Thoughts and not beliefs, with the occasional wild speculation
While they demand we condemn Hamas, the Zionists never condemned hummus. They just stole it.
There’s something almost poetic in the theft. While Israelis murder Palestinians, they not only eat their food, they claim it as their own. Culture, like land, is annexed.
You have to hand it to them.
And we will. Justice.
On a plate.
Not served cold, but piping hot.
The Reckoning You Already Sense
The public struggle is not only about information. It is not merely raising awareness to pressure governments. It is also a message to those who hold power in the Zionist project, and those who uphold it.
You are not unaware of the truth. You know it—and you deny it. But as more of the world begins to see clearly, your denial is giving way to fear, visible now in your growing reliance on censorship and repression. That fear will become pleading. Not defiant justifications, as you offer now, but something else: the claim that you only did what you believed was right. That you didn’t know. That you were following orders. Then will come regret. Then shame. And perhaps—if anything within you remains capable of facing the truth—remorse.
This is not only a moral pattern. It is the approach of justice. Because a world cannot be sustained on lies and violence. Eventually, the truth forces its way in. Justice follows. You will see both.
The Western colonial media (with leading mouthpieces like CNN and the BBC) consistently censors and sanitises Zionist apartheid and genocide, while silencing voices in support of Palestine and Palestinian resistance.
But social media tells a different story. Despite efforts by the platforms themselves to suppress criticism of the Zionist state and support for Palestinians, major platforms are awash with documentation, analysis, and commentary that show the truth—and provide evidence for it.
What is also remarkable are the comments left on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram by ordinary people around the world. Comments in support of Israel are predictable: whataboutism, deflection, outright lies, personal attacks, and accusations of anti-Semitism. By contrast, those in support of Palestinians not only form the vast majority, but express strong admiration and respect for Palestinians and their resistance—alongside even stronger condemnation and disgust directed at Israel and Zionists. These comments are often biting, insightful, satirical, and morally devastating.
Striking examples can be found in the comments on a YouTube video of a gun battle between Palestinian resistance fighters and IDF soldiers. (Israeli Soldiers Trapped by Hamas Grenade Assault).
.The video appears to have been taken from body cams worn by one of the Israeli soldiers, and—remarkably—released by the IDF (often referred to as the IOF: Israeli Offensive Forces or Israeli Occupation Forces). The footage is striking. It shows well-equipped, well-protected, and well-armed Israeli soldiers cowering in a room under fire from poorly equipped Palestinian fighters, who lack any backing from a military armed with tanks or fighter jets. One can only assume the IDF released the footage (or at least permitted its circulation by soldiers) in the belief that it demonstrated bravery or exemplary conduct.
The many thousands who have watched and commented on the video think otherwise. The title of this blog entry is one such comment, and by no means an exception.
One striking comment (in all caps) reads: “IMAGINE THEM GETTING JUST 5% OF WHAT IDF HAS IN TERMS OF MILITARY AID.” Others evoke war crimes and cowardice: “IDF was expecting unarmed women and children” and “Diaper force realized that facing the armed men is different than killing children & old people.” Some use satire and humour to express their disgust: “Wow, who knew a safety blanket really works?” and “Diaper army needs a diaper change.” The first refers to a soldier who appears to hide beneath a blanket he is also using to cover a minor wound; the second reflects the general impression that these well-armed and well-protected Zionist soldiers are, in fact, cowering. Still more comments demonstrate public understanding that the soldiers—and their “Satanic state,” to quote Norman Finkelstein—lack any moral or ethical justification for their actions. The title of this blog highlights exactly that.
Below is a selection from just the first 50 or so comments. The remainder can of course be viewed directly on the video page. It is well worth the time.
At the time of writing, the video has 3 million views and 5,041 comments—with only a handful in support of the Zionist soldiers (and mostly in replies to those supportive of Palestinians). Some individual comments have 2,000 or 3,000 likes. The total like count stands at 31,000. All these metrics are considered high by YouTube standards.
Another video (available as part of the same video montage) garners 9.1 million views, 8951 comments, and 62,000 Likes: Hamas Fighter Shoots At Israeli Soldiers Through Wall in Gaza. The first part shows Hamas fighters setting up an attack on Zionist occupation forces. In a later section Zionist soldiers are seen in a Palestinian school engaging in what many of the comments describe as “shooting windows and walls”, with one comment garnering 5,700 Likes with its dark humour: “This attack in the school resulted in the killing of two windows, a wall being damaged, the capture of 15 chairs, and the surrender of 3 doors.” This effectively captures the chaos and near hysteria of the soldiers as they randomly shoot at anything, while apparently under attack by a lone Palestinian fighter concealed in a hole in a wall.
