quinta-feira, 10 de julho de 2025

Livro - (Neil de Grasse Thyson)

 







The Spectator - The trouble with GPs


 (personal underlines)

The trouble with GPs

A clinical bed in a GP surgery (Credit: Getty images)

This week, Wes Streeting – defending Labour’s rise in National Insurance contributions and seeking to fend off the surging Reform party – announced an extra £102 million to improve primary care. The money, the Health Secretary explained, would be given to a thousand surgeries that were prevented from taking on new patients by not having the building space to see them in. General Practice has collapsed. But will Streeting’s funds really help fix it?

Many readers will be able to recall the GPs of their youths, doctors who knew them and knew their parents. Asking for a home visit was a serious step, not to be done without good reason, but to get an appointment at the surgery was routine, and the expectation was that – holidays and staff sickness allowing – you would see a familiar face.

These gatekeepers of the NHS deserved their high reputation. Not employees as such but independent contractors, owning their own surgery buildings, they were part of what made NHS care both effective and efficient. They could deal with a great many ailments, and knew who to refer on to when they could not. GPs were paid well, lived in good homes in the best areas and were respected.

Today, GP pay has fallen considerably in real terms. There is something reasonable about this given that GPs, like other doctors, are less of a rare elite. True, doctors in many other countries earn more, but pay is not the only explanation for the near collapse of primary care in Britain today.

GPs work ever harder to provide ever more appointments. There are a thousand fewer fully qualified GPs than a decade ago and the population has grown; each GP now cares for 16 per cent more patients than they did a decade ago. 

‘As well as the expected increase in demand with rising co-morbidity and frailty,’ an old colleague told me recently, ‘the explosion in “minor” mental health problems consumes large amounts of time, energy, and resources.’ He couldn’t help but add that ‘there may be a place for the stiff upper lip after all’. 

Whether he’s correct or merely cantankerous, he turned his back on richer opportunities because he believed in the value of being a GP, and he is a man who has earned his opinion through the sweat of labour. Another equally hard-working friend bemoaned the extra layers of inefficiency she has to deal with, and the targets and regulations that weigh her down without doing enough good to justify the burden.

As the speciality becomes less attractive, the calibre of GP trainees drops – making it even less appealing. There have been times when the best and brightest competed to get into General Practice; those times are gone. As corporate camaraderie collapses so do standards, and illness rates rise. High levels of deprivation and demand aren’t matched by resources; doctors still compete to work in the areas that need them least.

Everyone – GPs included – hates the early morning rush for appointments that we now deal with. Like roads that work until gridlock, the system is now seizing up. Private GPs, once almost unheard of because there was no demand for them, are becoming common.

Streeting has said the £102 million is aimed at the one thousand practices which could take on more patients but are limited by their buildings. A one-off payment of £100,000 per surgery isn’t likely to make a significant difference. And the worst surgeries are those where there is a shortage of GPs, not a lack of building space; this money won’t help there at all.

When I trained as a doctor, it was my ambition to become a GP. I still think it’s the hardest medical job to do well, and potentially the most rewarding. But the principle of continuity of care that made it rewarding – getting to know your patients over a lifetime – has been demolished. 

The demolition wasn’t deliberate, any more than the move to the 8 a.m. appointment scramble was. Both resulted from a steady decline reaching a tipping point. And now that it has, reversing it is hard. If we want a return to what many of us remember – when GPs knew us, when we could get appointments and even home visits – then radical change is required. We’re drifting into primary care being provided piecemeal by strangers, in surgeries run by corporations, with better-off patients fleeing to the private sector to get what the NHS once managed to provide from their taxes. 

There is no plan to address this, and no acknowledgement of it, despite the fact that the problem is plain to everyone. Successive governments of both main parties have achieved nothing beyond overseeing decline. Reform’s electoral success is changing the political landscape, but Wes Streeting’s response of £102 million suggests it has shaken Labour into doing more of the same.

Perhaps it is impossible to return to what we once had, or perhaps we simply don’t want to now spend what it would cost. ‘The job remains a privilege,’ says my friend, ‘ruined by NHS mismanagement.’ But our failure to be honest about our goals – and our inaction – is not honourable.

