ONLINE EXCLUSIVES (2024-)
(2005-2016 | 2017-2020 | 2021-2023 Archives)

2025 Myths
2024 Myths

2025 Myths

Washington bankrolls Israel’s military with billions in no-strings-attached aid.
Israel’s prohibition of Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in Gaza is illegal.
Israel returns the bodies of Palestinians after harvesting their organs.
Israel is obligated under international law to cooperate with UNRWA and other UN agencies.
War protestors have applauded the Gaza ceasefire.
The United Nations has no bias toward Israel.
Hollywood figures pledging not to work with Israel promote peace.
Israel violated international norms when it targeted Hamas leaders in Doha.
Did genocide scholars vote that Israel was engaged in genocide?
The E1 project threatens the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Israel has been diplomatically isolated since October 7.
Israel targeted an Al Jazeera journalist in violation of international law.
Recognizing a Palestinian state would end the conflict with Israel.
Israel is weaponizing humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The Palestinians have a “right of return” to resettle in modern-day Israel.
Jewish settlers deliberately torched a 1,500-year-old church in the Palestinian village of Taybeh.
Israel’s recent attacks on Syrian President al-Sharaa’s regime were unprovoked.
Iran’s strike on Soroka Hospital is morally equivalent to Israeli strikes on hospitals in Gaza.
Israel has deliberately fired on civilians at aid distribution sites in Gaza.
Iran did not attempt to build a nuclear weapon before the attacks on its nuclear facilities.
Iran’s missile campaign against Israel is a proportionate act of self-defense.
Israel illegally intercepted flotillas to Gaza.
Terrorist attacks against Israelis are adequately reported in international media.
Protests in Gaza represent a popular uprising the could topple Hamas.
Qatar is a friend of the Jewish people and the West.
U.S. detentions of anti-Israel protesters constitute illegal suppression of free speech.
The Houthis do not pose a danger to the international community.
The international community is holding Syria’s new regime accountable.
“No Other Land” accurately depicts the case of Masafer Yatta.
The Arab League produced a realistic proposal for the reconstruction of Gaza.
Hamas treated its hostages humanely.
The Palestinian Authority has ended its “pay-to-slay” stipends.
Arab countries offer unwavering support to Palestinians.
Faculty are not lying to students about sexual violence by Hamas.
Egypt welcomed Palestinian refugees during the Israel-Hamas War.
Israel and Hamas are exchanging prisoners.
Israel illegally attacked Kamal Adwan Hospital to kill civilians.
Lebanon’s new president is granting Palestinians basic rights.
The media is concerned with press freedom in the Palestinian Authority.

MYTH

Washington bankrolls Israel’s military with billions in no-strings-attached aid.

FACT

The claim that the United States gives Israel a “blank check” for weapons is false. U.S. assistance is not open-ended; it is limited, time-bound, and subject to U.S. laws and oversight.

In 2016, the two governments signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a formal but non-binding agreement covering fiscal years 2019–2028. The MOU totals $38 billion in security assistance (support related to military and defense), or $3.8 billion annually. That agreement expires at the end of the decade. There is no automatic renewal, permanent entitlement, or obligation beyond the current framework. A new MOU must be negotiated and approved. Each year’s funding must still be appropriated, or formally approved, by Congress. Aid exists only if Congress authorizes it (“Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),” U.S. Department of State, September 7, 2016; “FACT SHEET: Memorandum of Understanding Reached with Israel,” White House, September 14, 2016; “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Overview and Developments since October 7, 2023,” U.S. Congress, May 28, 2025).

This assistance is not a cash handout. The overwhelming majority is delivered through Foreign Military Financing (FMF). Israel must spend these funds on U.S.-manufactured defense systems, training, and services—mostly through U.S. government channels. Much of this aid supports joint U.S.-Israel weapons development. This includes missile and drone defense systems that directly enhance U.S. military capabilities (“Foreign Military Financing,” U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency; Jonathan Masters, Will Merrow, “U.S. Aid to Israel in Four Charts,” Council on Foreign Relations, October 7, 2025).

Nearly 90% of the money stays in the U.S. It goes to defense contractors, keeps manufacturing lines running, supports skilled U.S. jobs, and cuts weapons system costs for the U.S. military. This is not charity for a foreign government. It is an industrial and strategic investment that strengthens America’s defense base.

Aid structure has become even more restrictive. The 2016 MOU mandates a full phase-out of Israel’s ability to spend any U.S. aid on its own defense industry, known as offshore procurement. That share has been steadily reduced and will reach zero by 2028. Without a new agreement, all U.S. military aid to Israel will be spent solely through American suppliers.

This arrangement is not meant to be permanent. In January 2026, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel’s long-term goal is to taper U.S. military aid to zero over the next decade. He argues Israel should aim for strategic and economic self-reliance (“Israel’s Netanyahu hopes to ‘taper’ Israel off US military aid in next decade,” Reuters, January 10, 2026). Whether this policy will be implemented or not, it contradicts the idea that Israel expects indefinite U.S. funding.

Civilian assistance has been minimal and is now nonexistent. Economic aid ended years ago. USAID (United States Agency for International Development) grants to Israeli institutions through the ASHA (American Schools and Hospitals Abroad) program ($3–5 million annually) were separate from military aid and ended in 2025 as U.S. development priorities shifted.

U.S. military aid to Israel is less than 1% of the federal budget. It is time-limited, congressionally controlled, and legally conditioned. Almost all spending stays in the United States. A “blank check” implies permanence and lack of accountability. This system is the opposite.

MYTH

Israel’s prohibition of Doctors Without Borders (MSF) in Gaza is illegal.

FACT

Israel’s suspension of MSF’s license to operate in Gaza is lawful, narrowly targeted, and firmly grounded in both domestic law and international humanitarian law. The decision reflects documented regulatory, security, and political violations—not hostility toward humanitarian aid itself.