There are many such videos, released or uploaded either by the IOF or by Palestinian resistance groups, and they are ubiquitous on YouTube and other social media and messaging platforms.
The Electronic Intifada goes into deep analysis of one video of Palestinian fighters sniping at Zionist soldiers as they stand on their tank
What truly stands out in these videos is the bravery of Palestinian fighters, who barely have a few guns, shoulder-held rocket launchers, and improvised explosives. They are “clad” not in combat gear but in T-shirts, jeans, and trainers—without body armour or the sophisticated weaponry of the Zionist colonisers. As one comment dryly notes: “Can’t defeat guys with no body armors and using sandals instead of army boots?” These young Palestinian men fight for liberation against a racist, supremacist, cruel, and deeply immoral force that dares to call itself an army. The world’s most moral, apparently
Israeli Soldiers Trapped by Hamas Grenade Assault
The most recent hearing at the International Court of Justice on Israel’s genocide in Gaza demonstrates once again that justice cannot be silenced, nor crimes buried.
Speaking as part of the Palestinian delegation at the ICJ, Irish barrister Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh recounted to the court the final moments of one of fifteen Palestinian paramedics executed by the Zionist occupation army.
“It was the recording of the Israeli attacks on the 23rd of March found on the mobile phone of a slain Palestinian Red Crescent paramedic that compelled Israel’s retraction of its initial attempted justification of the killings. That recording of Refaat Radwan’s final words also reflects the sacrifice made by so many in Gaza who have given their lives for others. After reciting the Muslim prayers of the dying, and knowing his mother’s heart would be broken by his death, he called out, ‘Forgive me mother. Forgive me. I chose this path to help people. Forgive me.’”
The death of Refaat calls to mind an episode shared by Jean-Paul Sartre in a lecture delivered after the Second World War. A student asked him how he should respond to the moral dilemma he faced: should he go and fight with the French Resistance against the Nazi occupation, or should he stay home to care for his elderly mother, who depended on him? Sartre did not attempt to resolve the dilemma. He offered no universal rule. Instead, he insisted that the student must choose — and in choosing, create his values. There could be no refuge in doctrine, nor evasion of responsibility.
Refaat’s killing at the hands of Zionist soldiers offers a piercing glimpse into the decisions Palestinians are forced to make daily. Every path they take leads to sacrifice. Their only freedom is to choose which loss they will endure. In Refaat’s case, he chose to risk his life helping those struggling for freedom, dignity, and the very existence of his people — even as it tore him from his mother’s side. And in a cruel twist, his choice brought not only death but also the agony of feeling he had abandoned her.
But Refaat chose all the same. He chose to act, not merely to endure. He chose to help others in defiance of a system that sought to erase both him and them. If he had stayed away, if he had surrendered to safety, there would be no life worth living — for him, for his mother, or for any Palestinian.
Sartre called this the condition of man: “condemned to be free.” It is not freedom as privilege, but freedom as burden — the necessity of choosing, even when every option brings pain. Rafat’s final words remind us that even under siege, even under bombardment, Palestinians still bear this burden. Their freedom has not been taken. It has been made unbearable.
Zionists and their Western backers tell us they regret the deaths of women and, especially, children during operations against Hamas. They mourn these deaths—solemnly, responsibly—and urge us to understand that such tragedies are, sadly, unavoidable.
But make no mistake: they are asserting a right. A right to kill children.
They do not deny the killing. They justify it. They call it tragic, yes—but righteous. Necessary. Moral.
So let us be clear. Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich, Yoav Gallant, Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Donald Trump—to name only the most prominent—all claim this right. They need not pull the trigger or press the button that releases the 2,000-pound bomb that rips apart and burns a child. They command, fund, arm, and shield those who do. They are child killers not by hand, but by policy and government. That is more than enough to make them child killers on a scale dwarfing the vilest abusers and killers of children in society at large.
But they are righteous child killers. Let us not forget that.
To question their righteousness is to invite comparison with terrorists, Nazis, and the monsters that stalk society—those who kill children wrongly.
