‘The UN has no shame’ | Hillel Neuer

The culture has been extremely hostile and one-sided. Put it mildly when it comes to Israel for many years. The General Assembly institutionalized an infrastructure of anti-Israel condemnations, a ritualistic adoption every year of about 20 resolutions at the General Assembly against Israel. And most countries in the world have zero. Numerous UN agencies have been obsessed with singling out and scapegoating Israel. Various serious efforts were made by the IDF to indeed make sure that the area gaza that they were fighting Hamas is nevertheless being fed and having various essential services. We recognize that we're dealing with something that is not logical, that may have profound roots in pathologies that we seem to point history, and that there's a fear that this is taking root in very scary ways. Hello, welcome back to the Brendan O'Neill Show with me, Brendan O'Neill, and my special guest this week, Hillel Neuer. Hillel, welcome to the show. Thank you for having me. It's great to have you on. I want to talk to you for some time. You'll be familiar with two viewers and listeners as an international lawyer, a human rights advocate, a real human rights advocate, not like one of the fake ones that we see all the time. And of course, Executive Director of UN Watch, which I think is doing the Lord's work in terms of holding the UN to account, especially on the question of Israel and how it treats Israel. So I've got a few questions I want to ask you, but I guess I'll kick off by asking you what it's been like at the UN working around the UN over the past three years in particular since 7th of October. I know you've been doing this for a couple of decades now, but I guess it must have become more intense over the past three years. What does the culture and the atmosphere been like? Yeah, that's fair to say look, the culture has been extremely hostile and one sided, put it mildly when it comes to Israel for many years. One could point to yes or arofied. Being invited to the General Assembly in 1974 and showing up with a holster. And it was around that time that the General Assembly institutionalized an infrastructure of anti-Israel condemnations, the ritualistic adoption every year of about 20 resolutions at the General Assembly against Israel. When most countries in the world have zero, a handful have one Iran, North Korea, Syria, and there would be 20 now it's 15 on Israel. So you could say that for some 50 years, the numerous UN agencies have been obsessed with singling out and scapegoating Israel, demonizing Israel. So that was there for a long time and you could point to an array of UN agencies. What changed after October 7th was it became on steroids. It became on steroids. If you know I have a Google alert when when the words UN and human rights are mentioned, UN and Israel are mentioned and certainly the UN and Israel, you know, it exploded after October 7th and agencies that would once have some shame today have no shame. And to some degree this was led from the top by Guteras to another extent. He was echoing what his staff was was wanting his international staff. So it's a combination. Yeah, on steroids. I think that's a very good way to put it even as a very external observer of what the UN is doing. That strikes me as very true. Before we get into the meat of some of the stuff the UN and its agencies have been doing the past three years, I wanted to ask you when you speak to UN officials or people at the UN about the disproportionate focus on Israel and the disproportionate number of rulings against Israel and obsession with Israel, how do they justify it or do they even try to justify it? Is there a situation in the UN where they truly believe Israel is a uniquely monstrous country and thus deserves all this attention? Or is there some recognition at some level that this is getting a bit out of control? Today if there is any recognition, it's less than there ever was. And it would depend with whom you speak. Of course, when one walks into the United Nations, assembly, whether it's in New York or in Geneva, where I'm based, it's the same, you know, 193 countries sitting in the room. And then, so obviously there's a spectrum there. You have some countries today that are friendly to Israel like the United States and Argentina and a handful of others. But not many more today at the UN. And but there's a spectrum and then of course you have the UN Secretariat, which is, you know, the equivalent of the civil service. The UK had a famous show a number of years ago called Yes Minister, yes Prime Minister. And of course there was the elected official who was meant to make the decisions, but of course Sir Humphrey, who was the top civil servant, turns out he was running many things. And then he has that have has their share of Sir Humphrey's not necessarily Guteras, but but people who are there for decades and who orchestrate things behind the scenes. So that that plays an element as well. And in terms of what you might hear from them, you know, I remember speaking with a with a diplomat from a from a large Spanish speaking country in Europe. And that diplomat I was asking, you know, I said, well, you know, there's there's extreme bias