Originally a comment by Papito on Transing sisterhood.

The manichaeism of oppressor vs. oppressed cannot be explained rationally. It is a form of religion. All that is good is on one side; all that is bad is on the other side, and we can always tell them apart. For folks who scream about the sex binary, they sure do like their binaries.

Was Adolf Hitler an oppressor or an oppressed?

When Adolf Hitler met with the Mufti Amin al-Husseini of Jerusalem and they made common cause to kill all the Jews in the Levant, was Hitler working in favor of the oppressor or the oppressed? How about the Mufti?

When al-Husseini accepted 750K DM a month for the purposes of exterminating Jews, was he an oppressor or was he oppressed? When Himmler praised the Mufti’s efforts in doing so, was Himmler an oppressor or an oppressed?

Hamas is pursuing the exact same goal – eradication of Jews from the Levant – that Hitler paid the Mufti to pursue, and which Himmler congratulated al-Husseini for doing. It is a continuation of the Nazi goal, and the same Muslim Brotherhood which helped al-Husseini escape arrest after WWII gave birth to Hamas. They still have the same beliefs, which precede the establishment of Israel:

It is the duty of Muhammadans [Muslims] in general and Arabs in particular to … drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries… . Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.

-Al-Husseini, November 1943

How very oppressed he sounds.

The feminists that aren’t feminists:

Sisters Uncut — founded to campaign against cuts to domestic violence services — claims that the same “white supremacist patriarchy” oppressing feminists is “murdering Palestinians”.

It appeared to play down the massacre of 1,300 Israelis by Hamas terrorists on October 7, saying: “The violence of the oppressed must never be equated with that of the oppressor.”

And of course both come stamped with labels so that we can all know instantly which is which.

Explaining its alignment with the Palestinian cause, Sisters Uncut said: “As intersectional feminists we know our struggles are connected; nobody is free until we are all free. The same colonial logic of white supremacist patriarchy that oppresses feminists the world over is murdering Palestinians right now, through isra*l’s [sic] racist apartheid settler-colonialism.”

Meanwhile there are zero racist or sexist Palestinians and we know this because of the careful stamping (see above).

More recently, the group has campaigned for the rights of transgender people and minorities. On its website, the group describes itself as “women and gender-variant people who live under the threat of domestic violence”.

And thus, finally, we are told that these “feminists” are not feminists at all.

In July it supported Sarah Jane Baker, a transgender rights activist who told a Pride event to “punch a Terf” [trans-exclusionary radical feminist]. Baker had previously spent 30 years in prison for kidnap and attempted murder. Baker was later acquitted of a charge of inciting violence in connection with the Terf comment.

Even though he was in fact inciting violence with the “terf” comment.

Since the Hamas attack on October 7 Sisters Uncut has repeatedly posted on social media about the conflict. One video showed protesters holding a Palestinian flag next to a banner that said: “Trans liberation, trans revolution now.”

Makes me nostalgic for the good old Nazi-Soviet pact.

Not putting up with the bullshit any more.

Princess Ivanka gets a lot of laughter for this joke:

Ivanka Trump asked a New York appeals court to pause the $250 million fraud trial of her family and its business empire as she appeals a judge’s order requiring her to testify in the case next week.

The request to stay the entire trial came at the tail end of a Thursday court filing arguing that Ivanka Trump will face “undue hardship” if forced to testify — in part because she is scheduled to appear “in the middle of a school week.”

Ah right, the middle of a school week, and how can she juggle that plus her 9 to 5 job plus cooking and cleaning and walking the dog? There just aren’t enough hours in the day.

Another law mandating lying in court:

South Australia is the latest state to endorse the use of preferred gender pronouns in the courtroom, saying it is a “matter of respect” to address parties by their chosen pronouns, and integral to “ensuring public confidence in the proper administration of justice”.

No it isn’t. Other way around. It’s a matter of respect not to lie, and not to order others to lie. People don’t get to “choose” what sex they are, and pronouns are simply grammatical indicators of what sex a third party is. (It didn’t have to be that way. In English first and second person pronouns don’t indicate sex, but third person singular ones do.)

SA follows the lead of Victoria and Queensland as jurisdictions that this year released edicts requiring court attendees to refer to parties by the pronouns they indicate being most comfortable with, such as they/them.

