Ruthie Blum: The US and Israeli left’s parallel ‘own goal’
Now for a similar “own goal” scored that day by the Israeli opposition. That occurred when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in the Jewish state and addressed the Knesset.Brendan O'Neill: The gross bigotry behind the Greens’ hippy facade
Ahead of his momentous visit—to sign a whopping 16 cooperation agreements, spanning agriculture, drone technology, satellite data, irrigation and fertilization management, pest control, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, education, digital finance, labor mobility, energy planning, defense coordination, trade facilitation, cultural exchange, innovation hubs and joint development initiatives—the anti-government lawmakers were apoplectic. Not about Modi, but rather due to Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana’s decision not to invite Supreme Court president Yitzhak Amit to the event.
This wasn’t the first time Ohana had gone against traditional protocol to nix Amit’s attendance at a historic parliamentary gathering. He did so, as well, when Trump spoke to the Knesset on Oct. 13, 2025.
The reason for this has to do with the government’s view that Amit doesn’t deserve his title as chief justice of the Supreme Court since he and his cronies appointed him through an illegitimate process. And reforming the judicial system—part of the very “deep state” of unelected officials overriding the laws forged by elected ones—has been a key goal of the current ruling coalition.
So, the opposition couldn’t have been surprised by Ohana’s move, making their outrage mainly performative.
Their initial reaction was to announce that they would boycott the proceedings. Fearing that the plenum would be partially empty for Modi’s appearance, Ohana came up with a plan: to fill the seats with former Knesset members.
But opposition leader Yair Lapid, who suffers from two afflictions—FOMO (fear of missing out) and near annihilation in the polls—didn’t want to squander his chance to take to the podium. The upshot was that the legislators who were furious about Amit’s absence walked out when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke, then returned for Modi’s oratory.
Witness how they sought to marshall Muslim fury over the war in Gaza. ‘Punish Labour for Gaza’, Greens hollered at Muslim voters. Or consider how they gave a sinister nod and wink to anti-Hindu animus by distributing a video showing Keir Starmer shaking hands with Indian PM Narendra Modi. The video was in Urdu, too. It was a blatant attempt to appeal to Hinduphobia among certain Muslim constituencies by linking Starmer with the Hindu leader Islamists love to hate. But, Greens moan, Labour also did it in the Batley and Spen by-election in 2021 when it handed out a leaflet showing Boris Johnson with Modi alongside the words ‘Don’t risk a Tory MP who is not on your side’. Yes, and that was lowlife bigotry-mongering too.Australia’s Child Safety Icon and the ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Contradiction
Greens also gave interviews to 5Pillars, the hardline Islamic outlet that is sympathetic to the Taliban and regularly features cosy chats with the neo-fascist, Nick Griffin. If Goodwin had gone on a pod infamous for its far-right guests, we’d never have heard the end of it. Then there’s the Greens’ neo-misogyny. This is a party that bows to the post-truth sexist mantra that ‘trans women are women’. It would let men into women’s changing rooms, women’s sports, women’s rape shelters. Not content with demolishing the Jewish right of nationhood, Greens also want to do away with the female right of privacy and dignity.
How is it possible that a party that rubs shoulders with sectarian bigots, and which would sacrifice women’s rights at the altar of men’s feelings, and which demonises Jewish nationhood, can get away with calling itself ‘progressive’? Call me a stickler for linguistic accuracy, but such a searingly dismissive attitude to the rights of women and Jews sounds more ‘far right’ to me than anything Matt Goodwin has ever said.
The loony Greens are a firm reminder that women and Jews are the two great losers under the Islamo-left ideology. On one side we have the keffiyeh-adorned genderfluid left that thinks a man’s right to piss where he likes counts for more than a woman’s right to privacy and which views Zionism as a demonic force deserving of destruction. And on the other we have regressive Islamists who think women should be cloaked when out in public and that Jews are a pox on humankind. In flirting with both of these nauseating creeds, the Greens have made themselves into the prime engine of bigotry in mainstream British politics. Pricking their hippyish facade, and exposing the truth about woke, is a pressing task of our time.
Australia’s most prominent child safety advocate has become the public face of a slogan authorities link to mass civilian violence. A close examination of her own philosophy, her Foundation’s charter, and Australia’s evolving legal landscape reveals a serious question of consistency.
On a balmy February afternoon in Sydney, Grace Tame stood before a crowd and led them in a chant: “Globalize the intifada.”
The 2021 Australian of the Year, known for her uncompromising campaign against child sexual abuse and her insistence that language shapes the conditions in which violence becomes possible, invoked a term most commonly associated with the Second Intifada, during which more than 1,000 Israelis were killed, including 741 civilians and 124 children.
The episode has ignited a contentious debate in Australian public life. But stripped of partisan noise, the core issue is narrower and more serious: whether the principles Tame has articulated for institutions and public figures apply equally to her own words.
Her Framework: Language Creates Environments
The Grace Tame Foundation’s mission is explicit: to “ensure the right of children to be safe no matter where they are.” Its work is grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, including Article 19, which protects children from “all forms of physical or mental violence.”
The Foundation’s strategy emphasises shaping “social behaviours and attitudes” and creating environments in which children can thrive. Tame herself has repeatedly argued that harm begins with language; that grooming is linguistic before it is physical, and that normalizing certain speech patterns creates the conditions in which abuse becomes possible.
In her 2022 National Press Club address, Tame distilled this philosophy clearly: words are not neutral. They shape environments, and environments shape outcomes. As she put it, “Words are pervasively subliminally weaponized.”
It is precisely this framework that is now being applied to her use of “Globalize the Intifada.”


















