Scottov retweeted
For the many UK politicians @UKLabour and journalists @BBC who don't know anything about UK trade, here are the highlights:
1. The UK is now predominantly a service exporter. 57% of UK exports are services, which are not affected by EU 'red tape'.
2. UK goods exports have dropped from almost 70% of our total exports in 1997 to just 43% in 2025. This trend began long before Brexit and is tied to Net Zero mandates, high UK energy prices, and EV mandates.
3. Machinery and transport goods, such as cars and aircraft parts, are 42% of all UK goods exports. This is by far the UK's largest export sector, although it is also falling. It was 50% of UK exports in 2000. But if the UK joins the EU's CBAM, companies in this sector will see their imported material costs rise, making their exports even less competitive.
4. Chemicals are the UK's second-largest export sector. They account for 19% of UK goods exports, but this share is shrinking due to UK and EU energy costs and Net Zero regulations. These will increase if the UK joins the EU ETS.
5. Miscellaneous Manufactures account for 11% of UK goods exports. This is still the UK's third-largest export sector, even though it includes many goods the UK no longer makes because of our high Carbon taxes, which will increase if the UK signs up to the EU's even higher ETS on November 20th.
6. Fuels account for 9% of UK exports. This is still the UK's 4th largest goods export sector, even though the current and previous governments are/were trying to destroy it with bans on new exploration and ultra-high taxes.
7. Material Manufactures account for 8% of UK goods exports. This sector includes iron, steel, aluminium, ceramics, and glass manufacturing - industries that have gone, or are going, out of business in the UK because of high UK energy costs, which will rise if the UK joins the EU ETS.
8. These five sectors make up almost 90% of UK exports. The other 5 industry sectors are insignificant. But the government and our journalists think the UK is New Zealand and that the only goods we export are food and live animals to the EU. We don't! UK food and live animal exports to the EU were just 1.3% of the UK's total exports.
9. The government is about to sacrifice all of the export industries listed above to slightly reduce the IMPORT costs of a handful of Supermarkets, at least two of which are privately owned German companies.
These savings will not be passed on to UK shoppers because the government has also increased wages again, and supermarket energy costs will increase if we join the EU's ETS.
10. UK exports of food and live animals will not increase because we are paying farmers to not produce them, this has nothing to do with EU red tape. Instead we are paying farmers to plant trees and wildflowers or plaster their farmland with solar panels. (54% of UK electricity is coming from gas today, 12% from solar and 3% from wind.)
11. Write to your MP and tell him to #StoptheReset.
If you don't stop this, don't complain when all of our goods export industries have closed because of EU higher carbon taxes, EU higher carbon import tariffs, and the cost of complying with the EU's new packaging and process regulations.
Scottov retweeted
NAZA, le documentaire de Yuval Abraham et Rachel Szor produit par The Guardian, a reçu le Prix spécial du jury à Venise et vingt-cinq minutes d’ovation. Il sort en France depuis le 12 octobre. Sa thèse tient en un mot : génocide.
J’ai regardé ce film en juriste. Vingt-quatre témoins sans visage, sans grade, sans rien. Aucune frappe datée, aucune cible nommée, aucun document. Un chiffre, 500 morts civils anticipés pour une cible, lancé par une seule voix et démenti catégoriquement par l’armée. Des sous-titres qui ajoutent aux témoins ce qu’ils ne disent pas. Pas un juriste à l’écran, pas une règle citée, pas un mot sur le Hamas.
Surtout, le film porte dans son titre la réfutation de sa thèse. Nezek agavi, dommage collatéral, désigne l’estimation préalable des pertes civiles d’une attaque dirigée contre un objectif militaire. C’est l’article 57 du Protocole additionnel I.
Une armée qui compte les civils avant de frapper, qui avertit, qui évacue, puis qui compte ceux qui restent, ne décrit pas une entreprise d’extermination. Elle décrit un processus de ciblage, que l’on peut critiquer frappe par frappe, mais qui exclut la seule déduction raisonnable d’une intention de détruire un peuple, selon le critère fixé par la Cour internationale de Justice.