Under international law, sovereign states retain the authority to regulate, condition, or revoke the registration of foreign organizations operating within territory under their control, including during armed conflict. Israel acted pursuant to Government Resolution 2542, which governs the registration of international NGOs and explicitly authorizes license suspension or revocation for non-compliance, security risks, or engagement in political activity that undermines the state’s legitimacy. The government’s inter-ministerial review concluded that MSF failed to meet these baseline legal requirements (“Consolidated Review of Preliminary Findings Regarding Médecins Sans Frontières (France, Belgium, Spain and Netherlands) – Registration Process under Government Resolution 2542,” govextra.gov.il, December 2025).

MSF repeatedly refused to comply with mandatory registration rules, including the submission of complete staff lists for Palestinian employees. All four MSF branches operating in Israel and the Palestinian territories declined to provide this information despite repeated formal requests. Under Israeli administrative law, this refusal alone constitutes sufficient grounds for suspension—irrespective of any additional findings. No state engaged in active hostilities can permit unvetted personnel to operate freely within a combat zone (Itamar Eichner, “The clash between Israel and Doctors Without Borders after its operations in Gaza were banned: ‘There are terrorists within the organization,’” Ynet, January 1, 2026 [Hebrew]). MSF’s attitude also reflected a shocking lack of concern for its own credibility, which was undermined by having individuals associated with terrorist groups in its employ.

Beyond procedural non-compliance, Israeli authorities cited concrete security concerns. Intelligence reviews documented instances in which individuals identified as MSF employees were later found to be affiliated with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, both designated terrorist organizations. Israeli security agencies concluded that humanitarian frameworks had been exploited to shield or facilitate terrorist operatives, justifying heightened scrutiny and enforcement (Mathilda Heller, “Doctors Without Borders advanced anti-Israel narrative, maintained terror ties – exclusive,” Jerusalem Post, January 1, 2026).

International humanitarian law does not confer an unconditional right on NGOs to operate in conflict zones. Protections for medical and humanitarian actors are explicitly contingent on neutrality, impartiality, and abstention from hostilities or political warfare. When those conditions are violated—or when credible security risks emerge—states are legally entitled to restrict or revoke access. Israel’s action addressed MSF’s legal status, not humanitarian aid as such; dozens of other international aid organizations continue to operate in Gaza under the same regulatory framework (David M. Halbfinger, Aaron Boxerman, “Israel Tells Doctors Without Borders to End Its Work in Gaza,” New York Times, January 6, 2026).

Israeli authorities further documented systematic political advocacy by MSF that crossed the line from humanitarian critique into organized political warfare. This included repeated allegations of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” as well as public calls for sanctions, arms embargoes, and international punitive measures against Israel. Under Government Resolution 2542, participation in campaigns to delegitimize the state or promote boycotts constitutes an independent and sufficient basis for license revocation (Gerald M. Steinberg, E. Levenson, “The Humanitarian Mask,” Quillette, December 10, 2025; “Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders),” NGO Monitor, January 12, 2026).

Finally, the legality of Israel’s decision is not negated by potential humanitarian consequences. International law obligates states to facilitate humanitarian relief subject to security considerations; it does not compel them to outsource sovereign authority to non-compliant or compromised organizations. Israel has explicitly affirmed that humanitarian aid continues through approved channels and organizations that meet legal and security requirements.

Israel’s suspension of MSF reflects lawful regulatory enforcement and legitimate security concerns—not a rejection of humanitarian assistance. The action falls squarely within the bounds of domestic law and international legal norms governing armed conflict, humanitarian access, and state sovereignty.

MYTH

Israel returns the bodies of Palestinians after harvesting their organs.

FACT

This grotesque accusation, first circulated in November 2025 by The New Arab, claimed that Israel returned “mutilated bodies” of Palestinians whose organs had been “professionally removed.” It is the latest version of an age-old anti-Semitic libel, the false charge that Jews or Israelis mutilate non-Jews for ritual or material purposes.

The story relied solely on the unverified testimony of British-Palestinian surgeon Ghassan Abu Sittah, who said he had reviewed photographs, not bodies, privately shown to him by Al Jazeera. Neither he nor the network released the images publicly, and even Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry, which receives and documents all returned bodies, made no such allegation (“Palestinian bodies returned by Israel with organs ‘professionally removed’: surgeon,” New Arab, November 9, 2025).

No credible forensic, photographic, or medical evidence has ever surfaced. Gaza doctors routinely post graphic images online, and international journalists have full access to them. If any proof of “organ removal” existed, it would be immediately visible to the world’s medical community.

Moreover, Dr. Abu Sittah’s record of fabrication is well-documented. He has repeatedly spread falsehoods about Israel, from the discredited “hospital bombing” story at Al-Ahli, proven to be caused by a Palestinian misfire, to contrived battlefield claims (“‘When it Stopped Being a War’: The Situated Testimony of Dr Ghassan Abu-Sittah Go Back to Investigations,” Forensic Architecture, October 17, 2025; “Gaza: Findings on October 17 al-Ahli Hospital Explosion,” Human Rights Watch, November 26, 2023).

The story’s main amplifier, Al Jazeera, has an extensive record of politicized coverage and anti-Israel incitement. Funded by the Qatari government, the network frequently promotes Islamist narratives and employs individuals linked to terrorist organizations. Israeli courts have affirmed that Al Jazeera functions as a propaganda and intelligence arm for Hamas, leading to its formal ban in Israel (Elliot Abrams, “Why All the Criticism of Qatar?” Council on Foreign Relations, June 19, 2024; Jeremy Sharon, “Court approves extension of ban on Al Jazeera operations in Israel,” Times of Israel, June 13, 2024).

This modern “organ-harvesting” tale is not new, it is a recycled blood libel. Earlier versions have accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian wells, releasing wild pigs to destroy crops, and spreading AIDS among Palestinians (David Berger, “Academic Prize For Scholarly Form Of Blood Libel,” Yeshiva University News, October 9, 2018; Bassam Tawil, “Palestinians: Fake News and “Alternative Facts,”” Bridges for Peace, March 13, 2017; “Abbas retracts rabbis ‘water poisoning’ comment,” Al Jazeera, June 26, 2016; “Israel blasts Palestinian charge that it infected children with HIV,” JTA, June 5, 1997).

Israel’s organ transplant system is among the most transparent in the world, serving Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike under strict national regulation. No credible investigation has ever produced evidence of organ theft by Israeli authorities.