in the general assembly where there's one resolution on Iran, one on North Korea, one on Syria, and at the time 20 on Israel today might be 15 on Israel. And that is pathological and obsessive and it demonizes Israel and by extension Jews. And she said, well, you know, Israel is an occupier. Okay, if that's the measure, then as you know, according to international law at the time, Morocco's occupying western Sahara and Turkey's occupying northern Cyprus and Armenia's occupying Nagorno Karabakh from Azerbaijan and several other instances. And she you could see she was getting upset. This was not a discussion that she really wanted to have. And she said, well, you know, are you saying they're the same. Not that the person not the same, but you said that's it's because of the occupation. So let's look at other things. And if you want to look at human rights abuses, you know, and and qualitatively or quantitatively China has 1.5 billion people is one of the most egregious human rights records in in the world. But there's a quality of human rights abuses or the quantity. It's it ought to be it ought to take up much of the time of the UN. And in fact, there's zero resolutions on China putting aside the fact that they, that they occupy Tibet and in the 60s before communist China took over the UN seat. There were actually some resolutions on China occupying Tibet, but that ended many decades ago. So at some point, the conversation kind of ended. You could see that she couldn't really defend it logically. There were some pretexts that they would have international law and occupation in the moment you try to to dig a little deeper. The conversation kind of ends. Yeah, I've witnessed that in some of my own work that sometimes their failures of logic are good to see, you know, it can fall apart under even quite mild question and interrogation. I want to ask you about some of the big lies that the UN has played a role in fostering over the past almost three years. I mean, there's the really big one genocide, which I want to come come onto in a moment because I think that's one of the crucial issues of our time. I don't know that that blood liable, but let's start with the famine question because this has dripped into media discussion almost every day discussion as well. I meet people quite regularly who will say there was a terrible famine in Gaza. The man made it was made by Israel, the UN played a role in spreading that misinformation. Where does the discussion about the famine currently, the famine currently stand? Is there any recognition in these bodies that they jump the gun or are they still running with it? Where does that stand right now? I haven't seen recently what the latest declarations are, but certainly if you ask about it, there's recognition on things that they said before. It's very rare for the U.S. to acknowledge that they were spreading lies and numerous cases numerous times, they either said that there is famine right now or, or many people are going to die in the next 24 hours or as the infamous case where a former British diplomat Tom Fletcher, the head of the UN humanitarian agency, infamously went on TV and said 14,000 children are going to die in the next 48 hours. That was a complete lie, meaning even he had been quoting from some he was referring to some report, but he had completely distorted what what it had said. It had made reference to some risk to some children within the year and he just he boils it down to 14,000 children and then dying for eight hours and it was quoted all around the world. And he's a very suave diplomat. He's kind of sees himself as kind of a James Bond figure defending the UN. And so he's he's very middietique as we say in French. so that went all around the world. And then a few days later, I said, oh, well, maybe not exactly, I might have not been precise, and that corrections appears nowhere. So I would say generally the UN has not corrected itself from time to time. There are some experts who will identify the fact that the UN effectively acknowledged that what they were saying was a line. Of course, there was no famine. There were major problems in Gaza, but there was no famine. And in the cases where they were able, where newspapers, at the various point, there were several newspapers that wanted to show emaciated children. And in the most famous cases, these were children who had some preexisting, horrible medical condition or some disease that they were born with. And of course, you know, infamously the New York Times had one of these iconic photos of a mom holding an emaciated child, presumably who is being starved by Israel's actions and policies. And it emerged that right next to the emaciated child was not shown in the photo, but in the original photo was the second child who was healthy. And it's because the child who was emaciated had some horrible medical condition. It wasn't because of famine. Of course, there were very difficult conditions in Gaza because of Hamas's war, but Israel allowed in thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of food and aid and trucks throughout. It has emerged recently that some UN agencies did acknowledge quietly that Hamas was stealing much of this aid. So there was