call me Adaptus the way Pharma lives rent free in my brain

this is the schedule for féile, an irish community arts festival.

misleading: the 1pm lecture, "ridding the land of pestilence," was not about israel/palestine, or jews, whatsoever.

not misleading: all of the other events seem to be exactly what one would imagine based on the titles, including "the weaponization of antisemitism." wieland hoban, the speaker, was giving a talk on his book (which shares names w/ the lecture itself). here's an excerpt from the google books description of the relevant book:

Hoban himself appears to be a British-German composer and translator and published his book "Germany's Jewish Problem" in 2025. While his wordpress doesn't mention that he's Jewish, descriptions of his book on other websites do say so. Reading some of his other writing, he repeatedly uses the participation of his group in controversial events as evidence that they couldn't possibly antisemitic. Even worries that antisemitic statements might be made at an event are dismissed out of hand with that reasoning.

I took a quick dip into his previous book from 2021 and it's honestly kind of embarassing to read. It features not only a play-by-play recounting of Twitter beef, but also an interview with Micha Brumlik, a recently deceased publicist whose work I'm not familiar with but who expresses himself MUCH more eloquently than Hoban. Brumlik will say something quite differentiated, then Hoban will jump in with a huge oversimplification and a "well people are saying xy!" Brumlik asks who's saying that, Hoban can't give a straight answer. Hoban says "you never see people talk about xy!" Brumlik brings up examples of people talking about exactly that. That's how the whole interview goes. Hoban comes across as incredibly uninformed, like his whole worldview comes from his Twitter bubble. And overall he seems very invested in downplaying antisemitism, even the Yom Kippur 2019 attack on a German synagogue by a Neonazi, and really just comes across as much less informed and intelligent than Brumlik.

Jihad is jihad (the same word). Jew is yahud. (A cognate)

“Jihad dida al yahud” (pronounced jahed duda al yahud) is “jihad against the Jews.”

Note: I really like to fact check stuff before I share it. I actually saw this post days before the date listed above. The date I list is just the day I put it in my queue.

It’s hard to find posts about this from sources I trust, because many sources are simply refusing to share anything about specific antisemitism sources lately. Many solid sources will report on the rise in antisemitism, but few go as far as to name institutions where it stems from.

It’s even harder to discuss this because BBC has a pretty solid media bias/fact check rating at this time, and it does take quite awhile for these ratings to be evaluated and changed. But antisemitism at the BBC is pretty well documented.

Finally, another thing that makes it difficult to discuss these matters is that it’s hard to call out antisemitism in a society that matches that level of antisemitism. And with antisemitism rising in the UK (and also everywhere else), fewer OTHER sources are willing to report on each other for their role in Jewish suffering.

So, all that said, here’s my attempt to prove these claims given the constraints of the current media and antisemitic landscape.

1. BBC itself still maintains a very good media bias/fact check rating, and reported on the discontent within its own ranks.

2. The Guardian is NOT a good source the vast majority of the time. I do NOT recommend it, because it has a mixed record on factual reporting and isn’t very credible. I’m citing it here ONLY because of another source I’m sharing next, after the Guardian article. The Guardian has a left-leaning bias and has been extremely critical of Israel and not nearly critical enough of Hamas in the wake of 10/7/23. The Guardian has also reported on antisemitism within the BBC.

3. The Telegraph is another source I don’t like at all and wouldn’t share in general for all the same reasons relating to poor credibility and reporting standards as plague The Guardian. I’m sharing them here for a specific reason: they are a right leaning news source. I don’t really follow them and don’t know how they have behaved in the wake of 10/7/23 or how they have discussed antisemitism, Israel, or Hamas. They have also reported on the discontent of Jewish staff within the BBC.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/01/bbc-chairman-dismisses-staff-complaints-anti-semitism/

They’ve also published an article about the normalization of antisemitism in the BBC since 10/7

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/30/anti-semitism-bbc-now-normal-after-oct-7-whistleblow-claims/

So why share The Guardian and The Telegraph if I don’t trust them as sources?

