians—the Nakba, or catastrophe. Israel was founded not alongside Palestine, but atop it.

This is why Zionists interpret the call for freedom as a threat. Because to acknowledge Palestinian freedom is to acknowledge a fundamental injustice at the heart of the Israeli state’s creation.

Restoration Is Not Destruction

Even taken in its most expansive interpretation—as a call for the liberation of all of historic Palestine—the slogan does not call for genocide, expulsion, or the erasure of Jewish life. It calls for the dismantling of a system built on apartheid, supremacy, and dispossession enforced through systemic violence and widespread killing. It calls for restoration, not destruction.

What would such a restoration look like? A democratic state in which all inhabitants—Muslim, Christian, and Jew—live as equals. A society built not on ethnic privilege or military domination, but on human dignity and justice. This is not a fantasy. It is the only moral alternative to endless bloodshed.

Of course, there will be those who reject such a vision, those who believe that Jews must rule and Arabs must submit. Such individuals, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, have no place in a democratic future. But those willing to renounce domination and embrace equality will belong, whether they were born in Jaffa or Haifa, Bethlehem or Tel Aviv.

What “Freedom” Really Means

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is not a call for revenge. It is not a threat of extermination. It is a statement of hope: that one day, a people subjected to decades of displacement, military rule, siege, and apartheid will be free to return, to rebuild, and to live with dignity in their own land.

To twist this into a cry for violence is not only dishonest, it is projection. The real violence, the real destruction, is what the slogan opposes: ethnic cleansing, military occupation, and the reduction of a people to exiles in their own homeland.

To stand with this slogan is to stand for freedom, not against anyone’s existence. And those who attack it reveal far more about the injustice they defend than the justice they fear.

Slogans capturing the spirit of the struggle, as and when they occur.

As with South Africa, so with Palestine. FREEDOM

We have spoken softly, respectfully, even pleadingly. We have used the language our oppressors demanded. We have appealed to law, to reason, to shared humanity. We have condemned antisemitism, affirmed Jewish dignity, and insisted that our struggle is against Zionism, not Jews. And still, they call us haters. Still, they smear us as antisemites and accuse us of calling for the destruction of a so-called Jewish state.

Let us then speak without euphemism.

There is no “Jewish state” called Israel — only a Zionist settler-colonial entity that has occupied the whole of Palestine. The so-called “West Bank,” “Gaza Strip,” “East” Jerusalem, and “Israel” are not separate places. They are all Palestine. And beyond Palestine, Israel has stolen land from Syria and Lebanon. It is a project of expansion, not survival.

We must now abandon the language of the oppressor. Israel is not a democracy. It is not a beacon of civilisation. It is not a normal state. It is a racist, supremacist, militarised regime built on ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and erasure. It must be dismantled. Palestine must be restored. This is not hatred; it is justice.

Jews who wish to live in a free, democratic Palestine as equals are welcome. Those who demand supremacy at the expense of others must relinquish it, or leave. The future cannot be built on stolen land and bloodshed.

Say it plainly:
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.

And when we say it, let them arrest us. Let them fire us, blacklist us, smear us. We will not stop. Their power lies in our fear — but fear has its limits. They cannot imprison a nation. They cannot sack an entire generation. They cannot silence a movement whose numbers exceed their capacity to suppress it.

So now is the time to act — not just online, but in the streets, in our workplaces, in every institution that still pretends Israel is legitimate.

Wear the keffiyeh.
Fly the Palestinian flag.
Speak the truth, even when it costs you.
March. Occupy. Resist.
Let solidarity mean something real.

If they jail one of us, a hundred must take their place. If they fire one of us, we must support them financially, publicly, and personally. That is how movements endure. That is how justice advances — not through polite petitions, but through unbreakable collective courage.

To free Palestine, we must be willing to suffer. Not for martyrdom, but for meaning. Not because we desire pain, but because we will not tolerate complicity. There is no other path. Donations and hashtags help, but they cannot dismantle apartheid. That will take bodies, voices, risks.

This is not a moment for safe conscience. It is a moment for moral defiance.

The alternative is to live with ourselves should the Zionists be able to carry out the unthinkable, yet which they have felt free to voice out loud over and over.

This article is a synthesis produced in collaboration with ChatGPT, based on publicly available knowledge, verified facts, and the help of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).

There is a moment in every elaborate deception when the web begins to fray—not because it was poorly spun, but because reality itself begins to resist. That moment is now arriving for Zionism.