Distinction, proportionnalité, précautions, outils d’aide à la décision, intention génocidaire : j’ai repris chaque point avec les textes et la jurisprudence, de la CIJ au TPIY, de la Cour suprême d’Israël à la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme.
En voulant prouver un génocide, « NAZA » filme le contraire. sarahscialom.substack.com/p/…
Scottov retweeted
Liberals Prepare For Anniversary Of October 8, The Day Israel Attacked Gaza For No Reason buff.ly/gXYIrmJ
Scottov retweeted
"It's always been one of the more ludicrous claims of the age, that growth could be rekindled by throwing our lot in with the slowest-growing group of economies on the planet"
"It doesn't pass logic, much less economics"
-- Andrew Neil in the Daily Mail this morning.
Scottov retweeted
A new peer-reviewed study by @Fifty_Global analyzed 1,378 articles containing the word “Gaza” from CNN, BBC, NYT, The Guardian, WaPo, ABC, Reuters, and AP. The findings are wild:
🔸 Hamas Health Ministry figures appeared in 100% of the outlets’ casualty reporting. Israeli casualty estimates appeared in just 3%.
🔸 Israeli estimates of Hamas fighters killed were almost nonexistent. The New York Times never cited them. CNN and The Guardian did so in roughly 1% of articles. AP and ABC were highest at around 7–8%.
🔸 The Gaza Health Ministry’s headline death toll does not distinguish civilians from combatants. Yet only around 15% of articles actually told readers that.
🔸 AP and the Washington Post did better, noting this limitation in roughly 40–43% of relevant articles.
🔸 The skepticism was also wildly uneven. The BBC questioned Israeli figures in 43% of relevant cases, but Hamas Health Ministry figures in 0%.
🔸 The Washington Post questioned Israeli figures 71% of the time, compared with just 1% for Hamas Health Ministry figures.
We're all well aware of the insane anti-Israel bias in the media. But it's always nice to have empirical evidence backing it up
Scottov retweeted
It’s the reality of history that most people never hear. And if you hear Pres Clinton describe how Arafat walked away from 97% of what he said he wanted b/c as Clinton said “it was never about a Palestinian state; it was about killing Jews.”
On this day—September 13, 1993
Washington got the photograph it had been waiting for. Arafat on the lawn. Israel recognized the PLO. The PLO promised to drop terrorism and seek peace.
Arafat was signing a hudna: a pause to collect land, power, control, guns, money, and legitimacy. Then, he could hit harder. He admitted it in Arabic. At a Johannesburg mosque on May 10, 1994, Arafat told worshippers in Arabic that Oslo was a “tactical step.” The word he used was “Hudaybiyyah,” which was the truce Muhammad made and then broke in order to take Mecca. Then Arafat called for jihad to take Jerusalem.
The same week as the handshake, Jews were already being attacked in Gaza. On October 29, Arafat was caught red-handed. Three men from his own Fatah group grabbed Chaim Mizrahi buying eggs outside Ramallah, stabbed him, stuffed him in the trunk, and burned the car.
Then buses full of Israeli civilians started blowing up across the country. Palestinian terrorist groups turned getting on a bus into Russian roulette.
In 2000, everything became clear. Arafat was offered what he claimed in English he wanted: a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. He walked. His widow later said he had already chosen to launch the Second Intifada and sent the family out of the country so he could start it.
Oslo handed Arafat a government, a police force, international legitimacy, and billions of dollars. The terrorism never stopped. It was just given a ministry.
Scottov retweeted
BREAKING: More than 5,000 leaders across entertainment, academia, and politics have signed a statement, outright rejecting the “Genocide” accusation against Israel.
People are starting to realize that they were lied to nonstop for nearly three years.
Scottov retweeted
Natasha Hausdorff @HausdorffMedia, @UKLFI CT Legal Director, refutes misrepresentations by @Ed_Miliband on which new UK policy sanctioning Israel is based. Interview by @iancollinsuk on @TalkTV: youtube.com/watch?v=hh1Fzlc_…
Scottov retweeted
קמפיין הפלת נתניהו: איש פת"ח הפך ל"מקור אמין" - והתקשורת הישראלית מתמסרת לפייק | המונולוג של יערה זרד
#חמש
@YaaraZered
Scottov retweeted
In his keynote speech at @HolocaustUK annual fundraiser @simon_schama says:”We will not have our job done until anybody uttering the notion that Israel is committing genocide is made to be ashamed for doing so.”