See how tricky pronouns are? Look at that “they” in “the pronouns they indicate” – which “they”?? The attendees, or the parties? Shoving in even more they/thems will produce yet more ambiguities of that kind, quite apart from the fact that it’s ludicrous.

It’s also sneaky of the reporter (or who knows, maybe the editor) to choose they/them for the “such as.” The stumbling block is not so much they/them as “she/her” when the accused is a man. Courts ordering women to call their male rapists or assailants “she/her” is an outrage, so the story reporting it carefully draws a veil over that appalling fact.

“The Supreme Court, District Court, ERD Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court and Coroners Court recognise that the correct pronunciation of names and use of the preferred gender pronoun is a matter of respect and is an important component of ensuring public confidence in the proper administration of justice,” SA Chief Justice Chris Kourakis said in a practice note released on Wednesday.

Nonsense. Calling rapists “she” is not going to ensure public confidence in the proper administration of justice. Rather the opposite, I think you’ll find.

In April, Queensland Supreme Court Chief Justice Helen Bowskill released a similar practice note, recognising “the correct pronunciation of names and use of preferred forms of address is a matter of respect”.

Correct, yes. Lying and incorrect, no.

Ah yes: how the boys talk about women amongst themselves.

Dominic Cummings called the UK’s most senior female civil servant a “cunt” in a misogynistic WhatsApp message sent to Boris Johnson and Lee Cain in August 2020.

Of course he did. What’s the worst foulest evilest thing in the world? The part of women where all humans emerge into life.

He was referring to deputy cabinet secretary Helen MacNamara, who had commissioned a report into poor behaviour within the Cabinet Office.

And he certainly made clear that there was no bad behavior in the Cabinet Office, didn’t he.

The message in full reads: “If I have to come back to Helen’s bullshit with PET [propriety and ethics] designed to waste huge amounts of my time so I can’t spend it on other stuff – I will personally handcuff her and escort her from the building. I don’t care how it is done but that woman must be out of our hair – we cannot keep dealing with this horrific meltdown of the British state while dodging stilettos from that cunt.”

How dare she do her job. How dare she challenge the boys. How dare she have female genitalia.

The inquiry heard yesterday that MacNamara had commissioned a report into the culture at Number 10 in May 2020, which – according to the lead counsel to the inquiry Hugo Keith KC – had painted a picture of “misogyny” and a “macho” culture.

So Dominic Cummings hastened to demonstrate the falsehood of that picture by calling MacNamara a cunt. No macho misogyny there, no sirree.

Speaking after the day’s hearing, the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group said in a statement: “The nastiness, arrogance and misogyny at the heart of government during the pandemic is core to the awful decision making that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths and tore families like ours apart.

“When you see that these figures had such a shocking disregard for each other, you can only imagine the disregard they had for families like mine. In Boris Johnson’s own words his government was an ‘orgy of narcissism’, with Cummings at the heart. That narcissism had deadly consequences.

“It was led by ministers and advisers who thought they could rewrite scientific advice, who thought they knew better than the rest of the world, and ‘appallingly neglected’ the most vulnerable in our society, as Cummings acknowledged today.

“Whilst they drift on to be after dinner speakers, reality TV stars or on to new highly paid jobs, we’re left having to deal with the consequences of their failures for the rest of our lives.”

Oh just blame it on Helen MacNamara.

What, again??

How many of them are there? I suppose the answer is 12, isn’t it.

Originally a comment by Freemage on The face of asexuality.

Like many of the progressive concepts that have gotten warped and misappropriated by the identity fringe groups, ‘microaggressions’ started out as a legitimate issue. It wasn’t just, “This small thing that irritates/offends me”, but rather, “this small thing is meant to remind me that I am viewed as sub-human and can be safely targeted by violence at any time.”

Homosexuals, women and racial minorities all face the latter sort of microaggression on a regular basis, and it does extract a real toll on the persons targeted. Hell, much of the trans-speak I would count as micro-aggressions against women. It’s not that the comments themselves are anything more than childish taunts; it’s that those taunts are meant to remind women that hey, we’re actually male and we’re prepared to use violence on you if you don’t shut up.

Essentially, true micro-aggressions can only be defined by context, as it requires historical, societal oppression to serve as a backdrop for the behavior being discussed. Natch, asexuals don’t in fact have that sort of oppressed history to draw upon. They have a bit of being regarded as weird, and sometimes being asked intrusive questions by rude people, but that’s about the extent of it.

