A young man wearing a football shirt bearing the words “October 7” was spotted earlier this week in an Albert Heijn supermarket in Amsterdam. Someone took a photo, which was subsequently published in the media and on social media. The controversy was considerable, but so was the pushback: some claimed artificial intelligence (AI) had been used. The Centre for Information and Documentation Israel (CIDI), which is handling the matter, says that is absolutely not the case. In the capital, a light-skinned young man wearing an October 7 shirt walked into an Albert Heijn without hesitation. When he was standing by the soft-drinks aisle, someone took a photo that circulated on social media. Antisemitism coordinator Eddo Verdoner quickly described it as “explicit glorification of terrorism.” Jewish organizations, such as the Central Jewish Consultation (CJO), told AD that wearing such a shirt should be made a criminal offense. *Freedom of expression* The date refers to October 7, 2023, the day when the terrorist organization Hamas killed more than 1,200 Israelis and foreigners in southern Israel. There was widespread outrage on social media over the shirt, and CIDI received more than fifteen reports of antisemitism. Nevertheless, the young man is allowed to wear the garment: it is not a criminal offense because of freedom of expression. *Mona Keijzer* In the Dutch House of Representatives, the PVV has meanwhile submitted parliamentary questions to Justice and Security Minister David van Weel (VVD). AD reports that, during her time with the CDA, Mona Keijzer had already submitted a bill to make glorification of terrorism a criminal offense, but the Council of State advised against the legislation. That was in 2017. Almost nine years later, the situation may have become worse. *“Manipulation”* Critics are now claiming that the photo may have been manipulated. They allege that AI was involved and that the young man never actually had “October 7” written on his back. Not true, CIDI says on X. “We know the photographer who took the photo and have spoken to him about it. We have the original photo (with metadata), which has also been shared with journalists. The photographer saw the man at the location and was able to read the full text on his back: ‘October 7.’”

The problem between Israel and Lebanon is not another ceasefire, another agreement, or another round of diplomatic negotiations. The deeper problem is that Lebanon has repeatedly demonstrated that its commitments mean very little when it comes time to enforce them. Agreements are signed, promises are made, international guarantees are announced, and then the same pattern returns: Hezbollah remains armed, Hezbollah continues operating from Lebanese territory, Lebanon fails to dismantle its military infrastructure, Israel eventually responds, and Beirut condemns Israel for responding. That pattern is now repeating itself once again. The latest fighting in southern Lebanon illustrates the problem perfectly. The June framework was supposed to establish a process in which Lebanese sovereignty would actually be restored. Non-state armed groups were supposed to be disarmed, their military infrastructure dismantled, and the Lebanese Armed Forces were supposed to assume effective control of Lebanese territory. Israeli withdrawal was connected to the implementation and verification of those obligations. Yet Hezbollah remains armed, its infrastructure remains, and the Lebanese state has still not demonstrated that it is capable of enforcing the central requirement of the agreement. Then Hezbollah attacked Israeli forces. Three Israeli soldiers were seriously wounded in a drone attack near the Ali al-Taher ridge, a strategically important area overlooking Nabatieh and the surrounding road network. Israel responded with strikes against Hezbollah targets, killing senior Hezbollah personnel as well as civilians who, according to Israel, were located inside a building being used for military purposes. The strikes were described as the deadliest Israeli attacks in Lebanon since the June ceasefire. And once again, the Lebanese response followed the familiar script. Instead of beginning with the obvious question — why is Hezbollah still armed and attacking Israel from Lebanese territory? — Lebanese leaders condemned Israel. The Lebanese president's office accused Israel of violating the framework and undermining the negotiation process. The Lebanese prime minister condemned the Israeli strikes. The original Hezbollah attack became secondary, while Israel's response became the central issue.

Please just do as the author advises. Hear them. Does this not cover what we have seen happening?