Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
"Phenomenal again down stretch…Anchors D…rim protection, rebounding…Confidence…energy…4Q clutch FTs–the dunk to finish it" – Pels coach James Borrego on his 21-year-old 6'11" 2025 All-Rookie C Yves Missi: 🍎10 points 🍎14 rebounds 🍎6 offensive 🍎W & dunk on Wemby
70,085 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfügbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)
![The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014084863523991988/amplify_video_thumb/2014081102336438272/img/PO6AC1MzPmGnWRpm.jpg)
![THE TRUTH ABOUT OCTOBER 7TH: Reports confirm that Netanyahu, the Mossad and the IDF deliberately allowed the October 7th attack by Hamas to take place. They knew one year in advance of the attack and did nothing to stop it. They deliberately stood down during the attack allowing many more innocent Israelis to be slaughtered in order to get domestic and international support for war in Gaza and Iran. HOW DID OCTOBER 7TH HAPPEN? On October 7th, Hamas was able to carry out its shocking terror attack against Israel, despite Israel’s intelligence, military and security apparatus commonly considered the best in the world. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself tweeted and quickly deleted a statement denying any foreknowledge of the October 7th attack. “Under no circumstances and at no stage was Prime Minister Netanyahu warned of war intentions on the part of Hamas" the tweet said, before it was promptly deleted. Why did Netanyahu’s team delete that tweet? Because in fact he did have intelligence that there would be an attack by Hamas and tried to hide this from the world. Foreign security services, Israeli security services and the Israeli public all knew that Hamas was planning a violent, cross-border incursion where they would attempt to over-run and attack the kibbutz communities in southern Israel and take prisoners back to Gaza. And they also knew when. But it happened anyway. Why? Ten days before the attack, and then again three days before the attack, Egypt intelligence officials passed “repeated warnings” to the highest levels of Israel’s government. In one of these warnings, Egypts premiere intelligence minister General Abbas Kamel personally called Netanyahu and warned that Hamas was about to do “something unusual, a terrible operation.” Unnamed Egyptian officials told YNET News that they were shocked by Netanyahu’s “indifference to the news.” But Israel didn’t have to trust or believe Egypt, because actually, most of the warnings of the October 7th attack came from Israeli civilians and the Israeli military itself. The civilians and soldiers who brought these emergency warnings to the military were ignored and in some cases, strangely enough, threatened with legal action. In 2022, the IDF, through confidential sources, or spies, in Gaza, actually obtained the detailed Hamas Al Aqsa Flood attack plans. Codenamed “Jericho Wall” by Israel, the excursion plan called for a barrage of rockets to begin the attack and for gunmen to pour into Israel en masse via para-gliders, on motorcycles and on foot and take hostages back into Gaza, all of which happened on October 7th. Hamas followed the blueprint that Israel already had with shocking precision. So Israel had the attack blueprints, but were they taken seriously by the IDF? Yes, the plans were diligently studied. A presentation on the planned attack was given to senior officers in the IDF’S Gaza division. The presentation concluded with this sentence: “This invasion constitutes the gravest threat that IDF forces are facing in the defense of Israel” So in response to this, did Israel’s security establishment beef up and enhance their surveillance of Hamas militants on the other side of the border? No, stunningly, they actually did the exact opposite. They decided to entirely stop monitoring Hamas’s handheld radio traffic. Because they saw it “as a waste of effort” even though during that same time in 2022, Israelis living in the kibbutz communities near the Gaza border, most of whom have some type of military training due to Israel’s mandatory IDF service laws, were, according to Israeli media, picking up clear evidence that Hamas was “practicing the breaching of the fence and conquering kibbutzim and seizing hostages and destroying everything in their path.” Then, In April 2023, 6 months before the attack, again according to Israeli media, the IDF “restricted the ability” of Israelis living near the border “to monitor Hamas’ wireless traffic.” In September 2023, less than a month before the attack, the head of the IDF’s “Devil’s Advocate” intelligence unit, which challenges prevailing narratives within Israel’s military, twice alerted senior decision-makers in both the army and political spheres about Hamas’ plans for a large-scale cross-border military operation. He reiterated these warnings in person at Intelligence Branch strategic assessment sessions on September 26th and 27th. Just days before the attack. So it was clear to everyone that Hamas wasn’t only planning to do something horrible, but it was also clear what that