The idea that Israeli doctors secretly harvest organs is not just false, it is a deliberate act of incitement meant to dehumanize Jews and justify violence against them.

An illustration of humanitarian personnel carrying a Palestinian body (AI-generated)

MYTH

Israel is obligated under international law to cooperate with UNRWA and other UN agencies.

FACT

On October 22, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion asserting that Israel must “agree to and facilitate by all means at its disposal relief schemes... including relief provided by the United Nations and its entities, in particular UNRWA” and “not impede such relief” (“Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” ICJ, October 22, 2025). This was only an advisory opinion initiated in response to Israel’s decision to ban UNRWA operations and terminate cooperation with the agency following revelations that UNRWA employees participated in, or aided, the October 7 massacre, including the kidnapping and detention of hostages (“The Connection Between UNRWA and Hamas in Gaza,” govextra.gov.il).

While the ICJ couched its conclusions in the language of legal obligation, advisory opinions carry no binding force. They are political statements cloaked in judicial authority. ICJ Vice-President Julia Sebutinde dissented sharply, faulting the majority for dismissing Israel’s security concerns and deeming Hamas’s infiltration of UN agencies “irrelevant.” Her dissent underscores the Court’s willful blindness: it accepted UNRWA’s self-portrayal as a neutral humanitarian actor while ignoring Israel’s extensive evidence that the agency’s facilities have been weaponized by Hamas to store arms, conceal tunnels, and even hold hostages.

By uncritically embracing the UN’s assurances, the Court effectively granted UNRWA a presumption of innocence it has long forfeited. The result is a ruling that legitimizes an organization deeply compromised by its entanglement with terror groups. Far from upholding humanitarian law, the ICJ has reinforced a perverse moral inversion—punishing the democracy defending itself while excusing the terrorists who violate every tenet of international law.

Legal scholars Anne Bayefsky and Eugene Kontorovich described the decision as a textbook case of lawfare—the weaponization of legal institutions to achieve political ends (Benjamin Weinthal, “Experts slam UN court ruling on Israel, warn opinion is also 'a real danger to the US,’” Fox News, October 22, 2025). The Court’s silence on Hamas’s war crimes—hostage-taking, the use of civilians as human shields, the systematic targeting of Israelis—betrays its selective application of justice. By narrowing its focus exclusively to Israel’s “obligations” while absolving Palestinian actors of responsibility, the Court undermines its own credibility as a neutral arbiter of law.

The reaction from Israel and the United States was swift and scathing. Israel’s Foreign Ministry denounced the opinion as “yet another political attempt to impose political measures against Israel under the guise of ‘international law” (“Israel categorically rejects the ICJ’s “advisory opinion,”” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, October 22, 2025). The U.S. State Department called it a “nakedly politicized, non-binding ‘advisory opinion’” that “unfairly bashes Israel and gives UNRWA a free pass for its deep entanglement with and material support for Hamas terrorism” (@StateDept, October 22, 2025). Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during his October 2025 visit to Israel that the U.S. was prepared to work with the UN in Gaza, but not UNRWA, which he said became a subsidiary of Hamas (James Lynch, “Rubio Says Hamas-Linked UNRWA Will Not Deliver Gaza Aid Under Cease-Fire Deal,” National Review, October 24, 2025).

The ICJ opinion does not impose a binding legal duty on Israel to cooperate with UNRWA. Its politicized approach and willful blindness to Hamas’s crimes expose a persistent bias that erodes Israel’s right to defend itself and corrodes the very foundations of international law.

MYTH

War protestors have applauded the Gaza ceasefire.

FACT

When President Donald Trump brokered a ceasefire and hostage-release agreement between Israel and Hamas in October 2025, one might have expected the “Ceasefire Now!” movement to rejoice. After all, their stated goal—to end the fighting—had been achieved. Instead, the activists who had filled campuses, city squares, and congressional hearing rooms demanding “peace” fell silent, or, worse, vowed to continue their struggle.

Reporters and commentators noted the striking absence of celebration from groups that had framed themselves as champions of peace. NewsNation host Leland Vittert asked pointedly, “Where are those protesters now?” (Reuven Rosenfeld, Pro-Palestinian Protesters Silent After Israel-Hamas Peace Deal, NewsNation Host Claims, VINnews, October 12, 2025). His question reflected a broader recognition that the political figures, protestors, and organizations that had demanded a ceasefire offered no public praise once one was achieved. Their responses revealed that “ceasefire” had been a political weapon aimed solely at Israel, not a moral objective (David Harsanyi, “Why aren’t ‘Ceasefire Now!’ activists celebrating Trump’s Gaza peace deal?” Washington Examiner, October 9, 2025).

The reaction was muted even on campuses that had been flashpoints of protest. At Yale, where a permanent ceasefire had been a core demand, students described “surprisingly little” discussion after the agreement took effect (Josie Reich, “At Yale, a muted response to Gaza ceasefire,” CT Mirror, October 10, 2025). Some students simply pivoted to new campaigns to pressure the university to divest from Israel. Across California universities, protest groups announced they would keep demonstrating despite the truce, insisting they would not stop until all ties with Israel are severed (Jaweed Kaleem, Daniel Miller, “Israel and Hamas have a ceasefire deal. But college protesters say activism won’t stop,” Los Angeles Times, October 13, 2025).

Elsewhere, silence gave way to defiance. The Palestinian Youth Movement, Jewish Voice for Peace, and the Palestinian Feminist Collective issued statements pledging to “keep up the struggle,” declaring, “Gaza will rise, the struggle never dies.” The extremist group Within Our Lifetime (WOL) went further still, vowing to “show up stronger than we did the first October 7th” (Luke Tress, “US anti-Israel activists vow to keep up ‘the struggle’ after ceasefire news,” Times of Israel, October 9, 2025). Meanwhile, mass demonstrations continued overseas, including violent clashes with police in Europe just days after the ceasefire announcement (“Pro-Palestinian Protesters Clash with Authorities During Soccer Match Between Israel and Italy,” Democracy Now!, October 15, 2025; “Spain set for mass strike in solidarity with Palestinians on Wednesday,” Ahram Online, October 15, 2025).