no famine. The photos of gaunt emaciated people, the famous ones were shown to be distortions and people who had from other things. But somehow there was, as you said, it's, this isn't about logic. There was some kind of a demand in the world for this narrative and a number of actors, bad actors were complicit in supplying that demand. - Give us a sense of the scale of the misinformation involved in this. As you've just said, no one denies that there are difficulties in Gaza. Those war zones are very unpleasant places and lots of bad things happen. I think everyone knows that. And you've mentioned that hundreds of thousands of tons of food were brought in, but people, some people are just unaware of the extent to which Israel brought food into Gaza and has been doing so over the past year as well. It was really brought home to me when Greta Thunberg and the other Kaffir people were sailing to Gaza with a couple of boxes of food and medicine or whatever they had. In the time it took them to get to Gaza when they were having their holiday on the Mediterranean, Israel delivered millions of meals to people in Gaza. And it's just, I wrote about it at the time for the telegraph and I got responses from people saying that they just had no idea that this was happening, that meals were being delivered every single day. So give us a sense of just the level of misinformation that is involved when people can genuinely believe that Israel was forcibly starving the people of Gaza when the precise opposite was the case. - That's true. Actually, the fortil is an extreme case because I saw in Switzerland and I think I was in France at some point around this time and you could see how in some ways it was a very clever, agit prop and political theater, they deliberately brought the citizens from multiple countries so that they could then reach out to dozens of European countries and other Western countries and say that their citizens have been kidnapped and they're there to deliver humanitarian aid when as you said, a handful of boxes, the whole thing was performative but that so many major newspapers treated it like it was a serious aid effort, which it wasn't, like they were being kidnapped and abused, and their last attempt, I think Israel detained them and sent them back within 24, 48 hours and had no intention of keeping them at all. And there was, so, but you could see that the headlines, and I was in Geneva one point when there was a mass demonstration because of the flotilla people being intercepted and the people convinced themselves that the demon Israel was now kidnapping, humanitarian to deliver aid. And so it was this theater where so many major newspapers were complicit in a farce and those who called it out in France, there's a radio personality named Sophia Aram who was a satirist and she mocked the farce and then there were many, many complaints about her and she was just calling it out for what it is, the whole thing was a farce. And I've met with, I've met with UN agencies that are dealing with humanitarian issues. I've met with the IDF senior officers who are dealing with humanitarian issues and various serious efforts were made by the IDF to indeed make sure that the area gas that they were fighting Hamas is nevertheless being fed and having various essential services, which probably has no analog in history where when the Western countries were fighting the Nazis, they weren't at the same time, at that moment as they were bombing Dresden or fighting major wars, they weren't also in a major operation to supply food and water and other things to that population. Israel was doing that and whenever Israel would do something, it would be cast as something demonic, for example, when Israel tried to, the challenge, of course, was that Hamas did not wear uniforms and would attack from homes, hospitals, and schools and those who claim there is a genocide that Israel tried to kill civilians, the interesting question, why Hamas always chose to not wear uniforms, if Israel was killing everybody, then it would make a difference. Of course, Israel was trying to go after the Hamas terrorists. And so one of the things that Israel tried to do and was to identify a particular region and say, okay, civilians, I want you to move away, gonna go to another area, Egypt put a massive barrier, wouldn't let a single Palestinian enter. The King of Jordan set on behalf of Jordan and Egypt, not one Palestinian will be allowed to leave, and that's because we care about the Palestinian cause. In the name of the Palestinian cause, we will not take in a single Palestinian. So the Gaza has a border with Egypt on the Sinai. Egypt wouldn't take in a single one. So Israel had no choice but to sort of rotate at various points so that they could target an area where Hamas was, was tell civilians to move, and that was to let them live and not be targeted. And then the UN agencies would constantly claim ethnic cleansing. Each time this happened, which was absurd. - For me, that was one of the most extraordinary acts of double speak and double think and just or wellian misinformation where even when Israel was trying to save civilian life, it was accused of committing a war crime. And it was just lie upon lie