Scottov retweeted
The problem is not people being uneducated.
The problem is that people are educated just enough to believe what they have been taught, and not educated enough to question anything from what they have been taught.
Scottov retweeted
A new Substack article by @Cartrarian provides very convincing evidence that Jason Arday never had autism. The article shows that:
➡️Arday never mentioned he had autism until 2018. Even in his 2015 dissertation, he merely says he had "learning difficulties."
➡️The diagnostic history Arday reported was contradictory and anachronistic. Some of the labels he claims he had as a child were rare or nonexistent at the time. Other diagnoses he claims to have had are contradictory and cannot be present in the same person.
➡️Arday also contradicted himself in discussing when he learned about his diagnosis. Sometimes he says he knew at age 3, but he also claimed to have not been told until his mid-30s.
➡️Arday didn't seem to understand what autism is. Sometimes he said it's a "hybrid" diagnosis, and at other times Arday said it was a type of other disabilities. Hhe even said it was "a kind of intellectual disability," which is absurdly wrong.
This article exposes (and refutes) new lies from Arday that were previously unnoticed (or perhaps less publicized):
➡️Arday claimed to have been in a longitudinal study that does not exist.
➡️Arday said he attended a special needs school, but it is now documented fact that he attended the mainstream Heathbrook Primary School.
➡️New discrepancies in Arday's vita.
It's a long read, but that's because Arday told a lot of lies, and Cartrarian is careful to document and debunk them. It's definitely worth reading.
cartrarian.substack.com/p/ja…
Scottov retweeted
People say Stalin murdered at least 20 million people, but little allowance is made for Stalin's mental health during this period.
Stalin would likely have experienced difficulty in accessing counselling, due to his status as dictator of the USSR, and effective antidepressants were simply not available at the time.
Think before you post.
Scottov retweeted
Book by Adrian Reland (1676-1718) about Palestine, published in Utrecht in 1714:
* Most of the population is Jews, almost everyone else is Christians, very few Muslims, mostly Bedouins.
* In Nazareth, the capital of Galilee, lived approximately 700 people - all Christians. In Jerusalem there are about 5,000 people, almost all Jews and a few Christians.
* In 1695, everyone knew that the origin of the country was Jewish.
* There is not a single settlement in Palestine that has Arabic roots in its name. Most settlements have Jewish originals, and in some cases Greek or Roman Latin.
* About 550 people lived in Gaza, half of them Jews and half Christians.
The book completely debunks theories about "Palestinian traditions", "Palestinian people" and leaves almost no link between the land and the Arabs who even stole the land's Latin name (Palestine) and took it for themselves.
Scottov retweeted
Thread. I think it's remarkable, in the context of what happened here and how much of it was the *direct result* of censorship, that people are trying to frame journalists as the central villain here and to call for more government control of media. "Myopic' doesn't come close.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Scottov retweeted
Jason Arday is literally one of the most selfish people to ever exist
Rather than simply own up to his lies, he cruelly widowed his wife and abandoned his two children in a final act of pure selfishness designed to make himself look like a martyr
It's really crazy that people see anything sympathetic in him whatsoever
All the grifters who enabled him at the University of Cambridge need to be investigated
Scottov retweeted
Hi @DovWaxman, I'm extremely thankful that you took the time to respond to this because when you first made the accusation I tried to engage in a good faith conversation with you and even privately messaged you.
Let's discuss this, shall we? A blood libel is something that is libelous because it is objectively false and meant to cause harm to the Jews, often physical harm. The genocide accusation is objectively false if you understand what the requirements for genocide actually are (we will get to those and why they are inapplicable here and why the circular reasoning of "academics" is harmful), and it has caused actual harm to Jews. In fact, I can think of at least two people murdered because of the accusation in Washington, D.C., another in Boulder, a synagogue attack in Michigan, another on Yom Kippur in the UK, for example.