Even as these activists claimed to speak for “Palestinian rights,” their selective outrage was again exposed when reports emerged of Hamas reasserting control through public executions and violent crackdowns following the ceasefire. In Gaza City, Hamas-led forces clashed with local families and armed gangs, executing detainees in the streets and labeling them “collaborators and traitors.” Human rights organizations based in Gaza condemned these extrajudicial killings, yet Western activists—so vocal in denouncing Israeli actions—remained silent. Their indifference to Hamas’s brutality against fellow Palestinians reveals a clear double standard: outrage is reserved only when Israel can be blamed, not when Palestinians suffer at the hands of their own rulers (Samy Magdy, Joseph Krauss, “Hamas reasserts control in a chaotic Gaza, posing a risk to the fragile ceasefire,” AP, October 14, 2025)

The pattern was unmistakable: those who had cried out for peace refused to welcome it when it arrived. In the end, the “Ceasefire Now!” movement never wanted peace—it wanted Israel’s defeat. And when peace didn’t deliver that, they turned their backs on it.

MYTH

The United Nations has no bias toward Israel.

FACT

In the mid-1970s, an Arab-Soviet alliance at the United Nations coalesced into one of the most effective propaganda machines in modern diplomatic history: a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel bloc that weaponized international institutions against the world’s only Jewish state. This coalition—dominated by dictatorships and autocracies—turned the UN’s founding ideals of equality and human rights into tools of political warfare.

Its campaign reached an infamous milestone in 1975, when the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379, declaring that “Zionism is a form of racism.” U.S. Ambassador Daniel Moynihan called it an “obscene act.” Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog, denounced it as “based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance,” adding that Hitler “would have felt at home listening to the debate.”

It took sixteen years for that lie to be undone. On December 16, 1991, the Assembly voted 111–25 to repeal the resolution—but not a single Arab state supported the repeal. The PLO condemned the decision and denounced the United States for backing it.

Since then, Israel has been subjected to more investigations, inquiries, and condemnations than any other nation on Earth. According to UN Watch, the Human Rights Council (HRC) has passed 112 resolutions condemning Israel since its creation in 2006—nearly half of all country-specific resolutions ever adopted. The General Assembly has gone even further, passing 173 resolutions against Israel since 2015, accounting for more than two-thirds of all such measures in that period (“UN Watch Database: Is the UN living up to its founding principles?” UN Watch).

Meanwhile, some of the world’s worst human rights abusers—Iran, Syria, North Korea—barely receive mention. Others—China, Cuba, Qatar—are never condemned at all. The UN’s moral compass has been deliberately inverted: democracies are vilified, and tyrannies are protected.

Many of these votes were taken in the wake of Palestinian terror waves—suicide bombings, stabbings, and shootings—and even after Hamas’s October 7 massacre, the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, which left 1,200 dead and 251 kidnapped. Yet not once has the UN condemned Hamas or its state sponsors in Iran and Qatar. Instead, international bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC) have been co-opted to criminalize Israel’s right of self-defense and demonize its elected leaders.

The UN’s record is clear: it has abandoned the pursuit of peace, justice, and universal human rights. What remains is a corrupt forum that reserves its harshest judgments for the world’s only Jewish state, while granting impunity to the world’s worst oppressors.

MYTH

Hollywood figures pledging not to work with Israel promote peace.

FACT

The pledge signed by thousands of Hollywood actors, directors, and industry insiders to boycott Israeli film institutions isn’t a stand for peace—it’s a political stunt that silences dissent, punishes cultural exchange, and exposes Hollywood’s moral double standard.

The pledge, which attracted the support of notable actors such as Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, Olivia Colman, and Javier Bardem, claims that Israeli film institutions should be boycotted even though they have nothing to do with making Israeli policy (Anna Betts, “Actors and directors pledge not to work with Israeli film groups ‘implicated in genocide,” Guardian, September 10, 2025). They aren’t targeting government ministries or military units. They’re going after independent festivals and production companies—the very institutions that have screened films critical of Israel and sympathetic to Palestinians (Bonnie K. Goodman, Hollywood’s Boycott Double Standard over Israel, Times of Israel, September 12, 2025).

Israeli artists have condemned the campaign as “deeply troubling” and counterproductive, stressing that it “will only deepen the darkness” (Catherine Shoard, Anna Betts, “Israeli film industry calls boycott pledge ‘deeply troubling,’” Guardian, September 10, 2025). Paramount, the first major Hollywood studio to respond, put it bluntly: “Silencing individual creative artists based on their nationality does not promote better understanding or advance the cause of peace” (Kanishka Singh, “Paramount criticizes pledge by entertainers to boycott Israeli film institutions,” Reuters, September 13, 2025). Boycotts kill the empathy and storytelling that reconciliation demands.

And here’s the bitter irony: the people most harmed by this pledge are Israeli filmmakers—many of them the fiercest critics of their own government. These are directors who humanize Palestinians, who challenge Israeli policy, who call for dialogue. Yet Hollywood’s boycott muzzles them and removes from the global stage the very voices pushing hardest for peace (Hen Mazzig, “The Hollywood boycott of Israel is a blow against the prospect of peace,” Jewish Chronicle, September 10, 2025). As Rob Eshman wrote, ist’s not just misguided—it’s sabotage (Rob Eshman, “Hollywood’s boycott of Israeli filmmakers is an act of spectacular self-sabotage,” Forward, September 15, 2025).

The hypocrisy is staggering. Hollywood stars proudly “cancel” Israel while lining up to work with China, whose government is accused of genocide against the Uyghurs, mass repression in Tibet and Hong Kong, and systemic censorship. China is now one of Hollywood’s most important financiers and markets, with studios and actors regularly adjusting scripts and cutting scenes to satisfy Chinese censors. Far from boycotting Beijing, Hollywood has bent over backwards to court its approval (James Tager, “Made in Hollywood, Censored by Beijing,” PEN America, August 5, 2020).

If the standard is to boycott nations accused of human rights abuses, why is Israel— a democracy with a free press, independent courts, and vigorous internal dissent—singled out, while China is courted and other abusers are ignored?

