Greta's blind eye to murder
The Israelis know how to deport people. If this had been Britain, Greta Thunberg would be sitting in an asylum hotel right now, using a taxpayer-funded mobile phone, working as a Deliveroo driver and gearing up for 20 years of legal battles that will line the pockets of human rights lawyers.
Good riddance, I say. My only regret is that Thunberg refused to watch the footage of October 7 at a screening provided by the Israeli authorities before she was sent back where she came from. Such are the reports, anyway. In an episode rich with irony, this was the turkey in the challah sandwich (provided to the activist by Israeli commandos upon arrival).
First there was the voyage itself, which, as the Telegraph reveals, was organised by Zaher Birawi, who has been described in Parliament as having links with Hamas. Says it all, doesn't it?
Intentionally or not, some of the loudest defenders of human rights turn out to be doing the bidding of Hamas. Of course, if Thunberg had made it to Gaza, the aid would likely have been seized by Hamas and sold to pay their jihadis, when the Israelis are providing food for free. In terms of irony, you can't get much better than that.
Or so we thought. When the so-called 'selfie yacht' was picked up by the Israeli navy – which might have had more important things to do, you'd have thought – in what has been dubbed the 'softest military operation in history' – they have range, the Israelis, I'll give them that – it was found to contain less than one truckful of aid. Over the last 18 months, the genocidal Israelis have facilitated an influx of more than 92,000 trucks into the Strip. The irony!
Again, this told us everything we needed to know. But then we were hit by a further one-two of irony that was almost crippling: the activists were found to have consumed quite a lot of the aid on their voyage, according to Israeli authorities, but were still rather peckish.
Hence that famous picture of Thunberg in her froggy sunhat gratefully receiving a kosher sandwich from a soldier, several years younger than her, who was doing something honourable with his life. What's Hebrew for thank you? Toda raba.
Enough! Enough! I'm in danger of hyperventilating over here. Amid malicious allegations of starvation in Gaza, a Swedish child accepts a snack from a supposed genocidaire after apparently scoffing much of the ineffectual aid herself, which would only have supported jihadism anyway, but was good for the selfies. It is all painfully 2025.
But there was more: in a selfie video apparently recorded some time beforehand, in which she was seen culturally appropriating a Palestinian keffiyeh – I bet she'd never dream of wearing a sombrero – Thunberg claimed to have been 'kidnapped' by the 'Israeli occupational forces'. How she kept a straight face, knowing that the Israeli hostages had been languishing in the jihadi dungeons underground for more than a year-and-a-half, one can only guess.
In a further layer of the good stuff, her call for followers to pressure the Swedish government to free her from Israeli 'captivity' provoked so many calls to the emergency hotlines to help Swedes abroad that those truly in need of assistance were unable to get it. But who cares? The selfies won't share themselves, after all.
There was a glimmer of good sense when Israel offered to provide some education to the activist, who had famously abandoned her free schooling at the age of 15. You care so much about suffering? Come and watch what happened on October 7. Be educated. But now we hear that she refused to do so. Closing her eyes to the reality of what caused this war in the first place, and what continues to perpetuate it today? Priceless.
It was typical of the global effort to erase the casus belli of this conflict and rewrite history to make the victims the aggressors, the victims of attempted genocide the perpetrators of the same crime, the people who had their babies murdered the true baby killers. To be fair to Thunberg, she's hardly the only person at it.
This week, our most distinguished foreign correspondent, Jeremy Bowen, produced a major piece of journalism – journalism? – which was criticised by the Board of Deputies as containing 'unacceptable bias', as it 'seemed not to consider the Hamas war crimes which started and sustain this conflict,' not to mention the gratuitous Holocaust references. For shame.
If we are facing a monstrous NGO-media-digital industrial complex of propaganda, in which Bowen commands the broadcast arm, Thunberg is the brigadier general of its activist wing. In fact, her transition – may I use that word? – from climate campaigner to Gaza obsessive has been as revealing as it is opportunistic.
The juncture between the two identities was quite amusing: for a while, she was chanting 'no climate justice on occupied land', as if the top priority for Hamas was a net zero policy. (Not that Gaza has been 'occupied' since 2005, but you know what she means.) Then she simply jettisoned the climate guff, which was feeling rather dated, and went full keffiyeh. Identified as a Gaza campaigner, I suppose.
