Everything has changed. Again.

While Canada and other nations recognize Palestine, the author asks “What about the New York Declaration”? The declaration demands Hamas surrenders and gives up all its weapons and releases all its remaining hostages, and requires the replacement of Israeli forces in Gaza with troops from a UN-commanded “temporary international stabilization mission.” It anticipates a totally reformed and democratic Palestinian Authority that would gradually assume control over Gaza. It requires the complete banishment of Hamas from Palestinian politics altogether.

Hope may seem an odd thing to cling to at the moment. Israel has never been as diplomatically isolated as it is today and the United States, the only ally that really matters to Israel, has never been as diplomatically distant from Europe and the rest of the liberal-democratic world.

If my transgression here is guarded optimism, I can explain it by going back to a standpoint I laid out in the National Post a week after the October 7 atrocities: The Palestinian problem is not Israel’s problem to solve alone.

Subscribe to The Real Story

Here’s where things stood on the day of the October 7 pogrom:

The “international community” was expecting Israel to police jihadist terror throughout the Middle East, and the United Nations had left Israel to carry the burden of a “Palestinian problem” that Israel could not hope to solve on its own.

The Netanyahu government had chosen to pursue a policy of collaborating with the Qataris to funnel billions of dollars into Gaza in the hopes that Hamas would busy itself with the sordid work of “governing” the dystopian exclave. The point was to nurture the divisions between Hamas and its corrupt and decrepit Palestinian Authority rival in the West Bank.

The policy was a catastrophe, and the unpardonable intelligence failures that allowed Hamas to plot, plan and execute its pogrom on October 7 is evidence enough of that.

It’s all to the good that Israel has decapitated Hezbollah, bloodied Khomeinist Iran and crippled the Houthis’ Ansarallah terror regime in Yemen. Israel may not have achieved a home run in its targeted attack on the remaining Hamas leadership in Qatar, but it was definitely an improvement over Netanyahu’s practice of sending escorts to Doha to accompany Qatari officials with satchels stuffed with millions of American dollars into Gaza City.

From the beginning, it has been obvious to close observers that unless the “international community” was prepared to properly address itself to the unsustainable nightmare Israelis and Palestinians were expected to endure, the bloodshed would go on.

Fury over meaningless gestures

For all the handwringing and anger about the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Australia, Portugal and Belgium joining the overwhelming majority of UN member states in the symbolic gesture of recognizing a non-existent Palestinian state, something else has been going on. While much of the Euro-American world has been disappearing up its own backside over whether to erect 150-foot statues of Charlie Kirk or Jimmy Kimmel, it has gone mostly unnoticed.

It’s why those “Palestinian state” declarations have been piling up, and it’s about more than just the usual cowardice and tendency to appeasement that has afflicted the liberal democracies in recent years. It’s about more than just a Hail Mary now-or-never move against Netanyahu’s determination to foreclose forever, by further annexations in the West Bank, the possibility of a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

It’s the adhesion of Europe, the Arab States, the United Kingdom and almost everybody else to the UN’s Saudi-French “New York Declaration” of July 30. It’s a jumble, and there are holes in it. Even so:

It demands that Hamas surrenders and gives up all its weapons and releases all its remaining hostages, and requires the replacement of Israeli forces in Gaza with troops from a UN-commanded “temporary international stabilization mission.”

It anticipates a totally reformed and democratic Palestinian Authority that would gradually assume control over Gaza. It requires the complete banishment of Hamas from Palestinian politics altogether.

Fully free and fair Palestinian elections within a year: That would be the first test of whether the PA’s Mahmoud Abbas is sincere in his proclaimed agreement with the Declaration, which further anticipates a $53 billion reconstruction program as an alternative to U.S. President Donald Trump’s notion of a building a vast Mediterranean resort where Gaza once was, or whatever the hell that was about. The plan would also require an Israeli government ending its “land grabs” in the West Bank and a formal Israeli renunciation of any annexation project or settlement policy.

The Declaration fudges the unresolvable and non-existent Palestinian “right of return” to properties Israel expropriated after its War of Independence, but that’s a hell of an improvement over pretending that such a right even exists.

It may be impossibly utopian, but necessary, but so what? So was the creation of the State of Israel in the first place.

This is light years ahead of where matters stood on October 7, 2023. So chin up.

And Happy New Year.

To support my work and get through the paywalls into deep-background territory, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Real Story

Related Topics:#IsraelGaza #IsraelPalestine CanadaRecognizesPalestine TerryGlavin TheNewYorkDeclaration TheRealStory

Up Next

Medical experts urge Supreme Court to protect women’s sports from ‘transgender’ males in landmark case

Don't Miss

No Ministers, No Progress, Opposition Corners the Liberals in Ottawa

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Agriculture / 14 hours ago

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science

Energy / 17 hours ago

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

International

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script that says men can get pregnant isn’t ‘neutrality,’ by any stretch.

Imagine a society in which the state broadcaster demanded that the female hosts eliminate the word “women” in favor of “people” and rebuked them if their facial expressions betrayed any hit of protest on air.

Welcome to the United Kingdom in 2025. According to the BBC: “Martine Croxall broke rules over ‘pregnant people’ facial expression, BBC says.”

Martine Croxall, a BBC presenter, was introducing an interview about “research on groups most at risk during UK heatwaves,” and the teleprompter script she was reading live on BBC News Channel contained the phrase “pregnant people.”