The Spectator - Walking, not working out, is the best exercise

 (personal underlines)

Walking, not working out, is the best exercise

Walking boots beat the treadmill any day

(iStock)

These days almost everyone you meet is a member of a gym, and instead of attending church every week – as they did in days gone by – they make regular visits to these temples of the body beautiful: the new religion of our times. Yet despite these obligatory bouts of body worship, the general health of the nation – physical and mental – does not appear to be improving. The evidence tells us that obscene levels of obesity are at an all-time high, and everyone has heard stories of those struck down in the prime of life by strokes, coronaries or – most common of all – cancer, the plague of our age.

Last week, for example, I heard of an acquaintance, thought super-fit by his friends, who wearied his girlfriend with constant demands for vigorous sex, and who suddenly dropped dead in the stairwell of his home – felled by a heart attack that apparently came from nowhere. And who of us has not heard of someone visiting a doctor with a mysterious pain, only to be given a deadly diagnosis of some fell disease and told they had just a few months more to live?

Instead of ruinously expensive sessions in a gym, I would recommend a form of exercise that requires no membership fees, no purchase of expensive equipment, and no regular attendance at a given location. I mean the gentle practice of merely putting one foot in front of the other – and just walking.

Walking – either alone, with a like-minded companion, or in one of many organised groups – is a safer, cheaper and more beneficial way of staying fit than going to gyms. And you get to see the superb sites of our gorgeous countryside, which you don’t when lifting weights.

It is the simplest form of exercise known to humankind, and makes no dangerous demands on the cardiovascular system, which gym visits, jogging, cycling or running a marathon entail. Moreover, walking slowly releases endorphins as well as leaving one with pleasantly aching parts of the body at its conclusion. 

Unless you can afford to keep a horse, walking is by far the nicest and easiest way of viewing our green and pleasant land. Last weekend, for instance, I visited a hill fort that inspired William Blake to pen that famous phrase when he wrote ‘Jerusalem’ while looking out towards the Trundle, a Bronze Age settlement on St Roche’s hill near Goodwood in West Sussex.

It is certainly not the north face of the Eiger, but ascending the 676ft Trundle still requires a steady half-hour climb. And it is not as demanding as two other beauty spots in the same area: Kingley Vale, whose grove of yew trees are reputedly older than nearby Chichester Cathedral; and Harting Down, a National Trust-owned area of the South Downs that really does take it out of the calf muscles.

Even in overcrowded south-east England, it is still possible to explore hills, woods, fields and forests where you will meet few fellow walkers. And if panting your way up to a hill fort is not your idea of fun, how about a sandy stroll around the beautiful beaches of West Wittering, where only a yapping hound is likely to disturb your peaceful contemplation of the coast

I have walked several of the maintained long-distance paths that cater to the more dedicated strollers. The South Downs Way between Eastbourne and Winchester is popular with both walkers and – annoyingly – mountain bikers. The Cotswold Way takes you past some of England’s most beautiful towns and villages.

More demanding is the South West coastal path around the Cornish peninsula between Poole on the English Channel and Minehead on the Bristol Channel. It features in the current film The Salt Path, about a couple who counter the double whammy of a terminal illness diagnosis and homelessness by simply setting out to walk the 600-mile path. As the poet Thom Gunn wrote in his signature verses ‘On the Move’: ‘Reaching no absolute in which to rest/ One is always nearer by not keeping still.’

It has been calculated that completing the South West coastal path is equivalent to ascending Everest three times, but you don’t have to be a Hillary or a Tenzing to walk. A stout pair of boots and a map is all that is required. Whether in company or alone, it will certainly make you feel good – and it may even save your life.

Livro - Solidão e poder (M Joao Avilez)

 





Reflexão - LBC

The show must go on? Doesn't look like...

Rough times? Yeap, definitely!




Reclamação ao Observador (assinatura)

 (troca de mails com Observador sobre a renovação de assinatura)


Exmos. Senhores:


Acabei de renovar a minha assinatura liquidando, a pronto, a respectiva quantia.

Gostaria de saber se os dois meses que oferecem em função da modalidade de pagamento adoptada são os dois imediatamente seguintes à conclusão do período de um ano da assinatura, e imediatamente antes da renovação?

Agradeço antecipadamente a resposta.

