Peter Charlet @pcharlet

@HilzFuld Amazing suit! ❤️

@khaleejtimes Why?

In 1937, the Peel Commission offered Jews 18% of the territory, alongside a British-administered zone. Everything else went to the Arabs. Jews said yes. Arabs said no and violently revolted, closing down Jewish immigration with catastrophic results for European Jews fleeing the Holocaust. This is where the story starts.

The best way to settle the question of “Where are Palestinians really from”, is simply to ask them and listen to what they are telling us. And they are openly telling us they are not from the land of Israel. They are Egyptians, Saudis, and Yemeni. They are Arabs. They are NOT indigenous to our land. They are the occupiers and colonizers. Here… listen for yourselves.

On Sunday, we asked 7 non-Jewish people: if you could ask a Jewish person one question, what would it be? We then asked those questions to 7 Jews at the community rally. This is what they said.

Tuurlijk, @NadiaMoussaid! Zéker gaan wij de Nakba onderwijzen. Dan vertellen we hoe vijf Arabische legers in 1948 Israël binnenvielen om alle Joden de zee in te drijven. Dan leggen we uit dat de Arabische leiders hun eigen mensen opriepen om snel te vertrekken uit Israël, zodat ‘het Joodse vraagstuk’ ongehinderd opgelost kon worden. Dan behandelen we de rol van de grootmoefti, die in Berlijn thee dronk met Hitler, moslim-SS-divisies oprichtte en die een ‘Judenrein’ Midden-Oosten ambieerde. Dan vertellen we erbij dat die vijf Arabische legers dus duidelijk van plan waren om Hitlers ‘final solution’ alsnog af te ronden. Dan leren we de kinderen dat er 800.000 Joden uit islamitische landen zijn gejaagd - hun huizen, bedrijven, synagogen: álles lieten ze gedwongen achter. Dan leggen we uit dat Israël vervolgens ál deze vluchtelingen opving. En dat allemaal zónder steun van UNRWA, en zónder een decennia durende lucratieve slachtoffer-industrie. En dan sluiten we af met de enige juiste conclusie: de Nakba was géén koloniale catastrofe, maar een mislukt islamofascistisch genocidaal plan. Dus ja, onderwijs over de Nakba is inderdaad keihard nodig. Sinds 7 oktober zien we dit iedere dag opnieuw.

On This Day, May 14, 1948: Israel Declares Independence — And Ben-Gurion Explicitly Calls on Arabs to Stay as Full & Equal Citizens Listen to David Ben-Gurion himself reading it in real time (audio below): “We call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions ... We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples.” That was Israel’s very first offer on the day it was reborn. The response from the Arab world? Immediate war of extermination. Just hours after the British Mandate ended, armies from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq invaded the newborn Jewish state with tanks, artillery, and planes. Their goal was clear: wipe out the Jews before the state could even stand. The Jewish population was only 650,000 — roughly the size of modern Luxembourg. Almost no heavy weapons. Yet virtually every able-bodied man and woman mobilized. Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary that same day: “People were dancing in the streets ... but the joy was not a part of me. I knew what was to come — war with all of the Arab armies.” Israel survived the invasion. It absorbed the vast majority of the ~850,000 Jewish refugees brutally expelled from Arab countries. And in the decades that followed, it built a thriving democracy where the Arab population inside Israel has skyrocketed — today more than 2 million Arab Israelis are full citizens with voting rights, elected representatives in the Knesset, judges on the Supreme Court, doctors, and successful business owners. This is what Israel was from the moment of its birth. The Arabs who fled and the Arab states that attacked rejected peace and equality. They chose annihilation. Israel chose life anyway. From the ashes of the Holocaust and an attempted extermination on day one — to a strong, prosperous nation that still extends the same hand of peace. Never let them bury what Israel actually declared on its first day. Never forget who rejected it and chose war instead.

@RawaneOsmane Congratulations!