The answer is obvious: this isn’t about peace or human rights. It’s about delegitimizing Israel. Genuine solidarity with Palestinians would call out the corruption and repression of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and invest in cooperation and shared creative projects that build bridges instead of walls. As Robert Redford said, “The glory of art is that it cannot only survive change, it can lead it.”

Boycotts have a long, ugly history of failure. The Arab League boycott of Israel, launched in 1945—before Israel even existed—only deepened hostility and division while having no impact on Israeli policy. Most Arab countries no longer boycott Israel, making it even more ironic for celebrities, living far from the Middle East, with no exposure to the threats Israel endures, to pursue a policy as detached from reality as it is futile.

Cultural boycotts don’t bring peace. They erase nuance, entrench hatred, and punish the artists most capable of fostering understanding. By targeting Israel’s filmmakers, Hollywood has chosen spectacle over substance, censorship over dialogue, and division over reconciliation.

MYTH

Israel violated international norms when it targeted Hamas leaders in Doha.

FACT

Critics claim Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar was an illegal violation of sovereignty. In reality, international precedent and the facts prove otherwise.

Hamas leaders in Doha were not innocent political figures. They were commanders of a U.S.-designated terrorist group directly responsible for the October 7, 2023, massacre—murdering more than 1,200 Israelis, including over 40 Americans, abducting 251 hostages, and the same week as the Doha strike, killing six more Israelis in Jerusalem (“Hamas claims responsibility for Monday’s deadly Jerusalem shooting,” Reuters, September 9, 2025). With 48 hostages still in captivity, Israel’s pledge to hunt down every perpetrator was not rhetoric but policy.

For years, Qatar sheltered Hamas leaders in five-star hotels, giving them access to an $11 billion war chest while their operatives in Gaza used civilians as human shields. Israel’s message is clear: those who orchestrate terror will no longer enjoy immunity. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared: “The days when the heads of terror enjoyed immunity anywhere are over” (“Hamas in Qatar was fair game — and Israel’s strike there can hasten an end to the Gaza war,” New York Post, September 10, 2025).

International law explicitly recognizes the right of self-defense against terrorists. The United States and its allies have long set the precedent: the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, ISIS leaders in Syria, and countless terrorists by U.S. drone strikes from Sudan to Afghanistan. France carried out similar strikes in Mali. The British have targeted ISIS and al-Qaeda leaders in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. If these were accepted as legitimate, it would be hypocritical to single out Israel for defending its people. Qatar’s refusal to expel Hamas meant it assumed the risk of such an operation (Shoshana Bryen, “Liberation Day Postponed,” Jewish Policy Center, September 10, 2025).

An illustration of the Hamas headquarters in Doha after it was struck by Israel (AI-generated)

Netanyahu rightly called out the double standard: “We went after the terrorist masterminds who committed the October 7th massacre. And we did so in Qatar which gives safe haven, it harbors terrorists, it finances Hamas, it gives its terrorist chieftains sumptuous villas, it gives them everything. So we did exactly what America did when it went after the al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and after they went and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan” (“PM Netanyahu: “I say to Qatar and all nations who harbor terrorists, you either expel them or you bring them to justice. Because if you don’t, we will,”” Prime Minister’s Office, September 11, 2025).

Qatar’s complaints about being a target demonstrated chutzpah as it had no compulsion about financing Hamas attacks on the sovereign nation of Israel. “A state cannot sponsor terrorists while expecting immunity from the consequences,” noted Egyptian scholar Dalia Ziada. “If Qatar enables Hamas to attack a neighboring sovereign state, then Israel will inevitably extend the battlefield to Qatar itself” (Dalia Ziada, “From Mediator to Target: Qatar’s Gamble with Hamas Backfires,” Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, September 11, 2025).

Critics also questioned the timing, since Hamas officials in Doha were ostensibly discussing a U.S. ceasefire plan. In truth, Hamas had rejected the latest offer as it had every previous one. Isreal believed negotiations had reached a dead end. Cocooned in luxury far from the destruction in Gaza, those leaders faced no pressure to compromise. The strike shattered their illusion of untouchability—reminding them that negotiations cannot succeed while they remain immune from consequences.

Even President Trump, while uneasy about the strike’s location, acknowledged that “eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal” (@realDonaldTrump, September 9, 2025; David Jablinowitz, “The White House’s ‘diplomatic dance’ in reacting to Doha strike – opinion,” Jerusalem Post, September 11, 2025). Senate leaders were unequivocal: Israel had every right to hit terrorists “no matter where you’re at” (Marc Rod, Emily Jacobs, “Senate Republicans address differences with White House over Israel’s Doha strike,” Jewish Insider, September 10, 2025).

“Israel is creating a demonstration of intent; that we are serious about what we said—the total elimination of Hamas. And the proof is that we are not afraid to do something we have almost never done before and take responsibility for an aerial kinetic attack on a country that is not defined as an enemy state,” explained Oded Ailam, a former head of the Counterterrorism Division in the Mossad. He added that Israel was also sending a message to the captors: “if you harm the hostages, your fate will be similar to the fate of those who were eliminated abroad. In other words, you will have no place to hide” (Yaakov Lappin, “Hamas’s leadership abroad ‘was blocking compromise,’” JNS, September 9, 2025).

Israel acted within its inherent right of self-defense. Far from violating international norms, the Doha strike reaffirmed a core principle: states that harbor terrorists do so at their own peril, and no terror leader should expect impunity anywhere.

MYTH

Did genocide scholars vote that Israel was engaged in genocide?

FACT

Media headlines blared that the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)—touted as “the world’s leading authority on genocide”—had voted overwhelmingly to declare Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza. But this was no sober judgment of an expert community. It was the product of a sham process hijacked by activists, built on distorted law, selective facts, and a veneer of academic legitimacy (“Another Reason Not to Trust the ‘Experts,’” Free Press, September 3, 2025).