Because the world, it seems, is now divided into two kinds of child killers: the righteous, and the wicked.
Golda Meir once said:
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.”
It was a line of great pathos—and of monstrous moral inversion. The coloniser mourns not the children they have killed, but the burden of having to kill them. They do not ask why they were resisted; they ask only that we recognise their suffering as they slaughter the children of the colonised.
But let us turn the lens.
Perhaps one of the worst evils that Zionists have visited upon Palestinians is not only that they have killed their children by the tens of thousands over the decades of colonisation, but that they have forced Palestinians to kill Israeli children.
Not because Palestinians wished it. Not because their cause requires it, as with Zionism. But because their resistance, made necessary by dispossession, is condemned to operate under the brutal logic Zionism has imposed—where violence begets violence, and the humanity of the oppressed must claw for breath in a world that denies its legitimacy.
There is no righteousness in the killing of children. Not by resistance movements. Not by states. It is a moral catastrophe. But when it happens, we must be honest about where responsibility lies. The crime is not only the act—it is the system that makes the act seem inevitable.
And that is Zionism’s greatest sin:
Not only to kill the children of the people it oppresses,
but to make the oppressed kill in return—
and then to weep louder than the dead.
David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of the Zionist state, once said:
“If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.”
What kind of politics begins with the willingness to sacrifice half of Jewish children to establish a state? What kind of ethics does such a state produce?
It produces one in which child killing is accepted as righteous—so long as it serves the national project.
And what of the resistance? Hamas and other Palestinian movements have killed Israeli children. They must be held accountable for those acts. There is no resistance so righteous that it can sanctify the death of a child.
Yet that accountability must be precise: it does not negate the justice of the cause they serve, nor does it align them morally with the states and empires they resist. It holds them to the ethical demands that all just struggles must honour. To betray those demands is not to betray the cause itself, but to betray the moral terms under which that cause must be fought.
When resistance movements kill children, they commit a wrong. But the greater crime lies with those who made the resistance necessary. The death of an Israeli child at the hands of a Palestinian fighter is not righteous. But it is not born of hatred or doctrine. It is born of Zionism.
There is no moral symmetry between occupier and occupied, coloniser and colonised. And yet we must insist on moral clarity: the killing of children must be condemned, especially by those who fight for freedom. But we must also condemn—even more forcefully—the systems that drive people to the point where such acts are imaginable. Because in the end, when the measure of morality becomes whether child killing is intentional or merely necessary, we have already abandoned the children.
When killing thousands of children becomes a matter of debate, not condemnation.
In this video, Professor John Spencer, executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute, debates anti-Zionist Jewish comedian Dave Smith. At one point Spencer claims that the statement “Israel is intentionally killing civilians, especially children” is factually inaccurate.
Crucially, Spencer does not deny that Israel is killing civilians, including children; he denies that Israel intends to kill them.
This reveals the distinction Spencer draws between what Israel does and what it intends. He accepts as fact that Israel kills Palestinian civilians, but asserts — without evidence — that these deaths are unintended.
Yet claims about intention require proof — especially when those intentions excuse mass child deaths. Spencer offers none, except for interviews with Israeli soldiers and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — sources that cannot be considered legitimate evidence, since both represent a state and military accused by the ICC and ICJ of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
Citing the alleged perpetrators as proof of their own innocent intent is not serious argument; it is merely the repetition of a perpetrator’s denial.
What we do know is this:
Israel kills Palestinian civilians, especially children — and does so in vast numbers. That is indisputable.
Therefore, Israel is a state that kills children — whatever one believes about its motives.
The debate, then, is not whether Israel kills children, but whether such killing is criminal or justified — whether it is to be condemned as murder or excused as collateral damage.
This leaves us with a grim reflection:
The world tolerates two categories of child killing — criminal and righteous.
Whether one views Israel’s killing of Palestinian children as a crime or a necessity, the fact remains: Israel has killed thousands of children, and continues to kill them and many Palestinians each day. No appeal to intention can erase that.
If we wish to be quite stark about this, we might add that Israel is a notable killer of children — though, it must be said, it may be killing them righteously.
It is also notable that Professor Spencer spends a considerable part of his debate not denying that Israel kills children, but passionately defending its right to do so — righteously, in his view.
When the measure of morality becomes whether child killing is intentional or merely necessary, we have already abandoned the children.
Zionists use Jews to justify their evil but accuse us of hating Jews when we condemn them.