The New York Times and Israel: Anatomy of a Long Decline On Monday, May 11, 2026, The New York Times published in its opinion pages a column by Nicholas Kristof, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, titled “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.” The piece asserts that sexual violence against Palestinians is part of Israel’s “security apparatus.” It draws on fourteen testimonies. It describes, among other allegations, rapes committed with batons, metal rods, carrots. And then, buried in a paragraph, comes the sentence that pushed the article from contestable reportage into obscene fable: Kristof, citing “reports,” writes of dogs trained by Israeli forces to rape Palestinian prisoners. Kristof himself concedes, in his own text, that “there is no evidence that Israeli leaders order rapes.” He adds that when it is suggested to him that Palestinian witnesses might fabricate accusations to smear Israel, this strikes him as “far-fetched.” Here, then, is the evidentiary standard of a piece published by America’s most prestigious daily: no physical evidence, no forensic expertise, no independent corroboration, and an explicit presumption of truth granted to testimonies whose sources include, as NGO Monitor has documented, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, whose founder Ramy Abdu has been photographed repeatedly alongside senior Hamas officials, including Ismail Haniyeh in 2011 and Osama Hamdan in 2013. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on its official account, called the article “one of the worst blood libels ever to appear in the modern press.” Deborah Lipstadt, former U.S. special envoy for combating antisemitism—a Holocaust historian, not a barroom pundit—asked the Times publicly: “Have they no sense of decency and journalistic responsibility?” “Blood libel,” that old medieval antisemitic fantasy according to which Jews used the blood of Christian children for their rituals, is not a term Israeli diplomacy uses lightly. It is reached for when a narrative crosses the line separating political criticism, however fierce, from dehumanization. Dogs trained to rape humans—can a man of sound mind publish such a thing in the opinion section of a paper of record? The answer is yes. And the editor can, the very next day, defend the article on X by arguing that it is “backed by independent studies,” when those “independent studies” are, for the most part, reports issued by an NGO whose ties to Hamas have been publicly documented for more than a decade. The timing of publication, on its own, is worth pausing over. On Tuesday, May 12—the day after the Kristof column—came Silenced No More, a nearly 300-page report by the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes Against Women and Children. The document draws on more than 430 interviews and testimonies, the review of more than 10,000 photographs and videos, to establish the systematic nature of sexual violence committed by Hamas on October 7, 2023, and against hostages held in Gaza. Twenty-four hours before that report was released, The New York Times published a column placing on the same plane, in the same paragraph, the documented rapes of October 7 and the “rape dogs” drawn from the reports of a Hamas-linked NGO. Professor Gerald Steinberg, founder of NGO Monitor, asked the question publicly on X: what are the odds the timing was coincidence? He answered himself: “I’d say zero.” One may judge the accusation excessive. One may also ask, more modestly, what editorial sequence leads a newspaper to publish that text, on that day. A Pattern, Not an Accident The Kristof episode is not isolated. The Times’s record of errors, corrections, and apologies on Israeli and Jewish subjects has thickened at an accelerating rate in recent years, to the point that it traces not a string of accidents but a trajectory. Let us run through the markers. September 2000. A wire photo distributed by the AP and reprinted by the Times shows a bloodied young man on his knees, and an Israeli policeman with a baton in hand. The caption identifies the young man as “a Palestinian victim of the new intifada.” His name, in fact, is Tuvia Grossman. He is an American Jewish student from Chicago, and he has just been beaten by a Palestinian mob. The Israeli officer was protecting him. Grossman’s father wrote to the paper immediately. It took several corrections, spaced out over time, before the caption was set right. April 2019. The international edition publishes a cartoon in which Benjamin Netanyahu appears as a guide dog, a Star of David hanging from his collar, leading a blind Donald Trump wearing a kippah. The paper will speak of an “error of judgment,” then issue a fuller apology, take internal disciplinary action, and eventually eliminate political cartoons from its international edition altogether. No one at the Times has explained how such a cartoon was approved in the first place. The iconographic codes it deployed—the Jew pulling the strings of power, the animalization—belong to a register every serious journalist is supposed to recognize at a glance. October 17, 2023. A few days after October 7, the Times publishes—as a mobile alert, in a banner headline, across social channels—the claim that a Gaza hospital, al-Ahli, has been hit by an Israeli airstrike with hundreds killed. The source is Hamas. Within hours, U.S. intelligence, then French military intelligence, then a Human Rights Watch investigation, then open-source analysis converge on a different conclusion: this was, in all likelihood, a failed Palestinian rocket launch. The Times eventually publishes an editor’s note, reproduced in full by Nieman Lab, acknowledging that its initial coverage “relied too heavily on claims by Hamas” and “left readers with an incorrect impression” of what was known and how credible the account was. The correction comes after the false information has already traveled the world, fueled protests, triggered the cancellation of a regional diplomatic summit. In modern journalism, the first headline is almost always the final headline. The Times knows this. It published anyway. December 22, 2023. A Times headline: “Gaza Deaths Surpass Any Arab Loss in Wars in Past 40 Years.” False. Trivially false. Anyone with a passing knowledge of recent Middle Eastern history—the Iran-Iraq war, the Syrian civil war, Iraq, Yemen—knows that Arab casualties over the past four decades run into the hundreds of thousands. A correction was published on December 28: it should have read “the heaviest loss on the Arab side in any war with Israel in 40 years.” The correction came too late to undo what the headline had already done: produce the impression that Israel’s war in Gaza was, by itself, more lethal than anything the region had seen since 1983. That is false, and the falsehood is precisely what was useful. July 2025. Front-page photograph, maximum