Moreno was put under an emergency detention order by Houston police in 2016, Hassig said, adding that Moreno had documented mental health issues. “There was a sticker on the butt stock of the rifle that stated Palestine,” he said. According to Hassig, Moreno also had a .22-caliber rifle in a bag but did not fire it. Fox News initially reported that the phrase was “Free Palestine.” However, in the news conference, Hassig reiterated, “A sticker simply stated Palestine on the butt stock.” Fox News later updated its story to acknowledge, “The preliminary reporting also indicated that the message ‘Free Palestine’ was written on the rifle; investigators said later it was just ‘Palestine.'” Police confirmed that they recovered antisemitic writings. “We do have some antisemitic writings that we have uncovered,” Hassig said. “We do believe that there was a familial dispute that has taken place between her ex-husband and her ex-husband’s family, and some of those individuals are Jewish. So we believe that might possibly be where all of this stems from.” CNN reported that there was a “bitter custody battle between Moreno and representatives for her ex-spouse’s family” that “played out on her social media accounts.” According to CNN, Moreno acted as her own attorney at one point in the divorce case.
Let's hope this "comedian" never is able to book another gig. Threatening Jews until they leave the theater is not amusing. Famous London theater investigating after Jews say they were forced out, audience screamed ‘free Palestine’ The Soho Theatre apologized and noted the incident was being looked into https://www.foxnews.com/media/famou...s-forced-out-audience-screamed-free-palestine A famous London theater, that used to be a synagogue, has issued an apology following a Saturday incident where several Jewish attendees said they were forced out of the establishment when a comedian urged the audience to chant "free Palestine" and "get the f—k out." In a statement posted to X, Soho Theatre said they were "sorry and saddened" by the incident that took place during a performance by comedian Paul Currie. The theater also revealed that they would investigate what transpired after audience members said they were "upset" and "hurt" by the conduct of the audience and the onstage act. "We take this very seriously and are looking into the detail of what happened as thoroughly, as sensitively and as quickly as we can. It is important us that Soho Theatre is as welcoming and inclusive place for all," the statement continued. According to information provided by a Jewish attendee to the Campaign Against Antisemitism, around 200 people attended the one-hour "Shtoom" show where Currie allegedly led his audience in discriminatory chanting. Toward the end of the performance, Currie brought a Ukrainian and Palestinian Authority flag onstage and asked the crowd to applaud. After everyone returned to their seats, Currie noticed a young Israeli man sitting in the second row who did not stand. He asked the man why he did not participate and whether he enjoyed the show. "I enjoyed your show until you brought out the Palestinian Authority flag," the man allegedly replied. The anonymous attendee said things escalated when Currie began shouting at the man, saying things like "get out of my show," "f—k off" and "get the f—k out of here," according to Campaign Against Antisemitism. The attendee described feeling uncomfortable as the audience began chanting along with the comedian, yelling "get out" and "free Palestine" until the man and those he came to the show with left. The eyewitness and friends then approached a manager to report what had happened, but the worker appeared unhelpful and more concerned with other tasks. She allegedly told them to "back off and stand further away from her" and asked them to send an e-mail detailing the complaint. The manager allegedly also dismissed the concern, noting they "support free speech at Soho Theatre." "Our friends later received a message from someone they knew who had also been at the show, saying that after we left, the situation became even more inflamed," an attendee told Campaign Against Antisemitism. "The chanting carried on for quite some time. Currie turned to the audience and said: ‘I may get into trouble for this. Can you ensure you write some positive stuff about me on social media?’" "Leaving the theater, I felt threatened. I didn’t know if I was going to get physically assaulted. We were all shaken. We were extremely upset and anxious," the attendee added. "It felt like we were welcome in the theater as long as our identities of Jews weren’t known, and the minute our identities were known, we felt threatened." A Campaign Against Antisemitism spokesperson said the incident was "atrocious" and announced they are working with a team of lawyers to ensure "those who instigated and enabled it are held to account." "These allegations are of deeply disturbing discriminatory abuse against Jews. Comedians are rightly given broad latitude, but hounding Jews out of theaters is reminiscent of humanity’s darkest days and must have no place in central London in 2024," the spokesperson said. Currie did not return Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
unhinged but per the accounts I've read, it's not clear Currie knew the guy was Jewish. It read to me like he was offended they wouldn't side with his moral grandstanding.
