When I wanted to host a women’s free speech event in a park in tower hamlets I was served with a section 16 public order directive

So people keep going back to “Israel invaded the land” and “Israel stole the land” and “Nakba-this” and “Nakba-that” and all sorts of other stories about why they justify Oct 7 and why Israel is in the wrong. Let’s clear a few things up. The land that is now Israel was lived in by both Muslims and Jews for a long time. If you want to get technical about who was there first, it was the Jews. How do we know this for a fact? Well, first of all, Jews have been around for about 2000 years longer than Muslims. Not enough for you? OK. How about the fact that the word “Israel” is mentioned in the Quran about 43 times. Palestine? Never once. Jewish people have been around longer than Muslim people have – fact. Jewish people were living in the place where Israel is much longer than Arabs have – also fact. In about 1250 BCE, the Jewish people went to what was then called Canaan – where Israel sits today. This is when they escaped slavery in Egypt, and wandered the dessert for 40 years. 1250BCE. About 1860 years before the founding of Islam. Fast forward to modern times. 1940s. Yes, there were both Arab-Muslims and Jews living on the land that is now called Israel. And yeah, there was fighting. On both sides. After the Holocaust, the push for the Jewish people to have their own country intensified. During WWII, too many countries turned their backs on Jews. A Jewish homeland would ensure that Jews always had somewhere to go. There could never be another Holocaust, another ethnic cleansing of Jews. Additionally, the UK was tired of dealing with all the fighting in the British Mandate of Palestine (what Israel was called before it was Israel), and wanted to wash their hands of it. So what did they do? They offered to split the land amongst the two groups living there. The Arab-Muslims and the Jews. Sounds fair, right? Each could have their own State, completely autonomous. Pretty good deal, wouldn’t you think? I think it was a good deal. The Jews thought it was a good deal. Do you know who didn’t think it was a good deal? The Arab-Muslims. Do you know why? Because they didn’t want the Jews to have anything. So the day after Israel became a nation, the Arabs attacked. 5 Arab nations attacked, in what would be known as the Arab-Israeli war. Do you know what else it became known as? The Nakba. Nakba for catastrophe. Because they lost. The Arab world says it’s because Arabs were displaced. But they chose to be displaced. Because they chose not to accept their own nation. They left. They ran away. Because they thought the Jews would lose and they'd be able to go back. The Arabs have been fighting ever since. At some point in time in the 1960s, the Arab-Muslims who were trying to claim Israel as theirs, started to refer to themselves as Palestinians. Land has been offered. A Palestinian state has been offered. All that the Palestinians had to do, was accept Israel’s right to exist. To stop attacking and trying to destroy them. Why don’t the Palestinians have their own State? Because they refuse to. They refuse to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Muslim nations in this world, take up 29.13 million square km. Israel is 21,671 square km. Jews have 0.1% of the land that Muslims have. And according to the Radicalized Muslims, that’s too much. This isn’t about the land. This is about Radicalized Muslims not wanting Jews to exist.

ANDREW NEIL: Burnham's rendezvous with reality is coming soon dailymail.com/debate/article… via @DailyMail

Just seen the BBC news at 6 report on the violence on France. - selective clips - no schools on fire - no foreign flags being flown - BBC reporter siding with protesters - focus on the “peaceful students” Just straight up propaganda.

This is the latest on a long list of attacks the Islamist regime has planned or carried out on British soil in the recent past. What will @andyburnham do about it? Not say about it, but actually do about it? I’ll give you a clue. Nothing. And @Ed_Miliband - you’re a disgrace.

Pleased to be called out as a communist. Ask any east European still here in the UK how life was in their home country under communists like Thornberry. You still think these people are good for the country? I hope they pay a personal price in due course.

Polanski said his family 'fled the Nazis'. But all four of his grandparents were born in Britain - long before the war trib.al/cEIekAl

Let us consider for a moment that very likely world in which Capt. Smit Machchhar was slightly less heroic and could not overcome his stab wound to open the cockpit door. Or one in which passengers Yaniv Hayun, Tzvika Mans and Assaf Rajuan did not burst in in time. Or one in which Yaniv, a plumber by trade, had never watched a docuseries on plane crashes and did not know how to pull out of the dive. Or one in which there were no other pilots on board to land the plane safely. The terrorist crashes the plane into the ground, his motivations utterly inscrutable to international media and obvious to those with an ounce of thought. Today, if the crown prince allowed, Israelis would be on the ground picking through wreckage in search of 174 bodies, 27 of them children. Thanks for reading It's Noon In Israel! This post is public so feel free to share it. The central artery of the Abraham Accords, the 30-plane-a-day flight corridor, would be severed, and the steadily warming relations between the Emirates and Israel would freeze. The day would go down as the second-deadliest terror attack in the country’s history, with nearly five times the death toll of the third. Falling just days before the third Hebrew anniversary of the worst attack, it might have permanently cost the Sukkot festival its traditional name: “the time of our joy.” An outpouring of sympathy would be quickly followed by a return to normal. The world has never understood Israelis well enough to forgive their security, yet almost always understands terrorists well enough to forgive their violence. British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband and his ilk would announce further sanctions on violent Israelis, and the international media would rush to cite a myriad of possible motivations for the massacre. As it is, the terrorist can take comfort in knowing that the international media has not stripped him of his wings. He is still “the pilot,” and what he did is still an “incident,” to borrow Miliband’s label. Thankfully, we woke up in the other world: the one where the terrorist failed, the festival goes on, planes continue to fly, and Israel’s will to fight burns hotter than before. It is the world created by Yaniv Hayun, Tzvika Mans, Assaf Rajuan and Smit Machchhar, ordinary people who demonstrated extraordinary courage. To read the rest of today's newsletter click here amitsegal.substack.com/p/its…

It's VERY IMPORTANT we hide away the disabled man from the awards ceremony regarding the film that goes into excruciating detail about how miserable his life has been due to his disability and how if we were all a bit more accepting and tolerant the world would be a better place.

Hiding away disabled people now, is it? Everyone involved should be driven from public life with hoots of derision ringing in their ears.

TWO months ago @EnglishmanTalks became the first reporter to cross the Channel on a migrant dinghy. And who was steering that boat to Britain? You guessed it - an Iranian.

He’s right. There is zero doubt. We have a hyper politicised justice system

Have you offered the Omani pilot a passport yet?

We either have rules or we have anarchy. I am all for the latter but it cant be applied selectively by a Binman.

Mohammed Amaaz smashed a female police officer in the face and broke her nose at Manchester Airport. He was given *unconditional bail*. Danny Tommo is accused of slashing a dinghy in the Channel and refusing a phone PIN. Judge remands him in custody until next March. That is two-tier justice.

“The passengers broke international law by storming the cockpit.”

The blacklist:

RT @EliAfriatISR: According to reports, the details of the mid-air drama have emerged: the co-pilot—acting as an attacker—began stabbing th…

Burnham promises a bill to repeal Thatcher’s ban on the public ownership of water. There is no blanket legal ban that makes public ownership of water illegal in the UK. Parliament can nationalise water companies if it passes new legislation. The House of Commons Library has said neither the Water Act 1989 nor the Water Industry Act 1991 “prohibit nationalisation or public ownership”.