emotional mobilization: a skeletal Gaza child in his mother’s arms. The image becomes the global emblem of famine in Gaza. It will go on to win a Pulitzer Prize. A few weeks later, the child’s doctors and medical records make clear that he suffered from pre-existing congenital conditions, omitted from the original presentation. The Times ultimately appends a note. But the image had already done its work. And the Pulitzer remained. Stack these cases now: Grossman, the 2019 cartoon, al-Ahli, the December 2023 headline, the July 2025 child, and now the rape dogs of May 2026. Six cases, more than twenty-five years, but with a clear acceleration since 2023. Every time, the same pattern: a spectacular first-instance claim, unfavorable to Israel, thinly sourced or stripped of context; a quieter correction later, after the damage is done. This is what common-law lawyers call a pattern of practice. It is no longer a series of errors. It is a method. The Precedent: Sulzberger and the Universalizing of Genocide This method has a history. And that history is unsettling, because it traces back to the moment when, more than any other, the American paper of record should have been equal to the task. Under the leadership of Arthur Hays Sulzberger, owner of the Times during the Second World War, the paper made choices on the persecution of Europe’s Jews that today rest on an overwhelming scholarly consensus. The work of the historian Laurel Leff, in particular her book Buried by The Times, has established that the paper did not, strictly speaking, argue for the exclusion of Jewish refugees from the United States. It did something subtler, and in some respects graver: it systematically de-Judaized the persecution. Its editorials spoke of the “refugee problem” as a “test of civilization,” as “a problem of mankind,” and went so far in July 1939 as to insist it was “neither a Jewish problem nor a Gentile problem.” But it was precisely a Jewish problem. Jews were being persecuted as Jews. Refusing to say so stripped the argument for rescue of its own moral force. The intellectual mechanism is exactly the one we find today, mirrored: where in 1939 the goal was to dissolve Jewish specificity into the “problem of mankind,” the goal now is to inflate Palestinian suffering until it becomes the deadliest event of the modern Middle East, or to draw it close, by way of the baton and the dog, to the horror of October 7. In both cases, one does not exactly lie. One distorts the frame. And in a paper whose every word sets precedent for millions of readers, that is infinitely more effective than a frontal lie. Honesty requires acknowledging—and the historical record acknowledges—that the Times of 1939–1945 also published editorials sympathetic to the refugees of the St. Louis, and in March 1943 called for revision of the “chilly formalism” of American immigration law. Not everything was dark. But Sulzberger, himself a Jew, had one fixation: never to appear “a Jewish paper.” Out of that fixation came an editorial policy that, in practice, contributed to burying news of the extermination on inside pages, diluting its specific character, depriving the case for rescue of the urgency without which no policy is possible. There is a direct line between that refusal to write “Jews are being killed because they are Jews” and the intellectual ease with which, today, one publishes a column placing in the same sentence October 7 and a canine fantasy. The Warning from Bari Weiss In July 2020, Bari Weiss—the opinion journalist recruited by the Times precisely to broaden its range of voices after the paper’s predictive collapse in 2016—resigned with an open letter. That letter is today an essential document for understanding what is happening inside the 8th Avenue building. Weiss describes a paper that has become “a performance space,” where stories are chosen and told “to satisfy the narrowest of audiences” rather than to allow a curious public to draw its own conclusions. She writes, in so many words, that she had learned to “brush off comments about how I’m writing about the Jews again.” She describes internal Slack channels where, under the gaze of masthead editors, colleagues posted axe emojis next to her name. She describes an implicit norm by which Twitter—not the editor in chief—has become the paper’s true editor. Reread that letter in the light of Kristof, of the December 2023 headline, of the July 2025 photograph, and one understands better how such texts make it through the editorial process. They make it through because the newsroom no longer has, internally, any friction mechanism. The voices that might have asked, in a meeting, the awkward question—“Is this source really independent?”; “Is it biologically possible to train a dog to do this?”; “Does this headline say what we actually want it to say?”—those voices have left, or have learned to keep silent. What the Times No Longer Is One must conclude with measure, because measure is the only effective weapon against a newspaper that has lost the use of it. The New York Times still has excellent journalists. Its economic, scientific, and cultural reporting remains, often, of the first rank. This is not a militant pamphlet. What it is, is more disquieting: an institution that, on certain subjects—Israel chief among them, but not Israel alone—has lost the ability to distinguish itself from activism. It no longer knows, or no longer wishes, to tell the difference between a testimony and a piece of evidence, between an NGO source and a political actor, between legitimate emotion and a framing that distorts. And when a paper of this stature renounces that distinction, the social cost is not small. Demonstrations gather around headlines that will be corrected three days later. New York synagogues find themselves surrounded by crowds quoting, sometimes verbatim, sentences that appeared in its pages. The Times is not an antisemitic newspaper. To say otherwise would be easy and would be false. What it has become is a newspaper for which the idea that Jews, and the state they have built, might have their own legitimate account of their own history is now, at best, a hypothesis treated with permanent suspicion. That suspicion, accumulating article after article, headline after headline, caption after caption, ends up producing something that looks a great deal like bias. And bias in a newspaper that styles itself as objective is not a respectable opinion. It is a breach of contract with its readers. On Monday last, that contract was torn in two by a text in which someone dared write, in the columns of the paper Adolph Ochs founded with the promise that it would welcome “all shades of opinion,” that dogs were being trained to rape prisoners. At this point only one question remains. How many more such episodes will it take before the word “of record,” attached to The New York Times, becomes, simply, a joke?