First, the IAGS membership is not limited to recognized academics or genocide specialists. Anyone with a credit card and $30 can join the organization and call themselves a “genocide scholar.” Investigations revealed that the group accepted members with no credentials, ranging from anonymous activists to parody accounts. When pro-Israel participants exposed this lack of vetting, the IAGS quickly shut down its membership page and hid its rolls from public view (Simon Plosker, “$30 and You Can Become a Genocide Scholar,” HonestReporting, September 3, 2025).

Second, the vote was a statistical mirage. Of roughly 500 members, only 28% even cast ballots. Of those, 86% supported the resolution. That means just 108 individuals—fewer than one-fifth of members—endorsed the charge of genocide. Yet media outlets from the BBC to the Washington Post dutifully reported that “nearly 90% of genocide scholars” backed the claim, as if this were a representative consensus.

Third, the resolution itself disregarded the standards of international law. The Genocide Convention requires “specific intent” to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group. Civilian deaths in war, however tragic, do not prove genocidal intent if the military aim is otherwise—as the International Court of Justice has affirmed. Israel’s goal is the elimination of Hamas’s threat, not the destruction of the Palestinian people. The IAGS resolution erased this legal distinction, replacing law with rhetoric (Menachem Rosensaft, “Why the genocide resolution is fundamentally flawed,” Times of Israel, September 5, 2025).

Fourth, the statement all but ignored Hamas. Except for one passing mention of October 7, the resolution excluded Hamas’s atrocities against Israelis, its use of civilians as human shields, its embedding of weapons in hospitals and schools, and its obstruction of humanitarian aid. By airbrushing Hamas from the narrative, the resolution speciously cast Israel as the aggressor in the conflict (Robert Satloff, “A Charade in Academic Garb,” Washington Institute, September 2, 2025).

Fifth, the resolution relied heavily on discredited or biased sources. It cited reports from UN officials known for anti-Semitism or anti-Israel bias, such as Francesca Albanese and Navi Pillay, and exaggerated accusations. It exaggerated claims—such as alleging deliberate targeting of medical staff—while the very reports it cited made no such charge.

Finally, the process was deliberately opaque. The IAGS leadership blocked members from commenting before the vote, refused to disclose the resolution’s authors, and removed avenues for debate (@DrSaraEBrown, September 1, 2025). Even supportive members admitted that the process resembled activism in academic garb, not scholarship.

The IAGS resolution was not a consensus of genocide experts but a political maneuver by a handful of activists exploiting the organization’s name. Yet the media amplified it uncritically, lending credibility to what was, in truth, a charade.

MYTH

The E1 project threatens the establishment of a Palestinian state.

FACT

In August 2025, Israel announced plans to build some 3,400 housing units in the so-called E1 corridor, a roughly 4.6 square mile (12 sq. km.) valley between Jerusalem and the city of Ma’ale Adumim, a decision immediately met with international outcry and recycled claims that it would destroy the two-state solution (Jeremy Sharon, “Planning body gives final approval to controversial E1 West Bank settlement project,” Times of Israel, August 20, 2025). These accusations collapse under even minimal scrutiny.

First, Palestinians are not clamoring for a state beside Israel; their leadership has repeatedly rejected every peace plan that would have given them one, insisting instead on a state that replaces Israel. Second, the E1 plan—originally devised not by today’s so-called “extremists” but by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin during the Oslo process—was always consistent with two-state frameworks. Every serious peace initiative, from the Clinton parameters to the 2003 Geneva Accord to Ehud Olmert’s 2008 proposal, envisioned Israel retaining Ma’ale Adumim and the corridor linking it to Jerusalem in exchange for equivalent land swaps.

A look at the map explains why. Ma’ale Adumim is not some remote “settlement” but a thriving suburb of some 50,000 people, just five minutes by car from Jerusalem. The area is part of Area C, which the Oslo Accords put under the sole control of Israel, and therefore, no restrictions apply to building there (Nadav Shragai, “Protecting the Contiguity of Israel: The E-1 Area,” JCPA, May 24, 2009; Shragai, “Understanding Israeli Interests in the E1 Area: Contiguity, Security, and Jerusalem,” JCPA, 2013; Shragai, “The End of Building Freezes in the Jerusalem Area,” JCPA, March 8, 2020).

Without E1, Ma’ale could become an isolated enclave surrounded by hostile territory. For Israel, completing E1 is essential for protecting Jerusalem’s eastern flank and ensuring Israel’s own territorial contiguity—ironically, the very concern critics raise about Palestinians.

Opposition to the E1 plan is primarily driven by Palestinian claims that it would “bisect” the West Bank and render a future Palestinian state geographically unviable (Adam Chandler, “On The Reactions To Israel’s E-1 Plan,” Tablet, December 3, 2012). However, journalist Dan Perry notes the claim is “somewhat true but also misleading,” since existing road networks, tunnels, and bypasses ensure Palestinian territorial contiguity (Dan Perry, “Israel’s new gift to the far right could help end the Gaza war,” Forward, August 20, 2025).

Meanwhile, Palestinians, with EU backing, are building illegally in the area to sabotage E1 (“Illegal EU Building In Adumim Region,” Regavim, February 6, 2015). The Bedouin outpost of Khan al-Ahmar—funded by Italy, complete with schools and permanent structures—was erected to block Israel’s development plans. Israel’s Supreme Court approved its removal in 2019; yet international protests have kept the illegal encampment standing, an open defiance of Israeli law and sovereignty (Hagar Shezaf, “Israel Asks Court for More Time to Decide on Khan al-Ahmar, Citing Ukraine War,” Haaretz, March 8, 2022; Regavim, July 24, 2022).

For years, U.S. administrations have successfully pressured Israel to freeze E1, subordinating Israeli security and urban priorities to foreign diplomatic optics. The truth is simple: E1 is not an obstacle to peace. It is a necessary step to secure Israel’s capital, integrate a community that all sides acknowledge will remain part of Israel, and expose the hollowness of Palestinian and European objections.

The E1 controversy is less about geography than about politics. The critics’ real fear is not that E1 kills the two-state solution, but that it exposes that Palestinians never wanted one in the first place.

MYTH

Israel has been diplomatically isolated since October 7.