That said, I don’t think there’s a huge contradiction in dressing ‘sexy’ while eschewing sex. I suspect that, if anything, people who are asexual are likely to have an outsider’s view of some aspects of social interaction; as such, she has a strong possibility of knowing precisely how much attention she can draw, and how to monetize that attention. She’s selling out, albeit in a way that plays into some very ugly stereotypes about attractive women.

Does anyone else here watch those spycam in the wild programs? They’re a BBC thing, shown here on PBS redubbed with a US narrator. (Why redubbed? I have no idea.) I always find them highly interesting and also always wonder if they’re any use to actual scientists or just a bit of entertainment for the rest of us. An article in Outside from last year seems to indicate it’s some of each.

The Spy series began 16 years ago when producer and director John Downer became the first filmmaker to capture life among a pride of lions. He did it by shooting from the point of view of a mobile rock, fondly referred to as Bouldercam. Spy Puffer Fish from his BBC One documentary Dolphins: Spy in the Pod, captured iconic footage revealing how dolphins deliberately get high on puffer fish nerve toxins by chewing on them.

This year’s program is the most ambitious the Spy series has taken on, according to Downer. Filming the 8,000 hours of footage for Spy in the Wild took three years and required the team to travel to 21 different countries, often staying within hundreds of feet of the wildlife they were filming day and night…

…

These animatronics are engineered at the intersection of biology, zoology, robotics, and art, to ensure that the spy creatures are as life-like as possible. The team could make the spies move through remote control, and each spy was also equipped with infrared sensors that triggered movement if another animal came near.

Another thing I always wonder is about touch and smell. They may look convincing but how can they smell normal to animals? How can they feel right?

Producer Matthew Gordon, a trained primatologist, worked with Spy Langur in the field. More than filmmakers, the producers are “animal people,” says producer Rob Pilley—biologists, ecologists, and zoologists.

…

The team never underestimates animals’ ability to distinguish real wildlife from spy wildlife, so design is meticulous. On spies with fur, like the langur pictured, a synthetic coat is punched hair-by-hair into the silicone frame. Out in the field, the team will go so far as to apply Vaseline to the creature’s eyes and nose to give them a realistic luster.

Spy Meerkat was the first to be created for the series. Meerkats are very territorial, so those that smell like outsiders are immediately unwelcome. Producers had to rub droppings collected from their chosen clan onto the spy in order to have any chance at success.

Ah! That’s what I was wondering. There’s a bit in the one I saw yesterday evening where a beaver sniffs a spycam beaver but the narrator doesn’t say anything like “spycam beaver was of course well saturated with waterproof beaver scent before release.”

Sometimes an animal would anoint their own smell onto the remote camera devices, as in the case of the Arctic wolves. The wolves would urinate and roll on the equipment, happily incorporating it into their territory, much to the delight of producer Philip Dalton. No pheromones were used during filming, but the spies often became masked in the smell of their environment as they became covered in dirt, mud, and dust.

The way elephant keepers smell strongly of elephant within seconds of starting the day. Why? Because those trunks go all over you first thing, nostrils first.

This new frontier of study has gained considerable support among scientists like anthropologist Jill Pruetz, who was shown footage of a spy chimpanzee in Senegal. She was astounded at seeing the apes so close. When researching in the field, Pruetz normally shadows the apes at a minimum distance of 20 meters away to avoid affecting their behavior by the transmission of pathogens. She felt that the wide-angle perspective of the remote cameras in the heart of the troop was valuable, as she had never seen the chimps looking quite so human before.

Behind the program is a big team of trackers and field guides, like Birutė Galdikas, who studies orangutans in Borneo and whose local knowledge proves useful when looking for certains types of behavior. Producers also consulted with scientists before deploying the spy into the wild to maximize success.

That’s the kind of thing I’ve been wondering about. Interesting.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on The infinitude of girls.

But…if you want to ignore biology all together, what are you? A biology denialist. I’m concerned about how many scientists (yes, P.Z., I’m looking at you) have entered this realm where fantasy is reality and reality is bigoted.