Let's stop beating around the selfie yacht. It was never truly about the climate, any more than it was truly about the conflict in the Middle East. Closing her eyes to the October 7 footage crystallised the sustaining principle of Greta Thunberg: she is absorbed in a world of her own. It is a world that began with hating her teachers; went on to hating the establishment; and has ended with hating the Jews and the West, powered by endless selfies.
This spectacular teenage tantrum is most often indulged by people like Gary Lineker, like Dawn French, like Jeremy Bowen, like Thunberg herself, who all supposedly left their teenage years behind a long time ago.
While Israel's youngsters were murdered at the Nova festival and are putting their lives on the line daily for their country, enduring unbelievable quantities of hatred and bigotry around the world, their greatest critics have never grown up themselves. That's the final irony.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Ukraine's defense industry says the fight against Russia has shown it that the West's approach to weapons is all wrong
Ukraine's defense industry is urging the West to abandon its longtime fixation on sleek, expensive weaponry in favor of cheaper, mass-produced arms, the kind needed to survive and win a grinding war of attrition against Russia. Serhiy Goncharov, the CEO of the National Association of Ukrainian Defense Industries — which represents around 100 Ukrainian companies — told Business Insider that the West's longstanding focus on fielding limited numbers of cutting-edge systems could be a serious disadvantage in a protracted conflict. Those systems are good to have, but mass is key. An argument for mass The war in Ukraine shows you don't need a handful of ultra-precise, expensive weapons, Goncharov told BI. You need a massive supply of good enough firepower. He said that the expensive weapons like the US military's M982 Excalibur guided munition (each shell costs $100,000) "don't work" when the other side has electronic warfare systems and the kind of traditional artillery rounds that are 30 times cheaper. Goncharov pointed to the M107, a self-propelled gun that was first fielded by the US in the 1960s, as an example of inexpensive firepower that can be effective in large numbers. "You don't need 10 Archers from the Swedish that are probably one of the best artillery systems in the world," he said, referring to the artillery system made by BAE Systems that was given to Ukraine by Sweden. Instead, you need 200 cheap howitzers like the Bohdana one that Ukraine makes. The "enormous rate of damage," the significant rate of ammo and equipment attrition, in a fight like this means you need a constant supply of weaponry to keep fighting, especially when there isn't any guarantee the high-end weapons will be the game changers promised. Russia's grinding attritional warfare Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been one marked by extensive use of artillery and tremendous ammunition expenditure. The war in some ways resembes the huge, destructive battles of World War I and World War II, with high casualties and substantial equipment losses. Russia has one of the world's largest militaries backed by a large population. The country has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to pursue an attritional style of warfare, committing a lot of troops and weaponry to a fight to slowly wear down its foe. Russia's invasion has chewed through equipment. The UK Ministry of Defense said in December that Russia had lost over 3,600 main battle tanks and almost 8,000 armored vehicles since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022. The Russians have the mass to absorb those losses. Ukraine has struggled with weapon and ammo shortages, as well as deficiencies in manpower. Ukraine turned to small, cheap drones as an asymmetric warfare alternative; Russia has employed uncrewed systems in battle as well. China, another concern in the West, has built a similar kind of force, one with the mass to take losses. The West, on the other hand, has spent the last two decades and change fighting lower-level adversaries where its forces can win the day with superior capabilities. European and NATO are waking up Goncharov's warning is one that has been echoed by other Western defense officials and companies. Countries have been keen to learn lessons about fighting Russia from the conflict in Ukraine, particularly in Europe, where many countries warn Russia could pursue further aggression in the future and defense spending is growing rapidly. Gabrielius Landsbergis, the former defense minister of Lithuania, a NATO ally bordering Russia, previously described the war to Business Insider as one of "high quantities." He said that while the West has largely focused on new and expensive weaponry that takes a long time to manufacture, Russia has been "building something that's cheap, that's expendable, that's fast." He said the West has "been preparing for a different kind of war" than what it would face in one against Russia, focusing on impressive equipment that is "very expensive." Troels Lund Poulsen, the Danish defense minister, previously told BI that "one of the lessons" from Ukraine is that the West needs far greater quantities of inexpensive weaponry to meet the threats posed by Russia and China. The head of NATO, Mark Rutte, urged countries to take similar learnings earlier this year, saying the alliance is too slow at developing weapons. He said the alliance works toward perfect, "but it doesn't have to be perfect." He said that Ukraine will go ahead with equipment that is a "six to seven" out of 10, while NATO militaries insist on reaching "nine or 10." He said it wasn't about getting rid of the expensive weaponry completely, but about finding a balance. It's about "getting speed and enough quality done in the right conjunction." That's something warfare experts have also told BI. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and the director of research in the foreign-policy program at the Brookings Institution, said the West's approach needs to change. The American military, for instance, is far more used to wars where "the whole point is you're not going to be slogging it out for months and years on end." But he also said that doesn't mean the West needs to completely abandon the development of advanced systems. "Those things have not become unimportant just because we realized that other things are also important," he said. The UK's armed forces minister also warned last month that the war showed the West needs to change how it procures weaponry. Luke Pollard said Ukraine's fight showed NATO "the way we have run our militaries, the way we have run our defense, is outdated." He said NATO militaries "build and procure really expensive high-end bits of kit. And it will take you five, 10 years: five years to run a procurement challenge, another 10 years to build it." Industry has taken note, too. Kuldar Väärsi, the CEO of Milrem Robotics, an autonomous unmanned ground vehicle company in NATO ally Estonia, told BI in May that "we need to learn from Ukraine, and we need to get more pragmatic about what kind of equipment we buy." He said Europe needs to learn that "having a hundred more simple pieces of equipment is better than having 10 very sophisticated pieces of equipment." He said countries need to start buying less-sophisticated pieces of weaponry en masse so industry can adjust. "Industry has to manufacture what the customer is buying. And if the customer is still buying only a few very sophisticated items, then the industry just aligns with that." And the reality is that may not work.


Newsweek
33 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Iran Threatens Israel's Nuclear Sites as Trump Blocks Strike Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iran has threatened to strike Israel's nuclear facilities if attacked, claiming it has gathered extensive intelligence on them. The warning comes as U.S. President Donald Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a 40-minute call that a military strike on Iran "must be taken off the table for now," according to Israeli state media. The exchange highlights widening tensions between the U.S. and Israel, with Netanyahu pushing for a tougher stance while Trump presses for diplomacy—even as he acknowledged Iran's "much more aggressive" behavior. Newsweek has reached out to the State Department as well as the foreign ministries of Iran and Israel for comment. Why It Matters Iran's warning signals a heightened risk of regional conflict involving nuclear infrastructure. For the U.S., which is engaged in delicate nuclear talks with Tehran, the threat complicates its effort to balance deterrence with diplomacy. Israel's concern over Iranian intentions—driven by Tehran's expanding nuclear activity—puts added pressure on the Trump administration's strategy. As Iran moves to leverage intelligence gathered on Israeli facilities, and the U.S. refrains from endorsing military escalation, the situation threatens to widen the gulf between allies and embolden hardliners in both countries. Military personnel parade on National Army Day in Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. Military personnel parade on National Army Day in Tehran, Iran, on April 18, To Know Iran's Supreme National Security Council said that Iranian intelligence services had obtained "a vast quantity of strategic and sensitive information and documents" related to Israel's nuclear infrastructure. The council claimed this intelligence had completed an "operational cycle" enabling Iran's armed forces to target Israeli nuclear sites in response to any Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. The council warned that "any act of evil against [Iran's] economic and military infrastructure" would result in a "precise and proportionate response." Diplomacy With Tehran On Tuesday, during a call with Netanyahu, Trump emphasized his preference for diplomacy, saying the U.S. had submitted a "reasonable proposal" to Iran and was expecting a response soon. He noted that Iran had become more aggressive in recent negotiations, but talks were ongoing. Netanyahu countered by calling the negotiations futile, accusing Iran of playing for time and urging that a "credible military threat" remain on the table. Trump rejected this stance, insisting that a military strike on Iran "must be taken off the table for now." When Netanyahu sought clarity on whether the U.S. would approve Israeli action if necessary, Trump did not provide a definitive answer. The conversation ended without any breakthrough on Israel's demands, according to Israel's Channel 12 and public broadcaster Kan. President Donald Trump is seen in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 10, 2025. President Donald Trump is seen in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 10, Progress Meanwhile, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said the talks with Iran were making some progress despite recent setbacks. She emphasized that negotiations are dynamic, adding that "it would appear that things are moving forward," though not dramatically. She confirmed that another round of talks is expected soon. What People Are Saying Iran's Supreme National Security Council: "These sites would be attacked in response to any Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure." U.S. State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce: "It is a dynamic, as it would be with any diplomatic consideration, that negotiations are meant to move things forward and the good news is, is that, in fact, it would appear that things are moving forward, and that's what we all want." What Happens Next Iran is expected to respond to a new U.S. proposal at an upcoming sixth round of nuclear talks, with the location still unconfirmed after earlier sessions in Oman and Italy. Despite mediation efforts, Washington and Tehran remain divided over uranium enrichment—Trump demanding a full halt, while Iran insists on its right to peaceful nuclear energy. With tensions rising and a counterproposal pending from Tehran, the gap between diplomacy and confrontation appears increasingly difficult to bridge.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: The phrase ‘Free Palestine' is freeing no one, but it is killing some of us