Os meus cumprimentos

Luiz Carvalho



Ativado Mon, 7 Jul às 11:31 AM , Apoio a Cliente <apoio@observador.pt> escreveu:

Bom dia,

Agradecemos o seu contacto com o Observador

Esclarecemos que os dois meses de oferta já estão incluídos no período total da assinatura. Ou seja, ao adquirir a assinatura anual com esta campanha, beneficia de 12 meses de acesso ao Observador pelo valor correspondente a 10 meses (os 2 meses de oferta já estão refletidos no preço). Não se trata de 12 meses + 2 meses adicionais, mas sim de 12 meses no total, com a oferta já incluída no valor pago.

Se tiver alguma dúvida adicional, estamos ao dispor para esclarecer.

Com os melhores cumprimentos,
Carolina Vitorino






Bom dia.


O que está anunciado no vosso site (“Pague anualmente e oferecemos 2 meses”) induz os clientes em erro, o que contraria - tanto quanto me foi dado a percepcionar até agora -, a filosofia dessa publicação.

Constato-o e lamento o facto.

Os meus cumprimentos

Luiz Carvalho

Captura de ecrã 2025-07-07, às 11.44.25.png








Bom dia, 

Agradecemos o seu retorno

Lamentamos se a comunicação não foi suficientemente clara e agradecemos a sua chamada de atenção, que será transmitida internamente para podermos melhorar a informação prestada aos nossos leitores.

Se tiver alguma dúvida adicional ou sugestão, estamos sempre ao dispor.

Com os melhores cumprimentos,  
Carolina Vitorino




From: Luiz Carvalho <boavidaluiz1957@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 2:13 PM
To: Apoio a Cliente <apoio@observador.pt>
Subject: Esclarecimento

 

Exmos. Senhores:

 

1 - Não querendo prolongar a troca de mails, lamento insistir mas a comunicação não é, no meu entendimento, “clara”. 

 

2 - No entanto, numa perspectiva de “melhoria contínua” de qualidade dos vossos serviços, e convicto (…) da "transmissão interna” da informação que veiculei, proporia, então, alterar o tempo de "oferta de dois meses” do anúncio em questão para, talvez, “oferta de onze meses".

 

3 - A quantia seria a mesma (49,99), o tempo de duração o mesmo (anualmente), mas a oferta de 11 (onze!) meses, essa causaria estrondo. Poderia parecer absurdo, sim. Mas a extrapolação - de acordo com a vossa resposta -, é possível.

 

Os meus cumprimentos

 

Luiz Carvalho


sábado, 5 de julho de 2025

The Spectator - Americans are right to hate us

 (personal underlines)

Americans are right to hate us

In an Appalachian high school, the kids were set the task of writing about Europeans as part of their history curriculum. When the day came to hand in their work, the teacher took one boy aside and expressed displeasure about the sheer lack of effort he had put into his homework. ‘You have had three days, Bubba. And all you have written is “Europeans are bastards.” Would you please take your work back and expand it considerably by tomorrow.’ The following day the teacher approached Bubba for the finished article – and he took from the child an essay which read, simply: ‘All Europeans are bastards.’

I was told that joke when I was about 12 years old – so the timing makes it impossible for Bubba to have been J.D. Vance, even if the sentiment and indeed the location would seem to be bang on the money. Further, the generality of that viewpoint holds strong among a vast, probably majority, swath of Americans – by and large the ones who voted for Donald Trump in November. The ones in the middle of the country, the ones who believe in God; the ones who farm for a living, the ones who sometimes incorporate snakes into their worship procedures. The ones who abide in mountains or on endless plains or in delta swamps. It is a state of mind best expressed by that sadly late Republican Party Reptile P.J. O’Rourke, who once proclaimed: ‘I’d rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than king, queen, and jack of all Europeans. We eat little countries like this for breakfast and shit them out before lunch.’

Cheers, Pat. But we kid ourselves if we think most Americans think very differently. I was struck by the surprise and dismay engendered over here by those hilariously leaked conversations between Vance and the Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, and the sudden realisation: they actually hate us, don’t they?