I seem to recall a post or two from regular commenters here who asked PZ how he knew the gender identities of the spiders he was studying with enough certainty to be able to call them “he” or “she,” and getting banned for it. Surely it’s not to much to ask for a little bit of clarity and consistency in one’s beliefs and assertions, unless you don’t have any to offer. If he could explain it, he would do so. He could answer questions. He could change minds and win them to his cause. Wouldn’t this be the response of someone defending an actual human rights or social justice situation? But no, his response is the orthodox one of “NO DEBATE” and the ban hammer. In the old days, he relished the visits by theists because it gave him (and the Horde) “chew toys” to practice their arguments against, and theist counterarguments and talking points to dismantle. Perhaps his ire is so strong because he knows the contradiction at the heart of his “trans” stance and dislikes having it shown up and pointed out, accusing those doing so of bigotry and JAQing off. Theists are fair game, but he’s not supposed to be the chew toy.

It’s amazing that the man who made such a big show of “desecrating” a “consecrated” host, and ridiculing the idea of some sort of invisible, ineffable, Holy entity taking up residence within the confines of a baked good after a priest’s muttering of some magic words (while reviewing the long history of abuse and worse committed by the Church against any who denied the True Presence of Christ in the wafers, or who desecrated them in any way) has come to believe in the existence of an invisible, ineffable Holy entity living in the confines of a “wrong” body with the invocation of some magic words, while joining in on the abuse and worse committed by trans activists against any, especially women*, who deny the presence of a “gender identity” in these Special People (or in anybody for that matter). And that this Holy Being is primary and foundational as opposed to the accidental, flawed husk of the physical body containing it, and that the latter should be cut, drugged and sacrificed to in service to supposed needs and demands of the former. He’s debunked one religious belief while accepting another with open arms and highly compartmentalized mind.

*Ironic given his vocal defence of the woman in the Shermer sexual assault allegations. Where did that PZ Myers go? It seems the “women” he’s most keen on defending now are the ones who have (and are) dicks.

Wut?

Asexual people aren’t protected by the Equality Act.

Meaning…what? That the Equality Act doesn’t mention asexual people? But it can’t mention every [adjective] person on the planet, much less every [non-adjective] person on the planet. Just think – people who don’t love apples, people who don’t love bananas, people who don’t love greengages…then all the fruits, then all the vegetables, then all the pastries, then all the types of food, then all the examples of all the categories, and so on ad infinitum.

And why would asexuality be included anyway?

We aren’t protected by hate crime laws. And we should be.

Why? When do people persecute or shun or exclude asexual people? When and how do people even know which people are asexual in order to shun or exclude them? What hate crimes are committed against asexual people? What are the stats? Who is collecting them? Where are they published?

We aren’t included in the ban on conversion therapy.

Why would they be? Who tries to send “asexual” people to conversion therapy?

Also…to be crude about it…if you’re an asexual woman what’s with the tits? What’s the goal in flashing them? I know, I know, the Correct view is that she’s just dressing how she enjoys dressing, it’s nothing to do with wanting to attract sexual attention, but I don’t buy it.

Persecution envy is not a good look.

There is “Karen” Jones for example.

In 2001, a man named Mark Jones (a.k.a: Karen Jones/Lawson) was jailed after the body of his sexual partner was found in their Manchester home. Jones had allegedly murdered the man after he refused to pay for Jones’ nail polish and transgender surgeries, but, due to the advanced stage of decomposition in the body, he was only able to be convicted of manslaughter. The decomposition hindered the ability for coroners to ascertain a proper cause of death, and thus throttled the prosecution.

Jones was sentenced to 5 years, but was released just one year later on license in 2002. Less than a week after getting out of prison, Jones sexually assaulted a female clerk at a store which sold clothing for transsexual men, gagging the woman’s mouth with a lemon and trying to rape her. He was unable to do so only because he was incapable of maintaining an erection. Jones was re-apprehended and sentenced to life in prison.

One year in prison for killing someone, then assaults a woman days after getting out.

At the time, Jones claimed the attempted rape was a “cry for help” so he could go back to prison and receive a sex change on the public dime. While imprisoned, Jones received free laser hair removal, hormone replacement therapy, and a gender recognition certificate.

Jones ultimately demanded transfer to a women’s prison, but his male genitals made the move impossible at the time. Likewise, he was denied a vagina construction because he was housed in the male estate. Jones brought a judicial review in 2009, and consideration of the double-bind situation would become the legal premise for the decisive ruling which would later enable fully “intact” men to seek transfer to women’s prisons.

Chip chip chip chip SMASH – women have no rights left.