There may actually be a silver lining to the latest deranged anti-Israel blood libel. Not because sane people believe it. Most normal people hear the claim that Israel “trains dogs to rape Palestinians” and immediately recognize it for what it is: grotesque propaganda bordering on medieval insanity. Even by modern disinformation standards, it sounds absurd. The truly embarrassing part is that some supposedly serious people helped spread it anyway - including a The New York Times reporter amplifying one of the most fringe and hysterical accusations imaginable. But history shows something interesting: these lies are often not really aimed at educated Western audiences. Most intelligent people will dismiss them instantly. The people most likely to internalize them are extremists, militants, and highly radicalized populations already primed to believe almost anything about Jews or Israel. And ironically, that can still affect behavior positively, when movements end up drinking their own Kool-Aid. One of the most revealing historical examples is Deir Yassin. For decades, it was framed internationally as proof of a deliberate Zionist campaign of mass slaughter designed to terrorize Arabs into fleeing. But in an old BBC interview, Hazem Nuseibeh - an Arab broadcaster connected to the events of 1948 - admitted that exaggerated atrocity stories were intentionally circulated to shock the Arab world and pressure Arab armies into invading the newly declared Jewish state. The plan was to inflame the region into war. Instead, many Palestinian Arabs heard the stories and panicked. Rumors spread uncontrollably. Fear spread faster than facts. Entire communities fled because they became convinced Jewish forces were terrifying and unstoppable. The propaganda campaign meant to mobilize resistance ended up contributing to mass flight. That is the uncomfortable reality of psychological warfare: fabricated horror stories can still influence behavior if enough people believe them. Which brings us back to today’s ridiculous blood libels. No serious military analyst believes Israel has some dystopian canine rape program. Most normal people laugh at how insane the accusation sounds. But among radicalized circles, fear and myth-making can still shape decisions. And considering that Palestinians sitting in Israeli prisons are there because of terror attacks, shootings, stabbings, or attempted murders, there is a dark irony here: if enough potential attackers become terrified of ending up captured by Israelis because they believe these grotesque fantasies, some may think twice before carrying out attacks in the first place. The people spreading these fantasies are not just “misinformed journalists”. They are laundering the propaganda of a terror organization into mainstream discourse, spreading hatred and medieval-style demonization to millions of people. Any reporter pushing such deranged blood libels should be fired in disgrace, and any newspaper reckless enough to publish and amplify this garbage should face massive legal and reputational consequences for knowingly spreading incitement, hysteria, and ethnic demonization while failing to stop either an evil propagandist or an unbelievably incompetent reporter. Still, looking for the silver lining while rolling with the punches is usually the smarter strategy. If the same lies they spread to inflame hatred end up frightening potential terrorists away from carrying out attacks that would land them in Israeli prisons, then the propagandists may accidentally undermine the very violence they are trying to encourage.