Yup, they do. And our failure to step up with a respectable amount of defence spending is only a small part of the reason why, although it is subtly linked with all the other aversions. The irony is that the Americans who hate us most are those who are the closest to us genetically. It is not the affluent and culturally diverse New Yorkers, Los Angelinos and San Franciscans who bear the biggest animus. They can be seen with their bumbags and stupid clothes in Venice, Paris, Brussels and London, lapping up the culture and sense of history which they are avid to share. They abide by – largely – what have become, for better or worse, our values.

The ones who can’t stand us are the heirs to Scottish, Irish and English settlers in the South and the Midwest (and in the north Midwest, to those descended from Swedes and Germans). The ones largely untainted by that most modern of delights, diversity. The ones like the boy called Waylon who comes from Arkansas and took part in Channel 4’s School Swap programme and thus ended up in a Brixton sink comp, and who opined that while diversity was all well and good, he kinda thought it had its limits, y’all.

They hate us because we seem to them, and perhaps actually are, effete, cowardly, inert, affected, debauched, presumptuous and, latterly, insignificant. More importantly, we seem to stand for everything which is in essence the antithesis of the American Dream, to which many of them still cleave. We do not believe that we will find salvation in hard work and entrepreneurial spirit and capitalism – as a continent we find that view chimeric and deluding and believe that capitalism is not to be trusted, to be endlessly assuaged by what we imagine is kindness. We are, further, godless. Middle Americans are not. Many will remember the Scopes Monkey trial, in which creationism was pitted against Darwinism, as a case of European enlightenment values versus God, and they knew whose side they were on.

‘I have a women problem.’

Indeed, while we are inclined to see many of the progressive idiocies which currently plague our societies as having sprung fully formed from the artificial wombs of American campuses, they see it as deriving from Europe, from our values. And of course they are right: wokeism may have been eagerly embraced in the USA and Canada and the Antipodes, but it derives directly from the Europe of Marx and Gramsci and Foucault. We believe nobody should be judged. They know that everybody, in the end, is judged and that there’s no harm in doing a spot of judging themselves.

It is our weakness which they most despise. Our frailty and fallibility. We needed to be rescued in two world wars and yet afterwards, when the USA thought there was a war worth fighting, were dragged only reluctantly to the battlefield – and we stayed wholly aloof from that whole business in Vietnam, which we wrote off as anti-communist paranoia and reflexive American imperialism. They do not like our predilection for welfare payments generally and are thus even more averse to paying for Europe’s safety – perhaps particularly when the foe we have identified shares an awful lot of their singularly illiberal values.

The Americans spend 3.4 per cent of their GDP on defence: a fraction of what we spend on welfare benefits, but it adds up to twice as much as European Nato members spend on their own security. If you are living in Arkansas or Mississippi, where the average monthly wage is about £3,500, wouldn’t you resent your government spending such vast amounts looking after those hoity-toity Yerpeans who ‘can’t’ (or won’t) foot the bill for themselves? Given that it is our merchant shipping that is most at risk from the Yemeni rebels, shouldn’t we have dug a little deeper into our pockets and sorted them out? There are, when you look at it, very good reasons why we should not be loved by the people across the Atlantic whose largesse we have taken for granted for so long.

The Spectator - Flying has lost its charm

 (personal underlines)

Flying has lost its charm

The only good thing about it is the food

An Imperial Airways poster circa 1937 [Alamy]

As someone who flies a lot for work, many of my moments of high blood pressure or ‘Is this really what I want in life?’ introspection take place in airports or on aeroplanes. I cannot – to put it gently – relate to the moronic practitioners of the ‘airport theory’, which involves turning up deliberately late for flights to get an adrenaline rush, and/or to make a sorry living off social media views. No, I’m there in good time, so it shouldn’t be a particularly stressful experience. And yet I’ve come to rather despise flying. 

It wasn’t always this way. Admittedly my relationship with flying got off to a slightly tricky start. In my childhood I used to get extreme bouts of restless leg syndrome, which is a part of my medical history I’m happy to share for its comedic value. I used to have to stick my feet in the air and pedal furiously, as if on a Peloton. In hindsight I feel very sorry for those sitting next to me.

But those early days of flying discomfort gave way to a golden age in my twenties when I was old enough to take full advantage of the free booze on board. When working life hits, having a good excuse to do nothing but drink, read fiction and watch films for 15 hours is a very welcome thing.