Croxall visibly raised her eyebrows, and corrected in real-time: “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”

I have a new favourite BBC presenter. https://t.co/l2gkThccty

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 22, 2025

When Dr. Mistry, a professor, came on for the interview, she too referred to “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people.”

Because a female presenter clearly objected to “women” being erased in favor of “people” for the ideological purpose of buttressing gender ideology, the BBC has now upheld “20 impartiality complaints” against Croxall. According to the BBC: “BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said it considered her facial expression as she said this gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter.’”

READ: BBC rebukes newscaster for correcting ‘pregnant people’ with ‘women’ on air

In other words, as a woman, Croxall obviously objected to the implication that men can get pregnant. Croxall has a son and has thus been pregnant herself. But in our current clown world, the Executive Complaints Unit “said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it ‘indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity.’”

The totalitarian trans activists desperately trying to force society to play along with their delusions with force or coercion were behind the complaints, with the ECU reporting that Croxall’s facial expressions were “variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt, or exasperation.” In other words: Say your lines the way we gave them to you and look like you believe them, bigot.

The ECU was also concerned that those who, you know, disagree with the idea that men can get pregnant were also pleased by Croxall’s act of defiance, and that she received “congratulatory messages” on social media (including one from J.K. Rowling), which “together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”

Clearly the BBC—which is desperately been trying to regain its reputation—is attempting to wave the fig leaf of “neutrality” in order to reestablish its previous bona fides. But rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script and making a facial expression that appeared to indicate opposition to the idea that men can get pregnant isn’t “neutrality,” by any stretch.

Just a decade ago, no media outlet would have considered implementing gender ideology into their coverage as fact. Now presenters are expected to use fundamentally propagandistic language that frontloads the premises of activists while keeping a straight face as if both transgender ideology and observable biological reality are two perspectives deserving of equal respect and consideration.

Jonathon Van Maren

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

International

Large US naval presence in Caribbean reveals increased interest in western security

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Sarah Roderick-Fitch

As the number of suspected narcotic transport boats destroyed by the U.S. military grows, so does the number of naval vessels in the Caribbean.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced on social media Thursday evening that U.S. forces carried out their 17th strike on alleged drug boats, killing three “male narco-terrorists” in the targeted operation.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that his administration’s intent to target narco-terrorists in the region to help curb the flow of drugs into the country.

Last month, it was announced that the newest and largest U.S. Navy Aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, and its strike group would be transiting to the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility in the Caribbean.

Ahead of the Ford’s arrival, several naval ships are already in the region, including the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, according to the U.S. Naval Institute—the Iwo Jima, a Wasp-class amphibious ship, among the larger classes of ships in the Navy.

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group deployed in August, carrying over 4,500 sailors and Marines, according to the Department of War. The group includes the Iwo Jima, USS Fort Lauderdale, USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.

As of early this week, the USNI reported that, in addition to the group, three Navy guided-missile destroyers are operating in the Caribbean, including the USS Jason Dunham, USS Gravely, and USS Stockdale. In addition, USNI reported the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) and the USS Wichita (LCS-13) are operating in the Caribbean.

The buildup of navy ships in the region points to the administration’s commitment to prioritizing targeting narco-terrorists. Still, it could also signal the U.S. focusing on potential adversarial threats in Latin America.

Hegseth told The Center Square last month at an event in the White House that the Department of War is keeping its eyes on adversaries in the region after TCS asked the secretary and the president if they had plans to expand U.S. Naval operations in Puerto Rico, specifically Roosevelt Roads, a Navy base closed in 2004.

“We’re familiar with the location that you’re referring to, and we will make sure that we’re properly placed in order to deal with the contingency we’re dealing with there, and also any ways in which other countries would attempt to be involved also, so we can walk and chew gum. We’re definitely keeping our eyes on near peer adversaries at the same time,” Hegseth told TCS.

The secretary’s response cemented the administration’s “America first” policy, which is beginning to shift focus to its “own backyard.”

“But we think sending a message on these cartels, these narco-terrorists, is an important, important inside our hemisphere, which for far too long other presidents, as the president pointed out, they’ve ignored our own backyard and allowed other countries to increase their influence here, which only threatens the American people. We’re changing that,” Hegseth concluded.

The naval buildup in the region could highlight concerns in recent years that Venezuela, under the dictatorship of socialist Nicolas Maduro, has aligned the country with American adversaries, such as Russia, China and Iran.

In 2022, Venezuela hosted military drills with countries including Russia, China and Iran.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that Latin America is ripe for U.S. adversarial influences.

“While Western observers have focused their attention on joint connivances of Russia and Iran in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and the Middle East, where Russo-Iranian military-security operations directly affect U.S. and European interests, the Western Hemisphere is not isolated from the two countries’ quests for global influence. In fact, in many ways it is an essential piece of the puzzle. First, both Iran and Russia perceive Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) as a fertile ground for exploiting popular resentment vis-à-vis the United States and the ‘collective West,’ which they – rather successfully – harness to advance their view of a multipolar world,” according to CSIS.

The group cites sanctions from the West, which are growing in large part due to Russia’s ongoing offensive in Ukraine.

“Second, LAC partners could prove instrumental in offsetting the impacts of Western sanctions against Moscow and Tehran by mitigating their diplomatic and economic isolation. Finally, certain LAC countries could also serve as less scrutinized partners for further developing Russo-Iranian warfare capabilities or cooperation, sheltering mercenaries or militias – such as Hezbollah – and acting as vectors for ‘horizontal escalation’ of conflicts in which Russia and Iran are currently involved,” the group added.