Because I wanted to show that left-leaning sources, right-leaning sources, anti-Israel sources, and basically sources from across the political spectrum have ALL reported on antisemitism within the BBC.

The Times is another source that has a better factual record than either The Guardian or The Telegraph, but still doesn’t meet my standards for a high enough fact check rating to be shared in most instances. They too have reported on institutional bias within the BBC. News networks should not be places for activism but for reporting facts. The facts alone should be enough to tell an audience what is right and wrong. Encouraging viewers to take sides in any conflict is far beyond the scope of any news organization worth its salt. Individual reporters or anchors choosing to show support for a cause is still troubling, but less so and can be evaluated on an individual basis. But this is unacceptable.

The Jerusalem post is another post that I don’t share hardly ever, because they also do not meet my standards for factual reporting, but they are a highly credible source according to media bias/fact check ratings. I am sharing them in this instance, because the article has a response directly from the BBC about this and links to the BBC’s response—therefore the claims in this particular article can be verified. And they too have reported that a company (BBC) that encouraged its anchors to show support for Palestinians actively suppressed employees hoping to show support for Israelis. This is a clear case of bias. Either rules of journalistic integrity apply equally or not at all.

Haaretz is a highly credible and factually accurate publication that I do trust and recommend. They are a left leaning source that is more than willing to criticize the Israeli government and its actions but that doesn’t throw Jews under the bus any time Israel behave improperly. They too have reported on antisemitism within the bbc.

Multiple times, in fact.

Ynet is another source of extremely high standards and credibility. They too report on antisemitism within the BBC.

There is a well documented pattern and history of antisemitism in the BBC. And somehow, despite the fact that this has been reported on by highly credible news organizations, including the BBC itself, it’s still difficult to get people to take it seriously?

Why is that?

Because the high profile publications that DO talk about it aren’t credible enough.

Because the highly credible news organizations that do report on it are often dismissed for being “too Jewish” or are the source of the problem and therefore have an incentive to minimize that problem.

Because highly credible news sources like CBS News, NBC News, and ABC News don’t like to report on the failings of their peers, like the BBC.

Failing to hold the BBC accountable is a failure of other highly credible news sources who actively choose to protect their peers rather than their readers.

And it leaves Jews feeling gaslit by news organizations because the only people who care enough to report on stuff like this are either dismissible because they’re also Jews OR make us feel like conspiracy theorists because they’re not reliable enough.

But our pain is something we are all feeling and experiencing.

And this is the kind of systemic suppression of our voices that leads to our continued oppression.

(the incident in Tokyo, and others around the world, is mentioned in the above article)

she’s right, I didn’t hear about any of this, and I keep up with, and follow people who keep up with, these things constantly. there are so many all the time that it’s become difficult to document or even remark upon them all anymore.

also adding this:

Our world map today looks completely different from how it looked a thousand years ago. Nations and empires have risen and collapsed. Wars have been waged over petty bullshit that changed names and borders. Empires that were once thought invincible and perpetual crumbled to dust within a peasant's lifetime as they tilled their fields and worried about crop failure. The invention of flight, motion pictures, and the automobile chased the coattails of WWI and the great depression. Children played mischief games and elders complained about kids these days being too soft and sensitive during the fall of the Roman empire.

I know this, because when I was nineteen and despairing I broke down crying in her arms one day, and I asked her what the point was. Why carry on, when there’s so much wrong in the world? Why keep going, keep trying, when it feels like every battle is insurmountable, and that even when, by some miracle, you win, you don’t get to rest, you just get to fight again? What’s the point, when everything just gets worse all the time?

And she told me, yes, it’s hard. I never thought I’d be forty, let alone fifty. I never thought I’d see retirement. I thought the world would have ended by now. And I thought I had two choices. I could spend whatever time I had despairing, or I could choose to live, in whatever time I had. So I fought, and I lost more battles than I won. But I’ve been happy, too. I’ve had two careers, two children, and a husband I love. I’ve had friends and adventures. I’ve seen the pyramids the coliseum and the place where two oceans meet. I’ve lived. And it was worth it. It’ll be worth it for you, too.