“The argument that Jones would be hard to manage in a women’s prison was dismissed on the grounds that Jones would pose still greater difficulties if thwarted, due to what the consultant forensic psychologist described as ‘narcissistic, compulsive, aggressive, violent and sadistic elements’ in his personality.” Biggs writes on page 6 of the paper…

Wait wait wait wait – WHAT??? This man is narcissistic, compulsive, aggressive, violent and sadistic therefore let’s transfer him to a women’s prison???

Jones was eventually transferred to a women’s institution and recieved genital surgery. Shortly after, he was released from prison once again as a parole board decided a life sentence for his crimes wasn’t appropriate.

In 2018, Jones was invited to the House of Lords to speak on the rights of transgender criminals.

In 2023 the law said women may not exclude men from our public meetings.

The dangerous confusion.

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH

A campaign group has lost its appeal against a legal judgement relating to gender balance on public boards.

The Court of Session has ruled trans women with a gender recognition certificate do count when ensuring females take up half the posts.

So boards can be 100% men as long as 50% of them say they are women. HahahahaHA women back to the 19th century for YOU.

It’s utterly disgusting.

Victor Madrigal in all his diversity.

The repeated phrase is “girls in all of their diversity.”

It’s bio-essentialism to say elephants are not ostriches. It’s bio-essentialism to say whales are not lobsters. It’s bio-essentialism to say daffodils are not sequoias. It’s bio-essentialism to say potatoes are not grapes.

I begin to detect a pattern here.

We need to know the differences between things. It’s necessary for our enjoyment but also for our survival. Fire is not snow and it’s not like snow – if you touch it it will hurt worse than you can imagine. It’s important to know that. Imagination and fantasy and pretending are good things in their way and in their place, but in other ways and places we need to get our facts right.

Do we need to know which people are women and which are men? Ever? Often? Always?

Replies to this are harsh.

UN Human Rights High Commissioner issues a slimy manipulative statement pretending to defend women’s rights while actually stamping on them.

Expressing grave concern about structural barriers to sport faced by women and girls in all of their diversity, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and other gender diverse persons and intersex persons, a group of UN experts* today issued a policy position urging States and other stakeholders to respect the right of all to participate in cultural life through sports and games and to tackle discrimination against, and enforcement of equal treatment of all athletes, especially women and girls in all their diversity, LGBT and intersex persons.

This of course means the opposite of what it appears to mean. It doesn’t mean women and girls in all of their diversity, it means women and girls plus men and boys who claim to be women and girls. It’s that grotesquely twisted.

They also urged States to review standards of inclusion of intersex and trans persons to ensure compliance with human rights obligations and the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

In other words the bit about women at the beginning was just trickery. The real point is to destroy women’s sports for the sake of men who are willing to call themselves women in order to get medals and prizes they would otherwise have no hope of getting.

The experts also expressed concern at attempts to use the male-female categorisation in sport to argue for the exclusion of trans women and women with intersex variations from female categories, and the recent intensification and instrumentalisation of this debate, which has led to the adoption of restrictive measures in law and public policy by State institutions and sporting bodies alike.

In other words they expressed concern at attempts to keep women’s sports for women.

“Categoric exclusions of trans and intersex women from women’s sports is a prima facie violation of human rights obligations under the principle of non-discrimination, and their right to privacy,” the experts said.

LIKE HELL IT IS. The violation of human rights obligations is letting men infiltrate women’s sports.

“We are also deeply worried by the accompanying, oftentimes offensive, and even hateful targeting of trans and intersex persons in social media and public discourse, especially as it links to their sense of self and bodily autonomy, as those actions impact their physical and mental integrity,” they said.

What about women? What about women? What about women, you absolute scumbags? Why are you not deeply worried about women and their sense of self and bodily autonomy and physical and mental integrity????

When skepticism goes meta:

Two years ago, the star researcher Dan Ariely, a behavioral scientist, fell into the spotlight when a trio of data sleuths exposed problems with the numbers supporting a headline-making 2012 study he helped write. The study found people were less likely to lie on a form if they signed an honesty statement at the top, as opposed to the bottom.

On the blog Data Colada, the sleuths examined one of three experiments in the paper, which claimed to use data from an insurance company. Amid the fallout from their findings, Ariely claimed that the company “collected, entered, merged, and anonymized” the data before sending it to him. That company, The Hartford, said back then that it could not locate the data.

But now they’ve located the data.

The Hartford told NPR on Friday that they found the data they contributed but discovered that after they sent it, the data was manipulated to support the findings of the study, which was retracted in 2021. The company also found differences in font between the data they sent and what shows up in the study, not to mention altogether different numbers: some inflated, some randomized.