facts about @destinationXIX

a month ago

@HonestReporting @nytimes I remember the lies that started it, it took just under 2 years from fringe facebook posts to "truth" published by the MSM. Disgusting. x.com/destinationXIX…

2 15 74 27K 12

In 1942, in Nazi-occupied Tunisia—the only Arab country to suffer direct German occupation—a drunken officer bragged at dinner about the Jewish woman he planned to seize from a forced brothel. He named her. Across the table sat Khaled Abdul-Wahab, a 31-year-old wealthy Muslim Tunisian who had studied art and architecture in New York, spoke fluent German, and was trusted by the Nazis. They invited him to their tables. He smiled, poured the wine, finished the meal… then raced through the night. He pounded on the door of the woman’s family at midnight. “Pack nothing. Come now.” He gathered 25 terrified Jews—mothers, fathers, children, cousins—and drove them nearly 20 miles to his family farm. For four agonizing months, he hid them in the olive press, stables, and storage sheds. He fed them as supplies ran desperately low. He kept crying babies silent. When German soldiers came to count Jews, the hidden families pinned on their yellow stars, stood motionless, then tore them off the moment the danger passed. One terrifying night, a drunk soldier stumbled upon them and threatened to kill everyone. An 11-year-old girl, hiding under a bed, watched in horror—until Khaled appeared like a guardian angel. He calmly disarmed the soldier and sent him away. No one on that farm died. In May 1943, the British liberated Tunisia. The 25 returned home alive. Khaled went back to his quiet life—painting, raising daughters, serving his country—and never spoke of it again. Not to his wife. Not to his children. He died in 1997 at 86. His secret died with him. A decade later, his daughter Faiza sat in a Paris café reading a newspaper. An American historian was describing a Tunisian Arab who had hidden 25 Jews. He named her father. She was 45 years old and hearing the story for the first time. “I rediscovered my father,” she said. Khaled was nominated to be the first Arab recognized as Righteous Among the Nations—Israel’s highest honor for those who saved Jews. The committee declined. Today, those 25 souls have hundreds of descendants living in Israel, France, America, and Tunisia. The little girl under the bed grew up, built a family in Paris. None of them would exist if Khaled had looked away that night. He had everything to lose. He acted anyway. Then he carried the silence for the rest of his life. The world almost forgot him twice. Now you know his name: Khaled Abdul-Wahab. A true hero. A Muslim who stood against evil when it mattered most. Colorized image of black and white photo poster by Israel the Jewish State.

"Pierre Rehov’s new film, ‘P0gr0ms’, captures what no other film has shown: the historical context of the attack rooted in a culture of Je w hatred enabled by ad hoc alliances between Isl@mists, the KGB, and the N@zis" (The Henry Jackson Society) "P0gr0m(s) stands out in a flury of 0ct0ber 7 documentaries" ( Phyllis Chesler - PJ Media ) Here it is, for you to watch and, please, share!

@LauraLoomer @EllieCohanim @LeoTerrellDOJ please Sir, do something about what keeps happening in NYC.

Narges Mohammadi won the Nobel Peace Prize from inside an Iranian prison. For years, Iran has kept her chained to the cell floor of Iran’s notorious Evin Prison for telling the truth about the regime’s abuse of women and political opponents. Now her body is breaking down, and Tehran is blocking the urgent care she needs. Transfer her to her doctors. Release her now. share.google/yxO5Y3NJxksl5L…

@DonJonestown @GadSaad This you?

Pro-Palestinian accounts began to spread disinformation by posting the upper picture as genuine - in reality it is altered by AI. Thiago Avila’s face is neither bruised nor wounded The real picture from the same sequence is shown below and was taken by Ilya Yefimovich for @AFP

@DovLipman ❤️

أنا يهودية إسرائيلية، وبرفض تمامًا أي مسّ بالمقدسات المسيحية. بس بصراحة… مستغربة جدًا. لما جندي إسرائيلي حطم تمثال يسوع في جنوب لبنان – الدنيا قامت وما قعدت، وصار في غضب عالمي وتحقيق رسمي. بس لما مسلمين في لبنان كسروا صليب المسيح ليلة عيد الميلاد (16 ديسمبر 2025)، في منطقة الدورة (Dora) قرب مستشفى مار يوسف، عشان ما عجبهم صوت التراتيل والأناشيد الميلادية… الصمت كان سيد الموقف. طيب وين الغضب الحقيقي؟ وين الغيرة على الدين؟ ولا الغيرة بتشتغل حسب هوية الفاعل فقط؟

Between 1948-1967, Egypt and Jordan controlled Gaza and the West Bank, so why didn't they establish a Palestinian State? I'll wait.

@dan_moun90228 @rachelbsol18