horrible and evil thing was. According to a female IDF soldier who spoke to Israel’s channel 12 news program, she was constantly trying to warn her superiors about the gravity of Hamas training exercises. She was threatened with legal action. “We were told that if we continue to harass on this issue, you will stand trial.” So, Egypt knew, the Israeli military knew, and the Israeli civilians knew. Yet, two days before October 7th, the Israeli military took two entire commando brigades, or around 100 soldiers, away from the the soon to be breached locations of the Gaza border and sent them to the other side of the country, to the West Bank village of Huwara despite no Hamas presence being in Huwara and despite there being giant Israeli dance parties taking place right along the same border fence where violent, escalating and obvious Hamas drills of breaching and kidnapping were taking place. According to Israeli media reports, Lt. Col. Sahar Fogel, an operations officer at the IDF’s Gaza Division, opposed the approval of the Nova Party based on the last minute nature of its event application and the intensifying Hamas drills at the border and because if something were to happen, more soldiers were on holiday. It was the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. The Lt. Col. explained his opposition to the party’s approval to his superiors. He was instructed to allow the event. Israeli Newspaper Haaretz reported that other Gaza division officers privately “told of irregular conduct and pressure surrounding the approval of the party.” In February 2024, Elkana Federman, the head of security for the Nova festival gave an interview to Israel’s Channel 14 where he made a statement that hasn’t been reported on by any American media. “I had a guard at the festival who had served in the Re’im Division [near Gaza border], and a week before the festival he sent me a voice message, basically warning me, saying, ‘Elkana, something is going to happen over Sukkot. I just wanted to let you know, there are a lot of warnings, I passed the voice message on to local IDF officials and they told me everything was all right.” The Hamas attacks were violent and brutal. They have been likened to tragic events such as September 11th and the Holocaust, so it comes as a surprise that Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his Likud party have at times described the attacks as somewhat of a political gift. Nissim Vaturi, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party in the Knesset, referred to the attack as sort of gift from God because they are being used to justify the current ongoing war, stating: “We were meant to fight this war against Hamas, as is happening now, and luckily for us it came from the heavens.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that Israel didn’t have domestic or international support to invade or destroy Gaza. He said the October 7th Hamas attack solved both of those problems for him, stating “We couldn’t get the domestic consensus to make a definitive solution to the problem of Hamas. That is, no one would agree across the Israeli public to go in and basically destroy Hamas, go throughout Gaza and destroy Hamas. We didn’t have the international consensus either; nobody would understand why we are doing it. Both conditions were created because of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th.” Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this ghastly attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza? The evidence proves, yes. WHERE WAS THE IDF? During the October 7th attacks what did the Israeli military do? For hours they did nothing, it was a deliberate military stand down order. It's important to remember that Israel is just slightly bigger than the size of the state of New Jersey. But for some reason, once the Hamas attacks began, the time it took the Israeli army and rescue teams to arrive, fight and rescue Israelis at the different kibbutz communities and sites being attacked took anywhere from 4 hours to more than 20 hours. The New York Times has reported: “Thousands of soldiers were less than 40 minutes from the towns that were under attack.” A video that Israeli media obtained from an army helicopter, corroborated by Israeli survivors, prove that there were more than 500 Israeli soldiers directly outside of the Kibbutz entrance, fully armed, with Humvees and tanks but it took 10 hours for those soldiers to show up. Avital, a survivor of the Be’eri attack, described to Haaretz: “500 soldiers stood outside, with equipment and vehicles. I remember yelling at them, ‘We’re being slaughtered, come in, save us and no one said anything.” So why did it take so long for help to arrive? Haaretz reported: “At 7 A.M., the party organizers called Lt. Col. Elad Zandani, the man tasked with approving the festival and told him that terrorists were shooting the partygoers. He suggested that they fend for themselves. The first IDF forces arrived at the party scene at 3 P.M., that’s an 8 hour response time for one of the most efficient, capable and well militarized security forces in the world operating