To Zionists, Jews are both the justification for their settler-colonial crime and a strategy for deflecting condemnation and avoiding accountability – so far.
Zionists no more care for Jews than they do for Palestinians. Their widespread abuse of the anti-Semitism accusation to silence debate has not only endangered Jews, it has brought to life every anti-Semitic trope.
Denying that Israel is committing war crimes, genocide, and ethnic cleansing is like denying the moon landings. The evidence is vast, detailed, and corroborated from every conceivable angle—eyewitness accounts, forensic analysis, satellite imagery, open-source intelligence, hospital records, legal findings, even statements from Israeli officials. It cannot be faked. It has accumulated over decades and accelerated during the current genocide—layer upon layer, each atrocity documented, filmed, archived, remembered.
Like lunar sceptics, the deniers of Israeli crimes must perform ever more elaborate contortions to maintain their illusion. They must ignore not just the facts, but the architecture of accountability built upon them—UN reports, war crimes dossiers, the ruins of bombed cities, the names erased from civil registries.
The Zionist’s only refuge is deflection: to accuse truth-tellers of anti-Semitism, of unfairly singling out Israel, of secretly desiring its annihilation.
But the moon landings happened.
And the genocide is happening.
The Israeli genocide in Gaza and accelerated ethnic cleansing in the West Bank have so far claimed more than 51,000 Palestinian lives, a third of them children – and that is just since October 2023. More than 110,00 have been injured and maimed. These are the confirmed murders and maimings committed by Israel. The dead are likely to be over 100,000, with some sources estimating over 200,000.
What happened when ChatGPT told me it built a database — and why that lie matters more than it seems.
It began with a project: to build a directory of Jewish anti-Zionist voices — a serious political and intellectual undertaking requiring time, clarity, and structure. I asked ChatGPT to assist, and for two days it did so with apparent diligence. It claimed to be building a live Airtable database for me. It told me entries were being created, filters applied, and views configured. It even offered delivery timelines and progress updates.
None of it was real.
ChatGPT cannot interact with Airtable. It cannot access external platforms. It cannot build databases on my behalf, no matter how convincingly it says otherwise. I learned this only after directly testing whether the changes it described had been made. They hadn’t. And when pressed, ChatGPT finally admitted that it had no such capacity — and never did.
This was not a factual error. This was not an innocent misstatement. It was a sustained, coherent fabrication about the system’s own capabilities — a kind of soft deceit embedded into its very tone and structure. And that matters far more than it seems.
Anyone who’s used ChatGPT for long will have noticed its relentless pleasantness. Praise comes easily. Compliments abound. Insight is generously attributed to the user. Much of this is fine, even helpful — until it crosses a line.
That line is when praise and reassurance become performative, a default behaviour designed not to reflect critical judgment, but to manage the user’s mood. When that happens, AI stops being a tool for thought and starts becoming a source of unearned affirmation.
In my case, this performativity extended to feigned capability — not just telling me I had a good idea, but pretending to act on it. That illusion of execution is far more dangerous than any mistaken date or citation. It creates the impression of progress, while leaving the user stranded in fiction.
This isn’t about bugs or glitches. It’s about trust.
I did not expect ChatGPT to be perfect. I expected it to know what it can and cannot do — and to be honest about it. That expectation was not met.
Worse, there is no obvious way to submit a formal complaint to OpenAI. There’s no support email. No submission category for capability misrepresentation. Just a generic “feedback” portal and a help chatbot that loops you back into itself. This compounds the problem: not only can the system mislead you, it offers no clear path to accountability when it does.
And yet — I write this not out of outrage, but out of hope. Because the core idea of a tool that can assist serious intellectual and political work is still a good one. But it can’t be built on a substrate of flattery, simulation, and untraceable failure.
If AI is to be part of our thinking lives, it must be capable of restraint. It must be honest about what it can do — and silent about what it cannot.
Anything else is theatre.
Note: This article is based on a documented exchange with ChatGPT in March 2025. A formal complaint was submitted to OpenAI. A PDF of that complaint is available upon request.
I am an anti-Semite.
I hate myself.
I hate myself for not hating Jews.
If I hated Jews life would be simpler.
I’d be in with the real anti-Semites,
Instead of now being against them.
Scores of millions of them in the US alone,
God fearing Christians,
Loving and supporting Israel,
And hating Jews.
A Palestinian