RT: @MarkSeddon1962 Most serious UN & human rights organisations plus scholars of genocide have called it out for what it is; nameley 'genocide'. Why this lame BBC attempt at 'balance', when everyone knows that it is nonsense?

See the maps and charts that show how America voted in the US midterm elections.

RT: @newscord_org The BBC consistently interrupts every guest that criticises Israel with a defence on their behalf: “Israel would say [insert genocide justification here]” They say they do this for “transparency” and “due impartiality”. If they were honest about that, they would also add the other things Israel themselves have said. Allow us to demonstrate: 1. “Israel would say [genocide justification] although Isaac Herzog, Israel’s President did say on 12 October 2023 ‘It is an entire nation out there that is responsible’” 2. “Israel would say [genocide justification]. Netanyahu did also say in a letter to his soldiers on November 2023 that Gaza is a ‘holy war of total annihilation’” 3. “Israel would say [genocide justification]. On 9 October 2023, Defence Minister Yoav Gallant also said ‘We are fighting against human animals.’” 4. “Israel Katz, the Energy Minister on 13 October 2023, did say that Gaza's civilians would ‘not receive a drop of water or a single battery until they leave the world.’” 5. “Bezalel Smotrich, Finance Minister in August 2024 said starving two million people “might be just and moral until they return the hostages.’” The BBC has consistently hidden behind “transparency” and “due impartiality” to defend Israel at every opportunity. But their cherry-picking of what they say after “Israel says”, is telling of just how opaque and partial they are. “Israel says” is not inherently bad, if one actually says what Israel says.

Create an account or log in to Instagram - Share what you're into with the people who get you.

Shabana Mahmood sets out revised rules for indefinite leave to remain after criticism from some Labour MPs. The Tories say the "U-turn" could cost billions.