Tags

, , , , , , , , ,


Sir Afilonius Rex

Saintes, 13th December 2025

Hananya Naftali self-identified as Israel’s Voice in the Media | Speaker | Middle East Expert had this to say about Spain’s PM Pedro Sánchez.

Spain’s PM Pedro Sanchez just told Mahmoud Abbas that the devastation in Gaza is “genocide” and that Israel must be held accountable, on Human Rights Day, no less. 🤡

This is the same Spain that just recognized “Palestine” while Hamas was still holding hostages underground. Meanwhile, Pedro is hugging Abbas, the guy whose Palestinian Authority pays terrorists and names schools after murderers.

If Hamas launched rockets at Madrid for 20 years, I’m pretty sure Spain wouldn’t be handing out ceasefire roses. What a hypocrite.

Disclaimer: This post reflects a personal political opinion. All civilians deserve safety and human rights.

This is my considered response.

This LinkedIn post isn’t analysis; it’s agitation dressed up as moral clarity. Its purpose is not to persuade through evidence. Instead, it aims to delegitimise criticism of Israel. It does so by framing it as hypocrisy, malice, or clownish ignorance.

1. Loaded framing replaces facts

Calling Spain’s prime minister a clown and placing “Palestine” in scare quotes isn’t rhetoric by accident. It’s a signal to the audience that no serious engagement is required. The post never addresses why Sánchez used the word “genocide.” It does not explain what legal or humanitarian arguments exist. Nor does it clarify how international law defines the term. It simply asserts outrage and moves on.

That’s classic propaganda technique: assert moral absurdity, deny the audience the tools to evaluate the claim.

2. Guilt by association, not policy critique

The post jumps immediately from Sánchez to Mahmoud Abbas to the Palestinian Authority’s “pay-for-slay” policy and school names. Those are real controversies. However, they are irrelevant to the narrow claim being discussed. The discussion is about whether Israel’s actions in Gaza may constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law.

Criticising Abbas is not a rebuttal to accusations against Israel. It’s a distraction. It is designed to collapse all Palestinian political actors into a single moral contaminant. This way, any engagement becomes suspect.

3. Emotional hypotheticals instead of proportional reasoning

“If Hamas launched rockets at Madrid for 20 years…”

This is a familiar move, and a dishonest one. It erases:

  • the asymmetry of power between Israel and Gaza
  • the scale of civilian casualties
  • the legal obligations of an occupying or besieging power
  • the fact that Spain has not controlled Madrid’s borders, airspace, food supply, or population registry for decades

Hypotheticals are useful only when the contexts are comparable. Here, they are not. The analogy exists solely to provoke emotional identification and shut down nuance.

4. Selective morality masquerading as universalism

“All civilians deserve safety and human rights” appears as a disclaimer at the end. However, nothing in the post reflects that principle. There is no acknowledgement of Palestinian civilian deaths, displacement, or humanitarian collapse—only indignation that Israel is being criticised at all.

This is not universal human rights language; it’s partisan moral asymmetry with a humanitarian fig leaf.

5. Mischaracterising diplomacy as endorsement of violence

Recognising Palestine or meeting Abbas is framed as “hugging terrorists” or rewarding hostage-taking. That deliberately conflates diplomacy with approval, a move that—if applied consistently—would make nearly all international conflict resolution impossible.

By that logic:

  • talking to Egypt would endorse repression
  • negotiating with Northern Ireland actors would endorse the IRA
  • Cold War diplomacy would have been immoral by definition

Again, the goal is not coherence, it’s delegitimisation.

6. Tone as a substitute for credibility

The emojis, mockery, and certainty are doing the work that evidence should be doing. This is influencer politics: compress a complex moral and legal debate into a punchy loyalty test. Agree, or you’re a hypocrite. Disagree, or you’re a clown.

That plays well on social media. It collapses under scrutiny.

Bottom line

This post is not defending civilians, hostages, or human rights. It is defending a narrative: that criticism of Israel is inherently illegitimate, emotionally suspect, and morally corrupt. To do that, it relies on insults, false equivalence, and strategic omission.

If the case were strong, it wouldn’t need this much noise.

That’s the tell.