Because this is libelous because it is objectively false, and is being done to spin up violence and physical harm against Jews, it is a blood libel. And serious interlocutor on this would be willing to admit that.
Now you said: "Calling the accusation that Israel committed the crime of genocide in Gaza a "blood libel" implies that there is no basis whatsoever for this accusation, no evidence at all to support it, and no reason for anyone to make it besides animus against Jews."
This is factually true. There is no basis whatsoever supported by the evidence to support it.
You then said: "In reality, numerous human rights groups, including a leading Israeli human rights group, have compiled detailed reports substantiating this accusation, and numerous highly respected experts on genocide have also made this accusation."
So, here's one of the numerous human rights groups (Amnesty International's) own words (page 101 of their report) on the accusation and the legal conclusion: "However, its [the ICJ] rulings on inferring intent can be read extremely narrowly, in a manner that would potentially preclude a state from having genocidal intent alongside one or more additional motives or goals in relation to the conduct of its military operations."
Now, here's the Israeli NGO you cite (B'tselem) on page 13 of their report titled "Our Genocide": This report relies on the legal definition of genocide as outlined in the UN Convention, but adopts a broader analytical framework, drawing on Raphael Lemkin's original conception as well as historical and sociological research, when examining the process that led to the genocide in Gaza and Israel's genocidal acts in the Strip."
In the UN Commission of Inquiry report that made the initial accusation of genocide they brought up Hamas' tunnel infrastructure one time, and it happened to neglect to mention that the tunnel that they specifically discuss was the tunnel that Mohammed Sinwar was killed in. This fails the legal test (we're about to get to those tests, hang with me here), and causes doubt was to the intent being genocide (again legal test coming).
So, what does the law say is required to determine genocide? It says that the accused must commit one of the five acts of genocide with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.
"Act with the intent to destroy" denotes the intent requirement we are looking for, known as dolus specialis (specific intent). It requires that the accused act with the specific intent to destroy a protected group because of their membership in the group, in whole or in part.
To make the determination of inferring intent requires that it be the only reasonable inference available on the totality of the evidence (here's why Amnesty's report fails and why they say it would PRECLUDE a finding of genocide). See: Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) para. 373: “The dolus specialis, the specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part, has to be convincingly shown by reference to particular circumstances, unless a general plan to that end can be convincingly demonstrated to exist; and for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be that it could only point (emphasis added) to the existence of such intent.” This is known as the ONLY reasonable inference test and requires that there be no other reasonable explanation for the harm or conduct, such as the existence of tunnel infrastructure, human shielding, diversion of aid, all things that we know Hamas has done.
Now, let's look at the ICTY's test from the Tolimir decision (2012) para. 745: "Indications of such intent are rarely overt, however, and thus it is permissible to infer the existence of genocidal intent based on “all of the evidence, taken together”, as long as this inference is “the only reasonable [one] available on the evidence”. Factors relevant to this analysis may include the general context, the perpetration of other culpable acts systematically directed against the same group, the scale of atrocities, the systematic targeting of victims on account of their membership in a particular group, or the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts. The existence of a plan or policy, a perpetrator’s display of his intent through public speeches or meetings with others may also support an inference that the perpetrator had formed the requisite specific intent." Same test as above.
Meaning, to establish intent requires that there be no other plausible explanation for the harm. Not a single one of those human rights groups, or claimed experts has actually applied this test. One must ask why that is if they are "experts" on the law of genocide? This is besides the fact that many are not actually experts on it and are instead historians, not legal scholars.
The reason they don't apply it, Prof. Waxman, is because they know it would defeat the analysis that they are pushing and they know to be not founded in objectivity.
This is strike one for it being a blood libel.
Now, let's do the rest of this analysis and demonstrate this even further with the language from the text of "in whole or in part." In part destruction requires a substantial portion of the population be destroyed, relative to the whole, within the area of control, to threaten the very existence of the group.
To understand this requires us to look again at the ICTY chambers but this time in the Krstic decision, which will be quite a few paragraphs below:
Para. 8: "It is well established that where a conviction for genocide relies on the intent to destroy a protected group “in part,” the part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole."