FACT

The narrative that Israel stands alone after October 7 is false. Before Hamas’s massacre, Israel had ties with 166 of 193 nations. Just four—Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, and Nicaragua—have cut relations, and those were largely symbolic (“List of countries and status of diplomatic relations with Israel,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, February 15, 2023). Israel and Bolivia has since formally restored diplomatic relations following a transition of government (Nava Freigberg, “Israel and Bolivia to restore diplomatic ties tomorrow after rupture over Gaza war, Sa’ar announces,” Times of Israel, December 8, 2025).

Far fewer countries have broken ties with Israel than in past wars. Today, most countries still engage with Israel. Even those recalling ambassadors—Brazil, Chile, South Africa, and Turkey—maintain formal relations and embassies. That’s political theater, not isolation (Itamar Eichner, “How Israel’s diplomatic ruptures stack up against past wars?” Ynet, August 26, 2024). In the case of Chile, Israel welcomed the December 2025 election of right-wing Chilean president-elect José Antonio Kast as a public mandate for change, anticipating renewed bilateral ties after strained relations under the previous left-wing government (“Sa’ar congratulates Chile over Republican presidential win,” JNS, December 15, 2025).

Yes, a few European states temporarily paused arms sales. However, despite heavy criticism since October 7, a group of 20 countries including the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, Finland and others quietly sent senior military representatives to Israel for a five-day program in November 2025 to study its battlefield lessons from a two-year multi-front war (@AmitSegal, November 21, 2025). Meanwhile, Israel’s security anchor—the U.S.—is rock-solid, and its defense ties with India, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Serbia are growing. Israel isn’t cornered; it’s adapting.

And the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement? Still a fringe sideshow. Governments aren’t boycotting Israel. The dream of making it a pariah has failed. Meanwhile, not one Palestinian benefits from its antics. Hamas could end the war tomorrow by surrendering and freeing the hostages, and yet pressure is solely focused on Israel.

Four symbolic cuts do not equal isolation. The world still overwhelmingly continues diplomatic and economic engagement with Israel, even amid fierce debate over the war.

And let’s be clear: Israel’s fight against Hamas is not optional. It’s a war to dismantle Hamas and bring the hostages home. Prime Minister Golda Meir bluntly explained, “If we have to have a choice between dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image” (Batsheva Neuer, “Bernie Sanders claims he’s proud to be Jewish, his actions show otherwise,” Jerusalem Post, February 26, 2020). Or as Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar put it in today’s context: “We need to survive first. After that, there comes popularity and how much we are able to convince others around the world” (Elliot Kaufman, “‘Better PR’ Can Be a Trap for Israel,” Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2025).

MYTH

Israel targeted an Al Jazeera journalist in violation of international law.

FACT

Critics claim that Israel’s August 10, 2025, strike in Gaza, which killed Al Jazeera reporter Anas al-Sharif, constituted an unlawful attack on a civilian journalist. This accusation is false. The strike was a lawful military operation targeting an active Hamas combatant, not a neutral reporter.

According to the IDF, intelligence and seized Hamas records confirm that al-Sharif had been a member of Hamas’s military wing since 2013, serving as a commander of a rocket-launching squad and later appearing in the elite Nukhba Force’s internal registry. Despite his journalistic role, al-Sharif continued to receive a Hamas salary and actively participated in coordinating rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers (“Amid global outcry, IDF says Al Jazeera reporter it killed was receiving Hamas salary,” Times of Israel, August 12, 2025).

Researcher David Collier captured the moral inversion:

Instead of anger at this charade - the exploitation of journalism to cloak terror - we saw anger at Israel.” Worse still, we saw the canonization of men like Al-Sharif, lauded as martyrs of the press. This is the real issue: not who was killed, but how jihadists are being sanctified as journalists (David Collier, “Why are Al Jazeera Jihadists Being Sanctified as Heroic Journalists,” David Collier website, August 21, 2025).

Open-source materials analyzed by investigative journalists depict al-Sharif alongside Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, and posting messages glorifying the October 7 massacre. IDF sources say these links were verified by documents recovered during ground operations. Al Jazeera denies these allegations, claiming Israel fabricated evidence to suppress its coverage (Novi Zhukovsky, Jotam Confino, “While International Community Mourns a Slain Al Jazeera Journalist, Anas al-Sharif, Pro-Israel Voices Summon Proof of His Ties to Terror,” The Sun, August 11, 2025).

Yet astonishingly, Ian Williams, president of the Foreign Press Association, dismissed these facts: “Frankly I don’t care whether Al-Sharif was in Hamas or not. We don’t kill journalists for being Republicans or Democrats....Hamas is a political organization, as well as a terrorist organization, perhaps.”

This is why claims about the number of journalists “murdered” by Israel cannot be taken seriously. That “perhaps” speaks volumes. As James Kirchick observed, “To Mr. Williams and others of his ilk, a totalitarian Islamist movement that murders its opponents has the same democratic legitimacy as an American political party. As long its members put on a flak jacket with the word PRESS written on it, they qualify as intrepid war correspondents protected by international law” (James Kirchick, “Who Is a ‘Journalist’ in Gaza?” Wall Street Journal, August 21, 2025).

International law does not support this moral blindness. Under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), journalists are protected civilians only if they refrain from direct participation in hostilities. That participation does not require a rifle; serving as an intelligence asset or producing propaganda that shapes battlefield conditions qualifies (Andrew Fox, “When is a journalist a military target?” Andrew Fox, August 11, 2025). Israel maintains that Al Jazeera has long functioned as Hamas’s strategic communications arm—amplifying its narratives, covering up its atrocities, and shaping global opinion in ways that impede IDF operations (Ephrat Livni, “What to Know About Al Jazeera, the Broadcaster Targeted by Israel,” New York Times, August 11, 2025). Such participation forfeits protection under LOAC.

This is not an isolated case. Courts have affirmed Al Jazeera’s role as a propaganda and intelligence platform for Hamas (Jeremy Sharon, “Court approves extension of ban on Al Jazeera operations in Israel,” Times of Israel, June 13, 2024). Some of its “journalists” have done far worse—holding Israeli hostages, serving in Hamas units, and aiding attacks (Ronny Reyes, “Gaza journalist who wrote for Al Jazeera was holding 3 hostages in home with family, Israel says,” New York Post, June 9, 2024). According to Israeli officials, this cooperation has enabled Hamas to mobilize global protests, pressure governments, and prolong the conflict.