For over a century, Zionist propaganda—what it proudly terms hasbara, or “explanation”—has been deployed with relentless precision to justify the colonisation of Palestine, the dispossession of its people, and the brutal architecture of Israeli apartheid. This narrative has shifted with the times, cloaking itself in the dominant language of each era: from the sacred right of return, to the tragic necessity of survival after the Holocaust, to the modern buzzwords of democracy, LGBT rights, and “Start-Up Nation” branding. But the scaffolding of lies is buckling. What we are witnessing today is not merely a public relations failure—it is the structural collapse of the Zionist story under the weight of its own contradictions.

The Lie Too Big to Hold

At the heart of the Zionist narrative lies a basic claim: that a democratic, civilised, moral Jewish state was built in a land without people for a people without a land. This single falsehood required a thousand more to sustain it. The Palestinians had to be portrayed as absent, backward, violent, or nonexistent. The acts of dispossession had to be reframed as wars of self-defense. The occupation had to be rebranded as “disputed territory.” Every bullet, every bulldozer, every bomb dropped on Gaza required a moral alibi.

But over time, the lie has grown too elaborate. Too many atrocities, too many eyewitnesses, too much video footage, too many grieving mothers, too many journalists silenced, too many mass graves. The very tools Israel once used to shield its image—surveillance, control of narrative, media manipulation—have become porous. TikTok now does more to document Israeli war crimes than decades of UN reports could ever achieve. Even mainstream outlets, long deferential to Israeli talking points, are beginning to crack.

The gap between propaganda and reality is now a chasm. And Israel cannot close it.

The Contradictions Mount

Take, for instance, the 2024–2025 Gaza war. Israel claims it is fighting Hamas, not Palestinians. Yet over 52,000 Palestinians are now dead—two-thirds of them women and children. The infrastructure of an entire society has been reduced to rubble. Hospitals, bakeries, schools, aid convoys, and journalists have all been systematically targeted. How long can a state insist it is “the most moral army in the world” while committing what even the International Court of Justice says may plausibly amount to genocide?

The contradictions are no longer abstract—they are recorded in 4K. Zionism insists it is about Jewish liberation, yet it partners with far-right Christian nationalists who deny Jewish equality in their own countries. It invokes antisemitism to silence critics, while aligning with regimes and figures who openly hate Jews. It brands every Palestinian child as a potential terrorist, but paints Israeli snipers as victims when they shoot children through the head.

Even the legal class has not escaped this collapse into incoherence. In May 2025, UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) issued a letter opposing a Co-Op motion to boycott Israeli goods. The letter claimed that reporting Gaza’s death toll was defamatory, that ceasing trade with Israel amounted to racism, and that noting Israel’s plausible genocide case before the ICJ was itself a lie. It even argued that claims of mass starvation were overstated, since obesity had previously been a major health issue in Gaza—an obscene deflection, akin to suggesting a rape survivor benefited from abuse because it taught them about sex. In effect, the letter demanded that reality be treated as libel. This is not legal reasoning. It is panic masquerading as jurisprudence. It shows a movement no longer interested in persuasion, only suppression—a textbook sign of ideological decay.

This is not just hypocrisy. It is the logical consequence of a project that requires constant moral inversion to survive.

The Collapse Is Visible

The signs of narrative collapse are everywhere. Jewish identity itself is now being contested—not by Palestinians, but by Jews. Hundreds of thousands of Jews around the world are rejecting the claim that Zionism speaks for them. Groups like Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, and diaspora-led vigils are asserting a clear break: Not in our name.

Meanwhile, long-protected allies of Israel—like the BBC, New York Times, and even certain U.S. politicians—are being forced to report what they once buried. Terms once taboo—apartheid, ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, genocide—have entered mainstream usage. Support for Palestine has become a moral badge for an entire generation.

Israel’s defenders, unable to coherently respond, have retreated into panic and projection. They label all criticism as antisemitism. They accuse aid workers of being Hamas. They demand the silencing of professors, journalists, and even schoolchildren. But each act of repression now fuels the very collapse they seek to avoid.

Why Propaganda Fails

There is a structural principle here. All propaganda systems eventually fail when their lies outpace their ability to police reality. This has been observed in authoritarian regimes, colonial empires, and religious cults. As contradictions multiply, two things happen: first, the inner circle doubles down, becoming more extreme, paranoid, and self-isolating; second, the outer circle—the global public, and even sympathetic observers—begin to peel away.

This is precisely what is happening to Zionism. The hasbara machine is still spinning, but no longer convincing. Its arguments are stale, its outrage performative, its moral high ground visibly soaked in blood.

What Comes Next?