Yet now – and maybe I’m just becoming more irritable – almost every little thing about flying seems to wind me up. It starts with checking in and providing that ‘Advance Passenger Information’ online. We are cursed with our name: we’re ‘United Kingdom’ on some drop-down lists, but ‘Great Britain’ or even just ‘Britain’ on others. Often the airlines aren’t even internally consistent: we’re ‘GBR’, sandwiched between Gambia and Grenada, for ‘Passport issued by’ and then back as the ‘UK’ for nationality. It’s enough to put anyone off their seven inches of legroom and no in-flight meal.

All this is before we even get to the airport. There greater horrors await. The psychology of the boarding gate must surely have been the subject of a couple of Harvard Business School theses. Why on earth do we insist on being at the front of the queue for boarding, only to then stand for 20 minutes looking enviously at the people sitting with their feet up in the seats we’ve just vacated? Such is our enthusiasm to get on the plane before everyone else the budget airlines now flog ‘priority’ tickets. Surely we would be better off paying for the privilege of being the last on? Waltzing on board just after the safety video has concluded, overpriced coffee in hand? Suckers.

Then there’s the delays. Fine, sometimes things happen. However, call me a pedant, but one of the things that really riles me is when we are apologised to for ‘any inconvenience caused. Why can’t they apologise for all of the inconvenience caused or just the inconvenience caused, because you can bet your bottom dollar it’s caused inconvenience. Qualifying it is a cop out. That, of course, is if they bother to apologise at all.

On board, little things cause you (or at least me) to become quite enraged. Like the intensely irritating rules around raising your window blind for take-off and landing (another excuse to wake you up). I need to nick one of those ‘do not disturb’ signs from a hotel, attach some string and hang it around my neck while I sleep. I have resorted to morbidly researching online the (apparently grisly) reasons for these various rules and am still just as clueless as I used to be as to the truth of it all. But boy do the cabin crew enforce them with zeal. ‘Cross check!’

The movie you’re watching will constantly be interrupted by in-flight announcements you don’t need to hear. In any case, the headphones are unlikely to be working properly – one ear if you’re lucky. Another pet hate is the internal crew communications announced to the entire plane. ‘Flight attendants, prepare doors for departure.’ Can’t they get earpieces or important-looking walkie talkies to chat among themselves?

I look for little things to make the experience bearable. I sometimes resort to retail therapy from that funny shopping catalogue in the seat pocket, buying ludicrous things I would never normally consider. Occasionally there are other small wins, like getting a mini bottle of Tabasco with your tomato juice or bagging an extra bread roll with supper.

In fact, airline food is one thing I have an inexplicable guilty pleasure for. Something hot and salty when you’re at your lowest ebb. Those in business class are treated to more elaborate menu descriptions: ‘beef bourguignon with garlic pommes purée’ or ‘salmon en croute with a lemon hollandaise’. In economy it’s reduced to ‘meat or fish’, with requests for further detail met with incomprehension or outright irritation. But in some ways I admire it. Four waiters doing maybe 400 covers. Bloody efficient. 

There are plenty of other things that infuriate me. The joys of going through security, now with the new ‘Don’t shoot!’ body scanners. The science of seat selection. I could go on. Flying is a genre unto itself.

But that’s a good starter for ten. A regular column to vent flying frustrations would be nice, though. As I pen this among the clouds, having snatched a few hours’ sleep and with a belly full of bread roll and plonk, ‘Sky High Life’ has a good ring to it…

terça-feira, 1 de julho de 2025

The Spectator - The derangement of Harvard

 

(personal underlines)

The derangement of Harvard

It is 60 years since William F. Buckley said that he would ‘rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University’. Yet even the godfather of American conservatism would be surprised at how much more attractive the folks in the phone directory appear today.

Harvard is currently having a major row with Donald Trump’s administration. It results from the way in which the university responded to the 7 October attacks in Israel. While the Hamas massacres were still on-going, more than 30 Harvard University student organisations signed a letter which claimed to hold the ‘Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence’.

You might wonder why students at Harvard have such an inflated sense of their own importance that they imagine any ‘regime’ or government would be waiting for their take on things. Stranger still was the students’ apparent belief that Harvard was somehow central to the Israeli war effort. ‘Harvard out of Occupied Palestine’ was one of their demands. You would be hard-pushed to find anyone in the Middle East who believes that their lands are occupied by Harvard University, whoever else they think culpable.