Twice in a recent two-week period, two men were arrested for terrorist attacks while invoking 'Free Palestine.' For them, the phrase served as a rallying cry sanctioning violence. Their targets were, in the deadly Washington, D.C., attack outside the Jewish Museum, a young couple, and in Boulder, Colorado, people attending a vigil for the 58 hostages held by Hamas. For the two suspects — neither of whom is Palestinian — the phrase 'Free Palestine' was a license to kill. They are not the only ones who understand it that way. It was just two months ago when the official residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was set ablaze after a Passover Seder event. The perpetrator, who has confessed, cited the governor's views on Palestine. Another 'Free Palestine' chanter struck and killed an elderly California Jewish man with a bullhorn in November 2023. Not all 'Free Palestine' chanters understand it as a call to violence. Yet the phrase's intentional lack of specificity is a big part of its utility: What the user means is left to the audience's interpretation. There are several prevalent understandings, ranging from noble to murderous. 'Free Palestine' can mean the justified yearning for Palestinians to enjoy the full freedoms, prosperity and security to which all people are entitled. It can be a desperate plea for new, elected leaders. Hamas has governed Gaza with an iron fist — and no elections — since 2007, and the West Bank hasn't voted since 2006. This indifference to basic democracy does not portend well for what freedom would look like in a free Palestine. For others invoking it, the phrase's imprecision is precisely the point. 'Free Palestine' can be exploited for misleading purposes. The lack of specificity avoids answering the most revealing question: Would a free Palestine be alongside Israel or instead of Israel? Of course, Hamas and many of its global advocates shamelessly reject the 'alongside' option. In Gaza and elsewhere, they threaten anyone willing to accept such a peaceful compromise. Other 'Free Palestine' supporters are unwilling to pay the negative public relations cost of acknowledging that 'instead of' is their nonnegotiable option. Why? Because their 'instead of' option can only be realized with the annihilation of a sovereign United Nations member country populated by 10 million Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Druze and others. The 'instead of' option glorifies killing Jews, be it on Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel; in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in Boulder; and God knows where next. While we don't know where the next 'Free Palestine'-inspired attack will happen, we do know, tragically, it isn't a matter of whether it will happen. It is simply a matter of when. In most instances, 'Free Palestine' is protected free speech in the United States. But after this most recent series of 'Free Palestine'-motivated attacks and with an accompanying deafening silence of condemnation from most pro-Palestinian groups, is it so unreasonable to ask that those promulgating it own up to what it does and doesn't mean to them? And for us Jews. The murderers do not indulge the lie of most pro-Palestinian advocates that there is a distinction between Jews and Zionists. Neither the California, Washington, Harrisburg or Boulder offenders bothered to inquire about their victims' identities or ideologies before attacking. Whether the victims were even Jewish or Zionist, or how they understood 'Free Palestine,' was irrelevant. Politicalized catchphrases are proliferating. While many may seem innocuous, they can be dog whistles that are understood differently by different audiences. Our business, civic, educational, faith, media and political leaders have learned how to navigate these linguistic minefields. They now need to tune their antennas to the violent impact that 'Free Palestine' and the demonization of Zionists are having on American Jews. Those of us yearning for both Israeli-Palestinian peace and Jewish safety worldwide understandably want to know what 'Free Palestine' means to those in our midst. The Boulder attacker planned his violence for a year, authorities say. There are undoubtedly others right now planning their own attacks to 'Free Palestine.' Such would-be assailants should know whether their attacks are endorsed or opposed by the 'Free Palestine' campaign they have adopted. We already know how two people over the last three weeks understood the phrase's imprecision. And we have seen and heard all too many applauding this resistance. Attempting to define the meaning of another group's self-understanding is likely to evoke accusations of mansplaining. But in the absence of a widely embraced peaceful definition of 'Free Palestine,' being accused of insensitivity is easy to bear. We Jews are just trying to freely celebrate a Seder, visit a museum and rally for hostages. That yearning involves no duplicity or threats to others. _____ Jay Tcath is executive vice president of the Jewish United Fund. _____