at that stage in the conflict. You touched on the images of emaciated children from Gaza, and as you say, they were people, they were kids who had pre-existing conditions. The famine lie, of course, feeds into another issue that has been raised constantly over the past three years, including by UN agencies and UN officials, which is this idea that Israel specifically targets Palestinian children for execution, attack. We hear this all the time from the left in the UK. I'm sure you get it from the left elsewhere as well, which is this idea that Israel kills children, baby killers. I mean, that phrase is literally shouted in the faces of British Jews very regularly. What have you made of that focus from the UN and across civil society, I guess, this idea that Israel intentionally targets and kills kids in Gaza? Yeah, well, obviously it's absurd. And Israel was trying to stop Hamas, who massacred some 1,200 people on October 7th and they did the country. And it taken over Gaza and it bedded themselves and territories underneath homes, hospitals, schools, and mosques, and Israel was aiming for Hamas. In some cases, the claims that Israel was targeting children would be instances of where you'd have a 17-year-old Hamas gunman. And many of these things emerge. There's a gentleman on the internet. He's actually a fellow with UN watch now. His name is Salah Weisenberg. And he's done deep dives into many of the names that were put out initially during the war as innocent children, innocent humanitarians, innocent journalists. And there are dozens and dozens and dozens of cases emerging now where Hamas is finally eulogizing them as Hamas martyrs and publishing photos of them with Kalashnikov's videos of them throwing bombs. And some of these people were UNESCO certified journalists. UNESCO, a number of cases, the director of UNESCO had issued statements say, "I condemn Israel for killing a journalist so and so." And it took a year or two or three, and Hamas is now, they waited, but now Hamas, for their own internal purposes, needs to glorify them and releases photos. There's one UNESCO journalist, I say UNESCO journalists, UNESCO condemned Israel for killing a journalist. And there's a five-minute video of him holding firing multiple weapons, throwing bombs, jumping into tunnels. And he was no journalist. He actually did do some media work for Hamas. part of their propaganda, and so that person became a journalist, and he was also clearly a fighter. And there are dozens and dozens and dozens of cases of this, and NGOs were complicit, and UN agencies were complicit. What about the crossover? You've talked about this already, but the crossover between this so-called criticism of Israel, which is really a kind of deranged obsession with Israel, and then the impact that we're seeing on Jews across the Western world. Europe has got really bad at the moment. Anti-Semitism is skyrocketing here, and has done for the past three years. Because when you hear terms like, "The Jewish State is a child killing machine." You can't help but think of earlier bloodlibrals. The bloodlabel itself was born in this country that I'm speaking to you from, in Norwich and England, in the 1100s, the idea that Jews target children for sacrifice. There is clear crossover there, isn't it? There is a rehabilitation of ancient prejudices. What impact do you think the UN and those kinds of bodies are having on the security of Jews around the world? Well, they're throwing fuel on the fire. That's the reality. And I think you identified a very powerful dynamic. It's a meme, if you want to call it, or that existed for nearly a thousand years, that Jews, beginning in the medieval times, as you said, beginning in England, but rapidly spreading in other parts of medieval Europe, that Jews had a ritual to kill Christian children and use their blood to bake matzas and many societies in Europe believed that. That was that became a reason, pretext, and a preparation to kill Jews, to persecute them, to exile them on the basis of this bloodlabel. Actually, interesting, there's a Jewish intellectual in the end of the 19th century named Ahad Haam, and he wrote an essay called Half a Consolation, as it was in Hebrew, but the translation is roughly half a consolation. And Dr. A. Not Will has written about this. And he says that there is some consolation in the bloodlabel accusation, because there are many accusations made against the Jews at the time in Europe, and there were Jews who would read this, and some of them could internalize the lie and say, well, maybe we are horrible in this way in that way. He said, but the bloodlabel, any Jew knows anything about Judaism, would know that's complete lie, because eating blood is something that's taboo in Judaism, what kosher meat, one of the things that you do is you remove the blood. So it's something that's prohibited in Judaism. So his half consolation was at least, at least Jews would know that that false accusation is a terrible lie. And, but indeed, that is the exact impression that I get when I hear people, when you say, the baby killers, well, that was said for a thousand years with a pause of some 50, 75 years after the Holocaust, when it became shameful to be overtly