Since then, events on campus have become increasingly insane. Jewish students were subjected to assaults, insults and intimidationall while the university authorities defended all this as a ‘speech’ issue. In a set of notorious hearings in front of a Congressional committee, the then president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, insisted that calls for ‘genocide’ against Jews would have to be judged based on their ‘context’.

Many observers noted that if it had been black students being chased across the Harvard campus with calls for lynchings then things might have been regarded differently. If foreign students were shown to have participated in such activities, then withdrawing their visas would have been the least of the demands. Yet students at Harvard who were part of a group that attacked their Jewish peers were not only given free rein to do so, but only the other day a number of them were honoured by the university and given further scholarships.

The latest Trump administration has made Harvard one of the focuses of its attempts to de-radicalise the American university system. It has threatened to freeze tens of millions of dollars of federal subsidies to the university and warned that the Internal Revenue Service would be taking away the institution’s tax-exempt status. Last week the Department of Homeland Security said that it was revoking Harvard’s certification for participating in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program – effectively cutting billions of dollars of further financing.

Many Americans will have been surprised to learn that billions of dollars of their taxes have been going to educate foreign students at Harvard – including the sort of foreign students who use their time to foment revolution in the United States. Harvard started legal proceedings against the government within the day, once again reminding us that the only people who always benefit from this sort of dust-up are members of the legal profession.

This week the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the Trump administration is ‘holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, anti-Semitism and co-ordinating with the Chinese Communist party on its campus’. She went on: ‘It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enrol foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused.’

Harvard and its supporters have done what any university would do, insisting that the cuts threatened by the Trump administration have already affected research into cancer and other diseases. This is a pretty cunning move. Harvard knows what it could do to clean up the mess made by its students and faculty, yet it presents itself as the victim of brutal and inexplicable cuts that threaten the very things that everybody agrees a research university should focus on. It is the playbook that the left always uses whenever financial cuts occur, here or in the US – portraying them as falling hardest on ‘the most vulnerable’. Campaigners are one step away from proclaiming: ‘It is such a shame that since the government’s slashing of funding to our egregious and politicised campaigns all the puppy sanctuaries will have to close.’

Harvard is betting that it can win the war with Trump. His administration is clearly enjoying the opportunity to sock it to an institution that has become increasingly partisan and political. Yet all the time the obvious correction remains in plain sight.

The trouble lies in the fact that Harvard is no longer Harvard, just as so many other institutions in the West are not what outsiders imagine them to be. Harvard’s best line of defence would be to return to what it is meant to be – a genuinely world-class university which prioritises the cultivation of excellence. It is many years since it or most other higher education institutions in the US have been any such thing. It is one reason why students are desperate to enrol in new establishments such as the University of Austin and Ralston College in Savannah. These places aim to provide a true, classical education, because it is so hard for Americans to find it where they once did.

One left-wing author claimed this week that through its attacks on Harvard, the Trump administration ‘has launched a comprehensive attack on knowledge itself’ which ‘if successful will undermine Americans’ ability to comprehend the world around us’. We shall see. But for that line of argument to work, the people in what used to be the phone directory would have to be persuaded that Harvard has been an enlightening presence in American life of late, rather than an utterly deranging one.

Youtube - Talking with doctors

 

Interesting programs with doctors talking on different subjects



Why You Should Stop Having Dairy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDaE__jxWqY













Música - Hahn: Chansons grises: No. 5, L'heure exquise

L'heure exquise - CDA67962 - Hyperion Records - MP3 and Lossless downloads 

Da banda sonora da série "


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke2u8JtS9tc





Almoço - DSL 2 (Escola Alemã 2)

Em 27.06.2025, na Trafaria, no Fragateiro, eu o Carlos Medeiros, o Manuel Ribeiro e o João Leite passámos mais uma tarde a discutir a actualidade. 





The Spectator - Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch the October 7 video?

 (personal underlines)


Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch the October 7 video?

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg (Getty images)

Did Greta Thunberg refuse to watch footage of Hamas’s 7 October atrocities? That’s the accusation being made by Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz. Greta and her crew, upon their arrival in Israel last night, were taken into a room to be shown the harrowing truth of what Hamas did 20 months ago, says Katz. But when the video started rolling, and ‘they saw what it was about’, they ‘refused to continue watching’, he alleges.