Para. 9: "In Kayishema, the Trial Chamber concluded, after having canvassed the authorities interpreting the Genocide Convention, that the term “‘in part’ requires the intention to destroy a considerable number of individuals who are part of the group.” This definition was accepted and refined by the Trial Chambers in Bagilishema and Semanza, which stated that the intent to destroy must be, at least, an intent to destroy a substantial part of the group."
Para. 10: "This interpretation is supported by scholarly opinion. The early commentators on the Genocide Convention emphasized that the term “in part” contains a substantiality requirement. Raphael Lemkin, a prominent international criminal lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and was instrumental in the drafting of the Genocide Convention, addressed the issue during the 1950 debate in the United States Senate on the ratification of the Convention. Lemkin explained that “the destruction in part must be of a substantial nature so as to affect the entirety.” He further suggested that the Senate clarify, in a statement of understanding to accompany the ratification, that “the Convention applies only to actions undertaken on a mass scale.” Another noted early commentator, Nehemiah Robinson, echoed this view, explaining that a perpetrator of genocide must possess the intent to destroy a substantial number of individuals constituting the targeted group. In discussing this requirement, Robinson stressed, as did Lemkin, that “the act must be directed toward the destruction of a group,” this formulation being the aim of the Convention.
Para. 11: "The International Law Commission, charged by the UN General Assembly with the drafting of a comprehensive code of crimes prohibited by international law, stated that “the crime of genocide by its very nature requires the intention to destroy at least a substantial part of a particular group.”
Para. 12: "The determination of when the targeted part is substantial enough to meet this requirement may involve a number of considerations. The numeric size of the targeted part of the group is the necessary and important starting point, though not in all cases the ending point of the inquiry. The number of individuals targeted should be evaluated not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to the overall size of the entire group. In addition to the numeric size of the targeted portion, its prominence within the group can be a useful consideration. If a specific part of the group is emblematic of the overall group, or is essential to its survival, that may support a finding that the part qualifies as substantial within the meaning of Article 4."
Relevant is the Sikirica Trial Chamber (2001) decision para. 72: "For the purpose of determining the number of victims within the terms of Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c), one is, therefore, left with a number of approximately 1000-1400 Muslims out of a total of 49,351 in the Prijedor municipality. This would represent between 2% and 2.8% of the Muslims in the Prijedor municipality and would hardly qualify as a “reasonably substantial” part of the Bosnian Muslim group in Prijedor. It also needs to be borne in mind that not all the detainees at Keraterm were Muslims. (This demonstrates that about 3% is not considered substantial enough to constitute "in part" destruction).
So, we can discuss this now. When Amnesty made their accusation about 43,000 people (still a lot) had reportedly been killed. At the time it was estimated that number included about 20,000 combatants. In Gaza that would have constituted about 1.9% of the pre-war population; and under the totality of control: 0.78% of the Palestinian population. Amnesty's argument included both Gaza and the West Bank but hinged on Israel trying to destroy the Palestinians in whole in Gaza and thus in part of all of what would be considered Palestine. This argument falls apart on its face.
B'tselem's report never addresses this issue, nor does the UN COI or any other accuser, why would that be?
Today the destruction of the Palestinian population in Gaza is about 73,000 out of the 2,230,000 pre-war population. That's about 3.28% of the pre-war population (and this does not account for live births which we also know have outpaced deaths per the Palestinian MoH). So, we can look towards the decision in Sikirica and see a similar death rate in which the ICTY chamber determined that it was not substantial enough to constitute genocide.
This is important because we are now almost three years into this war and we can make a further comparative analysis on the inference of intent. In Srebrenica it was about 20-30% of the population destroyed in about 3 days (all males, which was determined to make it substantial because of the patrilineal society and difficulty in procreation). In Rwanda it was 80% (800,000+) in 100 days.
Today is day 1,036 of the war in Gaza and the population has seen 3.28% destruction not accounting for live births. If Israel was intending the in part destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza, it has not gotten to the point where it would be substantial enough to demonstrate the intent to do so, or the act to do so (more on this in a second).
This informs us that the substantiality requirement for genocide is also missing and any objective analysis would find that there is no genocidal actus reus or mens rea.