anti-Semitic. And we see that those those that taboo is is fast being removed. And if Jews were called for anti-Semites would call a Jew baby killer or Christ killer, now you have something similar, people hateful, people will walk up to Jews around the world and shout at them. So it really is a revival of of long standing anti-Semitic stereotypes dressed up in modern fashion. And of course, anti-Semitism has always been imutating virus. It ceases upon that which is deemed virtuous in society and casts Jews as the enemy of that. So when society was religious, Jews killed God. And when society used science, science was a virtue. So Jews were the inferior race. And when a society was communist, Jews were the fascist capitalists. And in capitalist societies anti-Semites, Jews being communists in our time, the virtue is human rights and anti-racism. And so Jews, the Jewish state is accused of being an enemy of human rights and racist. That's very well put. I wanted to ask you about Francesca Albenese, the UN Special Rapporteur, people will know who she is. I think she recently claimed that she doesn't know who you are, which I find very heart-able. But she is quite popular in left-wing circles. She is in the media very regularly. I would say that she's one of the key people for in terms of spreading misinformation about Israel, that's my view. What's your view of the role that she plays? And I wanted to get a sense from you also of how seriously she's taken at the UN. Because it can be hard for some of us outside of that institution to judge that. Is she taken seriously there? Is she a big player or is she more just of a media personality? Well, technically her position is not necessarily significant. Meaning she is one of some 59 mandate holders. The UN Rights Council can appoint a monitor, which is called a special Rapporteur or an independent expert or could be a five-person working group on themes like torture, racism, and so forth, or on a country situation like Hades, North Korea, or in this case Palestine, Palestinian territories. And many of them don't make the news. She began to make the news because she goes after Israel and people like the product that she's selling. She's very active in the media and she's tweeting nonstop. So there never really was someone with that position. The mandate on Palestine territories was created in 1993. It's a special mandate because the other ones was about a dozen, a deal with regions. So for example, the special Rapporteur on human rights in Sudan would report on violations by the regime, but then also violations by the rebels in many cases. There are violations on multiple sides. And the mandate that she was given, that was given, that was created many decades ago in February 1993, even before the Oslo Accords unchanged since then, is to investigate, quote, Israel's violations. To investigate Israel's violations, the basis and principles of international law and the occupied Arab territories, and the occupied Palestinian territories. So it's only to look at Israel and Israel's actions are deemed violations. So when Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fataq, Palestinian Authority, commit horrible abuses against their own people or against Israelis, that is not part of her mandate. So that was, that's the human rights council going back three decades. And so there were many special Rapporteurs in Palestine who were horrible. One of the infamous ones was Richard Falk, well, the position from 2008 to 2014. He was a 9/11 conspiracy promoter. He was a supporter of Hamas. But she's different because she's the first one to be extremely active on social media, extremely active in the media. And the, the, she wields a certain power and influence that is disproportionate to other UN officials because a normal UN official, I mentioned Tom Fletcher, who was telling lies, but there's all some, there are some accountability in theory. Antonio Gutierrez is the top of the UN Secretaryate and every employee at some point answers to him. And so if a UN official does something horrible, in theory, there could be some accountability. With the UN special Rapporteurs, it's different. They, a situation was created, where there's someone bearing the name of the UN official. In theory, they only speak for themselves. They're, they're, quote, independent. They don't speak on behalf of anyone. And yet, they, there's always, whenever the media wants to, they will say when the UN Rapporteurs says something instead of saying, a UN appointee said something that person is independent, doesn't represent the UN, doesn't represent the council, it only represents herself. That's not what they say. They'll say, you know, UN says. And, and what's distinctive about the Rapporteurs is that there's no accountability. There's no accountability. So in theory, they're, they're answerable to the council, 47 nation human rights council, but they meet only a few times a year. And they almost never take any action against, against the Rapporteurs. So it's, it's this bizarre phenomenon, where you have someone vested with enormous influence around the world, who can say the UN said, there's genocide. And she, something she, she, Francesca Albinese typically will share