This is a serious charge. Thunberg and her fellow sailors should address it with haste. For if what Mr Katz is saying is true, if they really did look away upon being shown footage of the torture and slaughter of the Jews of Southern Israel, then we need to know why. To shut one’s eyes to the grim reality of Hamas’s anti-Semitic barbarism is to be wilfully blind to one of the great horrors of our age – did you do that, Greta?

Greta’s boat, the Madleen, was intercepted by Israeli forces. She and 11 other keffiyeh-wearing agitators had been hoping to land in Gaza, to ‘break the blockade’. It was a ‘selfie yacht’, in Israel’s salty words, that was carrying a ‘tiny amount of aid’. Israel towed the boat to its port city of Ashdod. The crew, these self-imagined saviours of Gaza, are being repatriated to their countries of origin this week.

Many shrill claims are being made about Israel’s interception. We’ve been ‘kidnapped’, said Greta. They haven’t. They’re fine and they have sandwiches. If anything happens to us, this is a war crime’, cried one of the boat folk as the IDF boarded. This is teenage petulance masquerading as activism. Israel just saved you from a bloody warzone and you accuse it of war crimes? How about showing some gratitude?

If these people want to see real war crimes, they could do worse than watch Hamas’s own footage of the racist terror it inflicted on the innocents of Israel. And yet, according to Katz, they turned a ‘blind eye’ to those war crimes. They looked away from the screen. His allegations are being widely reported in Israel and beyond.

Self-styled warriors for human rights refusing to watch one of the bloodiest assaults on human rights of the 21st century so far? Implacable anti-racists turning away from the worst act of anti-Jewish racism since the Nazis? If this is true, then it surely speaks to a profound moral blindness among the activist class, where they will sympathise with suffering humans everywhere except in Israel.

We await comment from Greta and the rest about whether they ‘refused’ to watch – and if so, why. To my mind, if this shunning of truth did occur, then it is of a piece with the left’s agonised and sometimes outright shameful attitude towards 7 October. 

Greta and Co would only have been doing physically what the ‘pro-Palestine’ set has been doing morally for nearly two years: refusing to grapple with the enormity of what Hamas did to the Jews on that darkest day.

The activist set has a truly tortured relationship with 7 October. Some deny it, in a gross rehash of Holocaust denialism. It’s exaggerated, they cry. Women weren’t raped, they claim. Others say it was ‘resistance’. ‘This didn’t start on 7 October’, they snivellingly say, as if Hamas’s fascistic actions, its slaughter of Jewish women and burning alive of Jewish families, were an ‘understandable’ response to Israeli policy. The last people who thought a pogrom was a legitimate response to political grievance were the Nazis.

The anti-Israeli mob can’t make their minds up. They can’t decide if 7 October didn’t really happen, or it did and it was justified. Their swirling post-truth disorientation, their sick refusal to speak honestly about what an army of anti-Semites did to Jews in this very decade, is born of a depthless moral cowardice. For they know that the truth of 7 October threatens to utterly shatter that precarious moral high ground they teeter on.

To admit that Hamas visited Nazi-style violence on innocent Jews would be to admit that leftists took the wrong side in the aftermath of that grimmest crime against humanity. For self-styled anti-fascists to acknowledge that they made excuses for the worst act of fascist violence of our times is unthinkable. So they bury, or at least downplay, the truth of Hamas’s atrocities, all to the low end of preserving their own phoney moralism. Nothing as trifling as the suffering of Jews can be allowed to meddle with the self-aggrandising narratives of the new left.

We cannot know for sure if Greta and her friends really ‘refused’ to watch the 7 October footage. If they did, might this be why – because they could not bear to glimpse the barbarism committed by the Palestinian side in this war? By the side whose flag they wave and whose keffiyehs they wear? They must tell us what happened. This is important.

Desporto - Sumo (torneio de Maio)

E Onosato venceu, uma vez mais. E foi promovido a Yokozuna!






Em ascensão?













Em declínio...

Ura

Midorifuji

Nishikigi

Shodai



Mitakeumi

Ryuden











 

Série - O suspeito