in a country the size of New Jersey with their Gaza division only a few miles away. And what makes this even more strange? Around 4 hours into the Hamas assault, at 10:46AM, Israel was already launching operations and bombing targets inside of Gaza. So, if Israel could begin an offensive attack into Gaza within 4 hours, why did it take more than 6 hours and in most cases more than 10 hours and even 20 hours in some cases to mobilize inside of their own country to stop the ongoing attack and to defend the lives of their own people? The New York Times quoted Ben Zion, an Israeli military reservist who spoke to Israeli media. He said his unit voluntarily left central Israel in a convoy at 1:30PM, they got together and left for the south on their own. He expected to see the roads packed with soldiers and equipment and armored vehicles heading south. “The roads were empty!” he recalled in an interview. Roughly seven hours into the fighting, he turned to the reservist next to him and asked: “Where’s the IDF?” The brutal and deadly Hamas terrorist attack of October 7th is so central to justifying Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza that Israel is actually outlawing questioning the October 7th government narrative. Israelis who spread information counter to the October 7th government narrative, which the Israeli Knesset calls “falsehoods and propaganda” could face up to 5 years in prison. Between the abundance of concrete evidence that suggests Israeli military allowed October 7th to happen by ignoring dozens of reliable and specific warnings, threatening soldiers with legal actions who tried to warn their military superiors and taking troops away from the area of the Gaza border that was attacked and now evidence that suggests there was some type of military stand down order in place on October 7th, it is important to ask, what was October 7th and what kind of war is the United States supporting? WHAT IS THE HANNIBAL DIRECTIVE? Images and videos of burnt cars, blacked and charred bodies and incinerated homes in southern Israel were plastered on every phone screen and television after the October 7th Hamas attack. The images and videos were used by the Israeli government to justify the military’s heavy handed tactics in their ongoing war against Hamas, But were all the images and videos actually the result of the Hamas attack? Innocent Israeli civilians were brutally killed by Hamas on October 7th, but there is evidence that proves the IDF killed their own Israeli citizens in what is known as the Hannibal Directive. To understand what the Israeli military did to their own civilians on October 7th, you have to understand the political aspirations of Hamas and what the goal of taking hostages is, it is political leverage. There are over 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli jails. 3,000 of whom haven’t been to trial or charged with a crime. When militant groups manage to capture Israeli civilians or soldiers it gives them leverage to force a prisoner swap and get some of their people out of Israeli prison. For example, in 1986, Hamas managed to kidnap 3 Israeli soldiers and bring them to Gaza. They demanded 1,150 Palestinian prisoners in return for these soldiers. After this, the military drafted a secret field order to prevent future kidnappings. It was called the "Hannibal Directive." The directive gets its name from the Carthaginian general who chose to poison himself rather than allow himself to be captured alive by the romans. In 2003, strangely enough on October 7th 2003, three Israeli soldiers were taken hostage and brought into Lebanon. Following the activation of the Hannibal Directive, IDF attack helicopters fired indiscriminately on 26 vehicles thus ensuring the death of their own soldiers and therefore robbing Lebanese militants of the ability to demand Israel make concessions. The Last known application of the Hannibal Directive was in 2014. In Rafah. Hamas fighters managed to capture an Israeli soldier, Lt. Hadar Goldin. Instead of allowing the lieutenant to be used as leverage by Hamas, the military killed him. Dropping bombs, missiles and shells on the area he was being held, killing the soldier and also over 100 Palestinian civilians. The scale of the Hannibal Directive on October 7th was entirely different from those of the past. A retired Israeli air force general, Nof Erez, described it during a podcast with Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper saying “The Hannibal Directive was apparently applied at a certain stage, because at the moment they understand there is a kidnapping, they immediately say, ‘Guys, this is Hannibal.’ But the Hannibal we trained for all of the last twenty years, is for a vehicle we know at what point of the fence it enters, on what side it drives, and maybe even on which road it drives. This was a Mass Hannibal.” We know the Hannibal Directive means to kill your own, so what does “mass Hannibal” mean? A large mainstream Israeli media outlet reported: “In the week after Black Shabbat, October 7th, soldiers of elite units, at the initiative of the Southern Command, checked about 70 vehicles that remained in the area between the Otaf settlements and the Gaza Strip. These are vehicles that did not reach Gaza, because on the way they were shot by a combat helicopter, an anti-tank missile or a tank, and at least in some cases everyone in the vehicle was killed.” 