And I thought about that, and what I know about my mum — and you need to know, my mum is cool. She is. She’s a stone cold badass — she protested Thatcher. She went to Pride when it was still a riot because she understood the solidarity even if she didn’t understand the people she was marching with. She went door to door for the Brexit remain campaign.

And, sure. We left the EU. But when she had a daughter who turned out to be a son she showed up for me every time. She toasted Thatcher’s death with a glass of milk and stayed up late telling me stories of her protesting days.

She retired three years ago. She’s in France right now, sending me pictures of hikes she’s taking with my father, and the patisserie she’s going to eat after.

Me 1 day later: I need to be left alone to gather the pieces of Me together

*some countries are recognized by only themselves or by only one or two other countries. They are not on this list.

--North Korea (1949)

--South Korea (1949)

--Bhutan (1949)

--Indonesia (1949)

--Libya (1950)

--Sudan (1956)

--Cameroon (1960)

--Togo (1960)

--Somalia (1960)

--Samoa (1962)

--Burundi (1962)

--Rwanda (1962)

--Jamaica (1962)

--Trinidad and Tobago (1962)

--Tanzania (1964)

--Singapore (1965)

--Nauru (1968)

--Equatorial Guinea (1968)

--Bangladesh (1971)

--Guinea-Bissau (1974)

--Mozambique (1975)

--Cape Verde (1975)

--São Tomé and Principe (1975)

--Papua New Guinea (1975)

--Angola (1975)

--Suriname (1975)

--Marshall Islands (1986)

--Micronesia (1986)

--Namibia (1990)

--Yemen (1990, itself made up of states younger than Israel)

--Slovenia (1991)

--Croatia (1991)

--Republic of Macedonia (1991)

--Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992)

--Czech Republic (1993)

--Slovakia (1993)

--Eritrea (1993)

--Palau (1994)

--Timor-Leste (2002)

--Montenegro (2006)

--Serbia (2006)

--Kosovo (2008)

--South Sudan (2011)

Shavua Tov

Marzieh Nieri, 23, was executed at Qazvin Central Prison after a court rejected her account of wounding a man who had attempted to assault her, bringing the number of women executed in Iran since the start of 2026 to at least 14.

Iran executed a young woman at dawn on Saturday who said she had acted in self-defence against a sexual assault, as authorities simultaneously handed a second woman ten death sentences in a separate case involving the killing of elderly men she had married.

Marzieh Nieri, 23, was executed at Qazvin Central Prison. Iran Human Rights said she had been forced into marriage at 17 under family pressure.

The incident that led to her execution occurred in October 2021, when she was 18.

At her trial, Nieri said one of her husband's business partners had attempted to assault her after becoming inebriated and that she wounded him with a kitchen knife in self-defence. Her husband was also killed during the confrontation.

Nieri turned herself in to the police four days after the incident, after going to her brother's home.

The court rejected her self-defence claim and, following a request from the victims' families for qisas — retribution in kind under the Islamic Republic's law — sentenced her to death.

Iran Human Rights said her execution brought the number of women executed in Iran since the start of 2026 to at least 14.

The executions come against a backdrop of sharply rising execution rates for women in Iran. The US State Department said at least 61 women were executed in Iran in 2025 — the highest figure in 25 years and roughly 70% more than the previous year. It described Iran as far ahead of any other country in the number of death sentences carried out against women.

Killing a husband or partner is one of the most common charges in cases involving women on death row in Iran. Iran Human Rights said at least 21 of the women executed in 2025 had been sentenced to qisas for killing their husbands or fiancés.

Women's rights organisations say many of those women had a history of domestic violence before the killing, and that forced marriage at a young age, economic dependence, restricted access to divorce and limited legal protection leave many women with few options for escaping abusive relationships.

Qisas is a principle in Iranian law derived from Islamic jurisprudence under which the family of a murder victim has the right to demand execution of the convicted killer, or to accept financial compensation — known as diyya, or "blood money" — in lieu of the death penalty.

Iranian courts can only carry out a death sentence in such cases with the explicit consent of the victim's next of kin.