They also say Ariely didn’t get permission to publish the data.

The experiment involving the insurance company isn’t the only one with problems. Earlier this year, Francesca Gino, a Harvard Business School professor who’s also an author on the paper, was placed on administrative leave. Later, the blog Data Colada found problems in three papers Gino helped write, which are being retracted.

Could somebody please check the “data” on gender idenniny?

It’s kind of like Citizen Kane but without any Orson Welles. The Washington Post lines up the players:

Trump’s four-year presidency — and the tumultuous period of investigations and criminal and civil litigation since he left office — have reshaped much of the Trump family’s wealth, business and dynamics with one another, according to court filings, financial records, emails and interviews with people close to the family.

Ivanka Trump, once considered by Trump’s business partners to be the most likely of his children to take over the Trump Organization, has largely stepped away from the limelight of both business and politics, at times telling others she was stung by the scrutiny she received in Washington…

Yeah gee why would anyone scrutinize her? Just because she’s as corrupt as her revolting daddy and was using his presidency as a tool for Grabbing More Money?? It’s so unfair.

The relationships between Trump and his three eldest children are likely to be on display over the next two weeks, as Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka are all scheduled to take the witness stand in the civil fraud trial in New York over the Trump Organization’s business practices. Donald Jr., 45, is up first, scheduled to appear on Wednesday; Eric Trump, 39, is scheduled to appear the following day, and Ivanka Trump, 42, on Nov. 8.

The burning question is just how much they will perjure themselves.

Though he is not required to attend, Trump has shown up to court for seven days of the proceedings since they began in early October, even as some advisers have argued for him to stay away. He has told advisers he wants to attend because his children’s inheritance and his family’s brand are on the line. Several people close to him described him as livid about the trial.“Everything about it makes him angry — including that it’s hurting his children,” said one adviser, who like several others spoke on the condition of anonymity to address the family dynamics.

“The trial strikes at his identity and the family. His kids, what he’s been able to build over years and years and years,” said David Urban, a longtime adviser.

What he’s been able to build over years and years and years via fraud and lies and more fraud.

Now he’s profiteering off his ex-presidenthood.

He reported earning about $14.8 million in paid speeches in 2022 and 2023, collecting $250,000 from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican group, and about $2.3 million for four speeches from the American Freedom Tour, a group that staged for-profit Trump rallies. He made $2 million, the disclosure shows, giving two speeches to the Universal Peace Federation, a branch of the Unification Church.

Keep that up and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

Originally a comment by Athel Cornish-Bowden on It is important to distinguish.

We should never forget the Deir Yassin massacre carried out by Irgun terrorists led by Menachem Begin, who later founded Likud, the current party of government, which continues the ideas of Irgun with less overt violence. Likud is largely responsible for the humiliations and hardships that Palestinians suffer every day, starting with the continuing invasion of the West Bank. If some Palestinians feel pushed into retaliating in horrific ways then we still need to ask who is ultimately to blame. A few years ago we had a colleague older than us — well into her 70s and maybe 80s — who was involved in non-violent support of Palestine. She and a group of like-minded people went to the Gaza Strip to see for herself how the the people were living. She had of course to go through Israel to get there and encountered extremely hostile officials who tried to stop her, and considered it quite normal to knock down an elderly woman whose opinions were not ones they approved of.

At the same time not all Israelis are like that. I have quite a few Israeli colleagues and friends, of whom few, if any, would contemplate voting for Likud, I guess. Some were quite vocal about criticizing the colonization of the West Bank when I went to a meeting in Beer Sheba (once a predominantly Christian and Muslim city, but not now) in 2013. The queue for checking in at the airport of Marseilles was interesting. The people going to Tel Aviv were all mixed up with people going to Constantine (Algeria), thus almost half Jewish and half Muslim (plus a few oddities like me). I didn’t detect any sort of hostility between the two groups: it seemed perfectly possible for Jews and Muslims to meet and chat on a personal level without any displays of antipathy.

If one is brought up as a Christian one almost automatically assumes that the Christians are the good guys when they’re involved in a dispute with non-Christians (for example in the current hostility between Armenia and Azerbaijan), but they certainly weren’t the good guys during the Lebanese civil war or during the break-up of Yugoslavia. Everything is more complicated than one may want to think.