whenever some radical pro-Hamas activists center. And you can see her just sharing screenshots that she just got five minutes ago and just say alarm. And she said it's enormous influence. It gets quoted around the world. And she can make things up, what she does on many cases. She made up a year or two ago. She gave a press conference in Geneva. And she said something like there's hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza who are being killed. And there weren't even that many amount of children in Gaza from the numbers she gave. I don't know, 300,000 children under five. Get the exact statistic, which you're just making up statistics that that don't make any sense that are factually objectively impossible. And there's no accountability. We are group UN launch, which monitors the UN, has written numerous times to the president of the UN Rights Council, who in theory has the power to speak out to the high commissioner for human rights, Volker Turf. who could speak out to Gutera's, who could speak out his predecessor. I mentioned the case of Richard Falk, when Richard Falk, support of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary General, did condemn Richard Falk. That was quite significant. Gutera's has chosen silence. And so, when the United States ascended her for overtly supporting Hamas, let's keep in mind then on October 7th, Francesca Benizi was tweeting, "In defense of Hamas," saying, "There's a context here. They're responding to oppression. And then since that day, she's acted as a propaganda vehicle for every Hamas lie. And when the US urged Gutera's to take action to speak out, he did nothing. And eventually, the US sanctioned her, which was the first time that she was held accountable. That was a good thing. Yeah, someone had to do it. Helelo, just got a couple of quick questions for you before I let you go. I wanted to ask you about UNRA, the UN Agency for so-called refugees in the Palestinian territories. Keir Starmer's government chose to rehabilitate funding for UNRA, which was very controversial, not least because the British Israeli hostage Emily Demari for a period of time was held. She said it in an UNRA building, which essentially meant that our government was funding an institution that in some way was helping to halt British citizens' hostage, I mean, it was extraordinary. It gives us a sense of what UNRA, the problematic role, to put it mildly, that UNRA plays in terms of radicalizing, helping to radicalize people in Gaza, helping to sustain movements like Hamas. What kind of role does UNRA play there? UNRA plays a very substantial role in, sadly, in perpetuating the conflict. It's not why it was created. It was created with altruistic purposes. The US was a major figure around 1949, 1950. There was the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, Israel's War of Independence. The Arab States invaded Israel lost. And there was an exchange of populations. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries, more than 800,000 from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, that were basically pushed out. Many of them came to Israel, some found refuge elsewhere. And in that war, there were Palestinian Arabs who were displaced. Some of them left because they were told by their allies to leave while they crossed the Jews. Others were pushed out during the conflict. And they went to, they went miles away, meaning they went in some cases five miles away. Those in Gaza arrived from places that were maybe five miles, 10 miles, 30 miles away. They went from Arab Muslim areas to neighboring Arab Muslim areas. They could have been absorbed easily. That was the point of UNRA was to help them start a new life. But very quickly, they decided that they refused to accept that they had lost the war. And they decided to perpetuate this very bizarre and cruel policy, which is to say we will not be resettled. And the Arab states joined in with the Palestinian leadership at the time to say we reject any form of resettlement. Our mission will be to dismantle Israel. The war is not over. And effectively, after about five years of UNRA existing, once they realized that the Palestinians who were then living in Jordan or Lebanon or in Gaza refused to resettle in a normal way, but kept holding on to the goal of dismantling Israel, UNRA became a pathological agency. And so, you know, 70 years later, after having received billions and billions of dollars from UK taxpayers, EU taxpayers, US taxpayers, they haven't resettled a single Palestinian. And that time, as I mentioned, more than 800,000 Arabs from Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, Libya were resettled in Israel. And you know, Israel, one of its leading military officers is now running for office named Gadi Isonkot, who may defeat Netanyahu. He's a Moroccan Jew. So, you know, the Jews who came from Arab countries have gone on to lead very productive lives. And that's, of course, what the Palestinians could do. You have this anomaly where there are two million Arabs living in Jordan who are Jordanian citizens, who are of Palestinian descent. They came from, apparently from what was British mandatory Palestine. In 1948, '49. And they are Jordanian