It's time for Harvard to fire some more administrators and professors who promote antisemitic hate on campus. UN Official, Banned From Israel and Welcomed at Harvard Event, Denounces Jewish State for ‘Genocide,’ ‘Apartheid’ American government calls Francesca Albanese’s comments ‘unacceptable and antisemitic,’ yet a Harvard professor thanks her for ‘incredibly important work.’ https://www.nysun.com/article/un-of...event-denounces-israel-for-genocide-apartheid
Silencing truth tellers has always been the wrong side of history. Let alone, w/redefined "that's racist!" allegations
South Africa merely wants to scrub Israel off the face of the earth. Their claims in the ICJ and in front of the U.N. are utter nonsense. Understanding South Africa's neo-apartheidism ideology against Israel - opinion It is important to note that what we see is not based on October 7 but the development of a new antisemitic ideological claim of Israel being the new apartheid. https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-785780 In 1894, a French artillery officer of Jewish origin, Alfred Dreyfus, faced charges of treason from the French army. The events of the time prompted Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism and journalist covering the trial, to believe that establishing a national homeland for the Jewish people could address the issue of antisemitism. Despite the persistence of antisemitism, this article is written in the modern State of Israel, 130 years later. Following the October 7 attacks and subsequent war, South Africa decided to take Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), charging it with violating the Genocide Convention of 1948. Following the conclusion of preliminary hearings for provisional measures, Justice Minister Ronald Lamola went before the cameras, and after a speech blaming Israel for genocide, stating that Israel had utterly failed. “We are standing on the principle that every apartheid state is declared a crime against humanity,” he said. “So we are here to protect the Palestinian people.” The motivations behind South Africa’s case were clarified by its first speaker, emphasizing its intent that the case is not simply about genocide but about Israel’s legitimacy. Its ambassador to the Netherlands, Vusimusi Mandonsela, claimed that the fight dates back to Israel’s very existence as a state, not just from October 7: South Africa recognizes the ongoing Nakba of the Palestinian people through Israel’s colonization since 1948. We are also particularly mindful of Israel’s institutionalized regime of discriminatory laws, policies, and practices designed and maintained to establish domination, subjecting the Palestinian people to apartheid on both sides of the Green Line… SA acknowledges the genocidal acts and omissions by the State of Israel as part of a continuum of illegal acts perpetrated against the Palestinian people since 1948. The application places Israel’s genocidal acts within the broader context of Israel’s apartheid. The birth of neo-apartheidism ideology against Israel The development of this “neo-apartheidism” ideology did not come out of a vacuum but was formed on South African soil. The term equating Israel to apartheid was first officially articulated in the Durban NGO Forum at the Durban Conference Against Racism a few days before the September 11 attacks [in the US]. A combination of anti-apartheid activists joined forces with anti-Israel NGOs, giving birth to the new global movement. This was articulated in Article 424: Call for the launch of an international anti-Israeli Apartheid movement as implemented against South African Apartheid through a global solidarity campaign network of international civil society, UN bodies and agencies, business communities, and to end the conspiracy of silence among states, particularly the European Union and the United States. In 2005, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was born, utilizing the strategy to compare Israel to apartheid. Importantly, while it wasn’t originally South African policy, since 2012 the ruling African National Congress (ANC) has adopted it as such. When challenged at the time, the ANC chair called Israel “far worse than apartheid,” and the declaration was “unapologetic in its view that the Palestinians are the victims and the oppressed in the conflict with Israel…The conference called on all South Africans to support the programs and campaigns of Palestinian civil society, seeking to put pressure on Israel to engage with the Palestinian people to reach a just solution.” As such, it is important to note that what we see is not based on October 7 but the development of a new antisemitic ideological claim of Israel being the new apartheid. It is important to highlight this trend, as it goes beyond the court’s purview regarding the Genocide Convention. Nevertheless, if Israel were to be acquitted by the court, this ideology, prevalent throughout civil society, particularly on the Left across the West, will continue to haunt it. South Africa’s ideology is so complete that it also obscures facts on the ground. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, including removing all its soldiers and civilians. Its inability to rescue Gilad Schalit and the majority of the current hostages is proof of its lack of effective control. Despite this, South Africa acts as if Israel completely controls Gaza, viewing Gaza and the people in it as one unit with Israeli Arabs and Palestinians in the West Bank. Two speakers claimed that all border crossings were controlled by Israel, ignoring Egyptian control of Rafah in the South. Hamas was largely ignored, and if mentioned, sidelined. The result is Israel occupying a piece of land it has not occupied for 17 years and therefore has no right to self-defense. To counter, it is important to highlight facts on the ground and to emphasize Hamas’s role as the governing authority of an independent authority. Gaza has not been under Israeli control since August 2005. Israel’s ability to defend itself is clear in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, based on the Jewish people’s inalienable right of self-determination. The right of self- defense is even more permissible at the state level, as “Palestine” as a state was admitted by the United Nations, in which Gaza is viewed as a part. As stated by Israel’s lawyer, Christopher Staker, it makes little sense for South Africa as a third party to request injunctions at The Hague when the real parties are Israel vs Palestine. However, as a show trial to the world, the stage is perfect for South Africa. Neo-apartheidism is real and upon us. It’s critical that Israel and its supporters be prepared to actively oppose and counter its presence. ■
WHO IS TALKING ABOUT ISRAELI APARTHEID? Below is an updated (but not exhaustive) list of notable organizations and figures who have recently adopted, or expressed openness towards, the terminology of Israeli apartheid. Last updated: November 7, 2023 Jump to category: United Nations International Human Rights Groups Palestinian Civil Society Israeli Human Rights Groups Public Opinion Post-Apartheid South Africa and Namibia Other Notable Figures and Organizations Canadian Politicians and Organizations Background - Notable Analyses
According to the speaker invited to Harvard -- the Palestinian terrorists should be allowed to kill all of the Jews. For those who have not been paying attention -- this is the very definition of genocide. Embattled UN Official Doubles Down At Harvard, Says Israel Has No Right To Self Defense Francesca Albanese was banned from Israel and condemned by French and American officials for her comments https://www.dailywire.com/news/emba...vard-says-israel-has-no-right-to-self-defense
what was actually said: “Saying that the motivation was anti-Semitism is wrong and dangerous,” Albanese said in the Harvard discussion. “I’m not saying that people in Hamas are absolutely not anti-Semitic. This was not the argument, but the argument is that this attack was launched as a way to break the occupation against the apartheid.” “I understand why Israel is using this argument of antisemitism because by saying ‘we were attacked, because we are Jews,’ it’s bringing the existential threat that many Jews fear,” she added. “The real threat is the apartheid that Israel imposes on the Palestinians, which is a threat to both Palestinians and Israeli Jews.” “Israel had to act under the framework of international humanitarian law in terms of law enforcement, because this is the powers that it has as an occupying power,” she said. “It didn’t have the right to act in self defense, meaning waging a war because it couldn’t wage a war against the people it maintains under occupation.” “What Israel had to do was to repel the attack on its own territory, arrest and detain and treat humanely the people who had been arrested and ensure justice,” she continued. “You could have used justice, used its own justice system, go to International Criminal Court and the, the other instead of taking revenge against the entire population.” “After four months, there is no official reconstruction, no official investigation, and no independent investigation on what has happened on the 7th of October and I’m not saying that to say, ‘oh it was not criminal,’ of course it was criminal, but I do not have evidence to establish the intent.” “Hamas doesn’t have the capacity to really carry out a genocide,” she added. She also said that while some Hamas terrorists “may have been motivated by hatred,” that all evidence “at the level of command have not pointed to aggression against the Jews.”