If any critique is called antisemitism than you really wash it down until real antisemitism gets swept under the rug. But whom am i kidding, they WANT more antisemitism as it will lead to more hate and that is literally what that fascist government thrives on.
deleted by creator
dafuq?! how was this not bigger news?
deleted by creator
hey go easy on that nail buddy.
UK is Hamas. I knew it all along.
Way to spot the truth!
I guess we need to find a word to capture the atrocities that are being done to people of a certain belief system in the world.
Or should be just call it ‘g3n0c1d3’?
Sir Keith Stammer has assured me that this isn’t genocide. Said so in the House Of Commons. Why would he lie?
In this particular case Netanyahu is calculating that Starmer is weak and making this accusation will get Starmer to back down in some way. He could actually be right.
Does he stammer? And even if he did, it’s not exactly a clever nickname. Then again, the “Keith” thing is pretty dumb
The name Keith Stammer is not meant to be taken literally 🤣🤣🤣
Is there a word in English that means “Labelling everything you don’t like as [extreme negative word] and thus watering down the meaning of [extreme negative word]”?
To “cry wolf”, raising a false alarm for attention. In the story the idiom references Peter’s sheep are eventually devoured by wolves as he cries for help, which the villagers assume is yet another prank.
Time will tell if truth matches fiction.
Being a gobshite?
Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Semantic bleaching.
They are making such a joke of themselves.
Never go full Guiliani.
Antizionism and antigenocide being called a different thing. I’m so sick of their playbook. It’s old and tired and makes me sleepy.
Zionism uses Jewdaeism to disguise their Fascism.
It’s about time somebody called him a jewish supremacist to his face, live on TV.
To save you some Googling: Novara Media
InfluenceWatch is funded by the heritage foundation, which also worked on Project 2025. You really didn’t even check the website you’re viewing? You just saw your own preconceived bias confirmed and left it at that without any further scrutiny?
So casting aspersions on the source of the source of my source but not acknowledging the problematic nature of the source itself? Got it.
I can’t see anything in there that’s a problem?
You need to look a bit harder. The keyword you’re looking for is “impartial”.
There’s no such thing as an impartial news source and that article doesn’t even use the word “impartial” anywhere.