70 vehicles and in some cases, everyone in the vehicle was killed. These are Israelis killed by Israel. Again, only reported on in the Israeli media. Tuval Escapa, is a member of the security team for Kibbutz Be’eri. He set up a hotline so kibbutz residents could communicate with the Israeli army. He told Haaretz that “the commanders in the field made difficult decisions, including shelling houses on their occupants” in order to eliminate would-be hostages as well the terrorists. They shelled entire houses. Do we hear this in the American mainstream media? That the Israeli military targeted and destroyed over 70 cars with hellfire missiles that were filled with Israelis and that they decimated entire Israeli homes with tank shells? A report in Haaretz on October 20th notes that the Israeli military also carried out an airstrike on their own military base, the Erez crossing. That base was filled with Israeli Civil Administration officers and soldiers at the time. An Israeli woman named Yasmin Porat gave an interview with Israel Radio that the military “undoubtedly” killed numerous Israeli hostages during gun battles with Hamas militants. IDF General Barak Hiram, prevented hundreds of troops from entering Kibbutz Be’eri for hours on October 7th, when he finally allowed the IDF to go in, he ordered tanks to fire on multiple homes. The tank shells killed at least 12 Israeli hostages and 3 children. Recently the UN published an investigation confirming several of these facts, namely, that the IDF had in fact activated the Hannibal Directive on October 7th stating “The Commission is aware of allegations that Israeli Special Forces used the “Hannibal Directive” to prevent the capture of Israeli civilians and their transfer to Gaza, even at the cost of killing them" The Commission documented one statement by an ISF tank crew, confirming that the crew had applied the Hannibal Directive. The Israeli military, Israeli civilians and the United Nations all admit to the IDF purposely killing their own on October 7th. How many? It’s hard to know the exact number, but the imagery of charred bodies and incinerated cars and homes are still being used to this day to manufacture consent and support for Israel’s ongoing assault of the Gaza Strip, where more than 47,000 Palestinians have been killed including 15,000 innocent children. ISRAEL'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR HAMAS: Israel and Netanyahu helped funnel over $1 Billion dollars to Hamas in order to keep Palestine from being recognized as a State. It was Netanyahu and Israel who helped create Hamas thinking that they could control them and would be able to use Hamas as an excuse for their continued military operations and occupation in Gaza. ISRAEL'S SECRET NUCLEAR WEAPONS: The front lines of the war between Israel and Hamas are expanding and moving beyond Gaza. Yemen’s Houthis intensified their involvement, going from simply attacking Israeli bound cargo ships to now navigating an armed drone over 1,200 miles, evading Israel’s Iron Dome defense system and managed to strike inside Tel Aviv causing a massive explosions. In addition to their ongoing war in Gaza, Israel has attacked or been attacked by Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to promise Israel unconditional and limitless support. But has anyone even asked if this support is LEGAL? According to the 1976 Symington and Glenn Amendments of the Armed Foreign Assistance Act, which is now a part of the Arms Export Control Act, the United States cannot give foreign aid, whether that’s economic or military, to any nuclear armed state that is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, but the United States gives billions of dollars every year to Israel and according to all international arms organizations, Israel has anywhere from 90 to 400 nuclear warheads and Israel has not signed the NPT. So how does this legally happen? The United States and Israel simply pretend Israel does not have nuclear weapons, literally, that’s what’s done. It is called “Nuclear Ambiguity.” This nuclear ambiguity, which allows Israel to continue to receive billions from the U.S. and also operate and maintain their nuclear arsenal with absolutely no international oversight and zero regulation, is maintained and preserved through the threat of force. Due to a previously Top Secret gag order, all U.S. government agency employees and contractors are forbidden from discussing Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Even insinuating or mentioning information that’s already in the public domain is forbidden for all federal employees and contractors. It sounds hard to believe but let’s give an example: James Doyle used to work at Los Alamos National Laboratory as a nuclear security specialist. He violated this gag order. Doyle wrote an academic article arguing