citizens. They've had citizenship for decades. And yet, there's this oxymoron where they're called refugees, even though they have, there's nowhere else in the world where if you are a Sudanese refugee and you get a British passport or a US passport in your living, in those countries, you're still called a refugee. It's one or the other. So, but the UN has UNRA as an agency designed to dismantle Israel, to teach generations of Palestinians that their goal is not to move on with their lives, but to exist as dependence and to dream of dismantling Israel. And you asked about the role that unreplayed. I'll just mention two cases that are emblematic. One in Gaza, one in Lebanon, in Lebanon. There was the head of the teacher's union of UNRA, named Fatri Sharif. He was a teacher for some 30 years school principal of about a thousand students outside of Tire, Lebanon, for UNRA. And he was also the commander of Hamas in Lebanon. So, I'll say that again, on our teacher, school principal, head of two thousand teachers in the union of UNRA. And he was the commander of Hamas. How do we know it? Hamas had so. Israel delivered justice to him. I believe it was September, 2024, and a missile that took him out. And the day he was killed, Hamas released a video saying, "Wo went to us, our commander." Hamas commander has been killed. The great Fatri Sharif, one can see the video on the internet, about a three minute video. He gave you how to education. We eulogize him. They showed pictures of him with Ismail Hania, the Hamas leader, and him walking around with bodyguards. And he was the head of two thousand unretachers. You couldn't make this up if you wanted to. And the UN spokesman said, "Well, how could we know?" Hamas is an underground group. And well, we released a report, I think it was called Teachers of Terror. And it was 100 pages of Fatri Sharif every day on Facebook, posting how much he loves Hamas, pictures of him had Hamas funerals, pictures of him handing prizes to five-year-old kids learning martial arts with the Hamas headband. And these were publicly posted on his Facebook page on the community website. How could you know? Well, he told you every day. And there's a copy paste, same case in Gaza, Suil Al-Hindi, head of the Teachers Union, eight thousand teachers in Gaza, school teacher, was on the Hamas Politburo working closely with Yakhya Sinwar, there's pictures of them together. He's now in exile in Turkey, he's one of the Hamas leaders. Suil Al-Hindi was the head of the Unrah Teachers Union. I mean, I've read your reports on this stuff, but every time I hear it, it's just extraordinary and shocking. Okay, hello. My last question if you used, is the big question, so I probably shouldn't have left it to last, but I wanted to ask you about where you think the genocide light will go next, because it seems clear to me that this has become quite an entrenched myth in our societies. We hear it every single day from members of the political class, from the media, it's on the streets. It's, you see graffiti that mentions the, the so-called genocide. It's a deeply entrenched myth. It's obviously not stacked up by anything resembling a fact, and if in fact, I think some people's eyes are being opened to what a level of misinformation was involved in this accusation. How dangerous has that claim in particular proven to be, do you think, and do you see any hope on the horizon that at some point it might be dismantled by the kind of logic that people like you bring to the discussion? Well, I think nothing could be more substantial than the genocide accusation in terms of paving the way for a real genocide that could be perpetrated against Jews, the amount of hate that is being mobilized based on a complete lie, where you see people are so worked up, and they, when they shout out baby killer at a Jew and a restaurant, they've been brought into this state. And it seems, you know, history has shown that that those kinds of lies were the precursor to terrible massacres, and that's, we've seen that many times in the past, and there's every reason to fear that this could happen again. You know, there were these mob violent situations in Amsterdam when they were hunting for Jews. There was shortly after October 7th, the situation in a Muslim province, I think it was Dougist on of Russia, where an Israeli plane was landing, or there was a belief that there were Israelis on the plane, and mobs of thousands ran onto the tarmac, you know, with blood in their eyes. So I think the genocide lie is indeed driving the anti-semitism. How to predict where this will go, if we look at history, and we know that these blood libels take on a ritualistic obsession and become something that is completely pathological, and it's very scary. The ideas of the blood libel for a thousand years in Europe were very strong, and took hold of people's brains, and you know, no amount of logic could dispel it. So groups like ours are working to tell the truth. It's a complete lie, but we recognize that we're dealing with something that is not logical that may have have profound roots in pathologies that we've seen before in history and that there's a fear that this is taking root in very scary ways. Hello, thank you very much.