So we now have two parts of the analysis demonstrating that it is unlikely that the tests can be sustained to make a finding of genocide. This gives us strike two on it being a blood libel because a serious accusation would know this requirement and work to sustain it. They didn't and the only reason they didn't is because they know it would defeat their predetermined conclusion.
Finally, to commit genocide you must do all of the above and then act with the knowledge and predetermination to further that intent. This brings us the dolus generalis requirement. This requires, as in the preceding sentence, that the accused act with the intent to destroy the group, and you do so with the knowledge of committing the act for that purpose.
What's fascinating is that not a single accuser has done this. They make assumptions but don't test the other plausible explanations for that harm. For example, the existence of Hamas weaponizing healthcare infrastructure causes such facilities to lose their protections under the law (GC IV 19), the diversion of aid in a manner that materially benefits a belligerent and is harmful to the other belligerent permits the ending of aid (GC IV 23), the use of human shielding does not immunize those locations from being attacked (GC IV 28 & API 51(7)), the existence of hostages in certain areas permits expressly the ability to conduct war in that area (GC IV 34). If these things are true, and we know that they are true, then the harm cannot be done with the furtherance of genocidal intent. And thus, it cannot be genocide as there are other reasonable explanations for the harm.
Again, not a single accuser assesses this. Why? The only reasonable inference for this would be that they know that the determination would fail and that their predetermined conclusion would likewise fail.
This is strike three on it being a blood libel because they know that they are misrepresenting the law and jurisprudence, Amnesty and B'tselem expressly tell us this. Yet, they do it anyways. Why?
And with three strikes, they're out, they know what they are doing is libelous and false. And we know that it has caused serious and irreparable harm to people (because it has killed them). Thus, this is a blood libel.
Another substantive issue here is that when we do this, and we permit these groups and people to get away with what they are doing to degrade the Genocide Convention just so they can accuse Israel of genocide, it causes more harm to the Palestinians in Gaza. Ultimately, the goal should be to stop the harm that's happening to innocent people, all innocent people.
Hamas is culpable for that harm and by perpetuating the blood libel of genocide you negate the agency that they must have for their actions.
We know that Hamas is using human shielding, we know that Hamas has used children in combat (I just watched a child testify to this yesterday), we know that they have diverted aid, we know that they have tortured Palestinians, we know that they have committed numerous atrocities against them and if we conclude that genocide has happened in Gaza, it means that there is no other reasonable explanation for that harm, which allows Hamas to continue to get away with harming innocent Palestinians.
That's morally abhorrent, and legally unconscionable.
So, back to this in where you said: "Calling the accusation that Israel committed the crime of genocide in Gaza a "blood libel" implies that there is no basis whatsoever for this accusation, no evidence at all to support it, and no reason for anyone to make it besides animus against Jews."
Yes, this is absolutely true, as demonstrated here on every element of the crime of genocide. It is being done to perpetuate an animus against the sole Jewish state because it is the Jewish state. There is absolutely NO evidence to support the claim.
We should not let people change the jurisprudence to find Israel committed genocide as a means to perpetuate harm against Jews. And that's what you have done by allowing them to use an appeal to authority for something that they are not actually authorities on.
As a side note, you should ask Omer Bartov about his talk at Brown University in which he admitted that it's not genocide and didn't care.
Scottov retweeted
Muslims love to brag about the golden age of science,
Al-Khwarizmi invented algebra, Ibn Sina medicine, Al-Razi chemistry.
None of them were Arab. All three were Persians from lands conquered by the sword.
The Arabs enslaved their women, stole their gold, looted their cities, then put their own name on the achievements of the conquered and called it “Islamic.”
It was never theirs.
Scottov retweeted
I don't want to pile on to the Cambridge situation, but media coverage saying "plagiarism" are really missing the boat. There is pretty obvious fraud - literally claiming he did interviews that couldn't have happened and so on - in like every paper of his that I looked at. 1/4
Scottov retweeted
I see I am being ritually insulted for my support of this man
The uneducated call me a racist
I am not a racist
I am a culturalist
I believe that some cultures are better than others
I prefer cultures to do not advocate stoning, pederasty,
wife beating, female genital mutilation, and beheading opponents
Call me old-fashioned...