that Nuclear weapons do not do a good job at deterring countries from attacking one another, he wrote: “Nuclear weapons did not deter Egypt and Syria from attacking Israel in 1973, Argentina from attacking British territory in 1982 or Iraq from attacking Israel during the 1991 Gulf War.” A clear reference to Israel’s nuclear weapons. Doyle’s security clearance was promptly withdrawn, his home was raided, his computers were seized and he was fired from the Department of Energy. So apparently that’s how it works. In 2018, The New Yorker published a stunning report in which they discuss another way Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is enforced: secret presidential letters. According to former U.S. officials and former Israeli officials, every recent US administration since Clinton in 1993 has performed the same ritual as it came into office. They all agreed to undermine U.S. law by signing secret letters, brought to them by hand by their Israeli counterparts stipulating that they’ll never acknowledge what everyone knows: that Israel indeed has nuclear weapons. The National Archives is currently refusing to release the letters, arguing that even confirming their existence would violate the secrecy pact. So there’s a gag order that stops all federal employees and contractors from simply acknowledging Israel’s nuclear weapons and U.S. presidents sign secret letters promising not to acknowledge or pressure Israel to do anything relating to their proliferation status. That means asking questions like these are entirely off limits enforced by the threat of government violence or law fare. But all of this information leads to a series of questions: Where does Israel dispose of the toxic waste its program generates? Are Israel’s nuclear weapons ever used to coerce the U.S. into making adverse policy decisions? How about our allies? Besides apartheid South Africa, has Israel offered any of its nuclear weapons for sale to other foreign countries? To U.S. adversaries? Has Israel mounted nuclear weapons onto its German supplied Dolphin class submarines? Or their American supplied F-35 jets? No questions are allowed and what is the cost, the dollar amount, for Americans, of this “nuclear ambiguity” policy? To be exact, almost $240 billion dollars of military and economic aid has gone from the U.S. taxpayer since the passing of the Symington and Glenn Amendments. That’s far more than the United States spent rebuilding Europe under the Marshall Plan. And none of that quarter of a trillion dollars should have been allowed under U.S. law. That’s the price of keeping Israel’s secret. A quarter trillion and yet where is the International Atomic Energy Agency and international nuclear inspectors? The same ones who monitor every other nuclear armed country in the world? DOES ISRAEL PERSECUTE CHRISTIANS? Before the war, Israel’s Christian minority were already being targeted with dispossession and violence. In Jerusalem’s Old City, narrow streets line the ancient neighborhood and Jewish Israeli civilians spitting on and attacking Christian clergy members is commonplace in Israel. Evidence of this shows a video from a few days before October 7th of Christians in the Old City of Jerusalem carrying a cross while a group of Orthodox Jewish Israelis many of them children walk by and spit at the Christians. It’s become mainstream to believe Christians don’t belong in Israel and only Jewish people do. A few years ago, the mission, the Virgin Mary’s place of death, was attacked and vandalized by Israelis. The graffiti on the ancient walls read “Death to heretical Christians, the enemies of Israel,” and “May his name and memory be obliterated,” in reference to Jesus. According to Haaretz, at a Jewish school, the leader of an anti-assimilation group Bentzi Gopstien told students that it’s quote “mitzvah” or a “good deed” to burn and destroy Christian churches. Should Americans, especially Christian Americans be allowing billions of their tax dollars to be used to ethnically cleanse, attack and bomb Holy sites and Christian civilians? What has happened since Israel has launched its war against Hamas? Israel has displaced 2.4 million Palestinians in Gaza, 80% of the buildings and homes have been reduced to rubble, at least 45,000 Palestinians have been killed with 50% being women and children. In America, we’re told we should prioritize sending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to Israel over dealing with our own issues here at home because Israel needs to be able defend itself. Well, it seems like what initially appeared as a defensive war, is appearing more like an offensive war with the expansionist goal of the permanent military occupation of the Gaza Strip. Did the Israeli military, the Israeli intelligence community, and the political leadership of Israel allow this terrible attack to happen to justify wiping out the population of Gaza, a genocide justified by an attack that Israel could have stopped had they wanted to.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1941665181420904891/amplify_video_thumb/1941627551786385409/img/gp24yzSPk-cDYjh4.jpg)