Narrative collapse is not the end—but it is the beginning of the end. When a hegemonic story falls apart, what follows is often unpredictable. Power structures may remain intact for a while, but their legitimacy evaporates. This is how apartheid South Africa fell. This is how the Berlin Wall fell. Not when the regime lost its weapons—but when it lost the ability to explain itself.

The Zionist regime will continue to kill, censor, and cry foul. But it can no longer command the story. And without that, its foundations are exposed.

Let us be clear: the future belongs to the truth. And the truth has a longer lifespan than propaganda.

Suggested Reading:

• Ilan Pappé, Ten Myths About Israel
• Greg Shupak, The Wrong Story: Palestine, Israel, and the Media
• Peter Pomerantsev, Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible
• Edward Said, The Question of Palestine
• Joseph Massad, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question

In July 2024 the word Gaza was painted in red over the plinth bearing the statue of Anne Frank in the Netherlands. Frank was the innocent Jewish girl murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust, who left her diaries as testament to the world. The Western colonial media clamored to denounce this as an act of vandalism, defacement and desecration.

But if Anne could speak to us, what might she say of Gaza?

I was only a child when they came for me. I had done nothing to anyone. I wrote in a diary, I dreamed of peace, and still, I died in terror. So how can anyone, especially Jews, who know what it is to be hunted,drop bombs on children? How can they say they are defending themselves while killing babies in their beds and sniping children in the street?

Eighteen thousand children. That number is beyond horror. It is a silence louder than all my pages. If my memory is used to justify this, then it has been stolen. If my name is spoken to excuse this slaughter, then it has been defiled.

I never wanted vengeance. I only wanted to live. And now, these children, these Palestinian children, wanted the same. What kind of people kill what they once were? And what kind of world lets them do it?

This is an imagined statement, not a historical one. Anne Frank did not speak these words. But the question what might she say is not posed lightly. It is asked in anguish, in conscience, and in solidarity with all innocent children whose lives have been cut short by violence, wherever and by whomever it is inflicted.

Anne Frank has come to symbolise the devastating cost of hatred, persecution, and the world’s failure to protect the vulnerable. Her name is invoked across cultures as a moral touchstone. That moral clarity is precisely why we ask what her memory demands of us now.

The purpose of this piece is not to equate histories, but to resist their misuse. The memory of Anne Frank is too often claimed to justify acts that she, as a child and as a human being, could never have condoned. If her image is used to uphold power, it can also be summoned to speak for the powerless.

This is not a desecration of her memory. It is a refusal to let it be desecrated by silence in the face of 18,000 murdered children.

The Bad Hasbara Podcast – aka the world’s most moral podcast – is hosted by anti-Zionist Jews Matt Lieb and Daniel Maté.

One of their guests was Maté’s father, renowned Canadian psychotherapist Gabor Maté. At one point Gabor gives several illuminating insights into the origins of Israel’s national Anthem, Dance, and Food (edited for clarity and can be heard in full in the video above):

“The Israelis stole the land from the Palestinians, the national anthem from the Czechs—because the tune comes from Smetana’s Moldau—and the national dance from the Romanians, which is the hora. And the food—from the Arabs.”

Shortly after, Daniel offers a fuller, more rounded picture of Israel:

“I have never seen a society so ugly and reprehensible, so downright toxic, in my lifetime. An entire society. It’s a tiny country that’s completely rotted. Its culture—its genocide—is mainstream.

Norman Finkelstein talks about how genocide is no longer a state project. It’s a national project. And that is true.

It’s a completely toxic national culture. A failed state. A lunatic state. And part of its ugliness is the aggressiveness, the zeal, the vim and vigour, the total conviction and lack of self-awareness—and just the aesthetic tackiness—with which it sells its crimes to the world. Or obfuscates them. And with massive resources.

And part of that self-image is young Israelis dancing to techno music—soldiers posting TikToks of themselves jumping up and down in the desert. That’s part of the branding. There are hundreds of these. Techno, clubs, DJs—it’s a huge part of the self-image.

Right on the border of the concentration camp that Israel has created and maintains with murderous intensity and vigilance in Gaza, there happened to be a literal desert techno festival [the Nova music festival]. That’s what made the October 7th breach such a dark historical irony. The breach itself was heroic. Never mind what happened afterward. There’s something absolutely and undeniably heroic about the breach.

Israel puts its own hostages—its entire citizenry—in that position. That indefensible position. It even throws the question of so-called “innocence” into question. I’m not saying every Israeli deserves to be massacred. But in a citizen-army country… the line gets blurred.”

There’s more. Worth a watch.

Such strong and clear language is not only morally justified; it is a moral imperative. The genocidal impunity of the Zionist state has reached such an extreme that no other phrasing can adequately capture the horror.