The pattern persisted even after al-Sharif’s death: Al Jazeera replaced him with Shadi Shamiya, a former head of correspondents at Hamas’s propaganda channel Al-Aqsa TV—reinforcing concerns about the network’s integration with Hamas’s information warfare (Eitan Fischberger, Meet Anas al-Sharif’s Replacement at Al Jazeera: He’s Also a Member of Hamas, Fisch Files, August 16, 2025).

Collier examined the social media profiles of four of the six people killed in the Israeli strike. “Of the four accessible profiles found,” he said, “all four celebrated the murder of innocent Jews in explicitly religious-jihadist terms.” He added, “The greater tragedy is that global media institutions, instead of exposing this, too often elevate it. By describing such men as ‘brave reporters’ or ‘truth-tellers,’ the media launders terrorist propaganda as journalism. And when the line between terrorist and journalist is erased, it is not only the Jews who are endangered - everyone is.”

The characterization of propagandists for terror organizations as journalists is inaccurate and an affront to real journalists. “What these men did wasn’t journalism, and claiming otherwise dishonors the real journalists who risk and sometimes lose their lives endeavoring to bring us the truth,” Kirchick concluded. “To put people who celebrated or participated in the Oct. 7 attacks in the same category as journalists Daniel Pearl, Marie Colvin and James Foley is a disgrace.”

If Israel intended to silence critics, scores of hostile correspondents still operating in Gaza would already be dead. Instead, what the world sees is wall-to-wall anti-Israel coverage—while images of terrorists or their attacks are conspicuously absent. The narrative that Israel “targets journalists” collapses under the weight of evidence: the IDF is fighting an enemy that hides behind press credentials to wage war.

Collier’s warning is chilling: “Terrorists are dressing up as journalists and being celebrated as heroes. That should terrify us. When people in the West can no longer tell the difference between a terrorist and a reporter, we are in dangerous territory. And when global media outlets themselves are the ones amplifying these terrorists as ‘truth-tellers’, the spiral we are entering threatens the very core of our society.”

MYTH

Recognizing a Palestinian state would end the conflict with Israel.

FACT

Unilaterally recognizing a Palestinian state—especially after the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre—does not bring peace. It rewards terrorism, emboldens extremists, and undermines the very negotiations needed to achieve a lasting agreement.

After Hamas’s coordinated attacks, several Western nations—including Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia—rushed to recognize a Palestinian state. Ahead of the so-called “Two-State Conference,” at the United Nations General Assembly which took place in September 2025, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia followed suit and formally recognized a Palestinian state, while Andorra, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Portugal, San Marino did so during the conference itself (Christian Edwards, Aditi Sangal, Elise Hammond, “France joins countries recognizing Palestinian state ahead of UN General Assembly,” CNN, September 22, 2025). These countries recognized a Palestinian state either unconditionally or under vague conditions tied to ceasefires or internal reforms. Other countries such as Norway and Sweden have signaled similar intentions (“Joint Statement of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs,” Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations, July 29, 2025).

These declarations are political theater—meant to placate domestic critics and virtue signal concern for Gaza—rather than serious steps toward peace. They were not the product of serious negotiations over borders, governance, or security—they were political statements designed to punish Israel. Leaders like Emmanuel Macron framed recognition as isolating Hamas, but in practice, it isolated Israel while granting Hamas the “fruits of October 7.” Hamas officials openly celebrated that mass murder had brought them closer to statehood (“A Palestinian State for Hamas,” WSJ, September 22, 2025).

The weakness of this approach was laid bare at the very UN conference championed by Macron. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, who co-initiated the effort, didn’t even show up, leaving Macron to share the podium with lower-ranking officials. Meanwhile, Belgian recognition was so muddled that it declared Palestine recognized “without actually recognizing it,” to take effect only once hostages were freed (Liza Rozovsky, “Macron Can Tout the UN Two-state Conference as a Success, but Glaring Absences Lay Bare Its Weakness,” Haaretz, September 23, 2025).

The timing could not be worse. Hamas still holds 48 hostages, only 20 of whom are believed alive. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: “Well, if you noticed, the talks with Hamas fell apart on the day [French President Emmanuel] Macron made the unilateral decision that he’s going to recognize the Palestinian state. And then you have other people come forward, other countries say, well, if there’s not a ceasefire by September, we’re going to recognize a Palestinian state. Well, if I’m Hamas, I’ve basically concluded let’s not do a ceasefire.”

Military experts agree. John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, cautioned: “Recognizing a Palestinian State now would sentence all sides to perpetual terror” (@SpencerGuard, July 27, 2025).

Similarly, the Campaign Against Antisemitism in the UK criticized Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s pledge to recognize a Palestinian state. “This is not a step toward peace,” they wrote, “it is a dangerous precedent… a reward for mass murder, rape, and hostage-taking” (@antisemitism, July 29, 2025).

Even pro–two-state advocates warn against premature moves. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul stressed that “recognition of a Palestinian state comes more at the end of that process,” and warned that jumping ahead of negotiations would only deepen tensions (Nava Freiberg, “En route to Israel, German FM urges 2-state process, says too soon to recognize Palestine,” Times of Israel, July 31, 2025).

A senior White House official made clear U.S. opposition to the diplomatic rush to betray Israel. “[President Trump] would be rewarding Hamas if he recognizes a Palestinian state, and he doesn’t think they should be rewarded” (“Trump sees recognition of a Palestinian state as reward to Hamas, US official says,” Reuters, July 30, 2025).

Foreign leaders face no consequences from pronouncements; Israelis pay with their lives.

The Palestinians have used terror to extract political concessions since the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964. The PLO under Mahmoud Abbas has not changed, and the Islamists of Hamas and Palestine Islamic Jihad have simply given a religious justification for the destruction of Israel. Hamas already secured the release of hundreds of convicted terrorists; recognition would be seen as another victory for violence, further incentivizing terror.

The cascade of declarations recognizing “Palestine” is nothing new. Even before the “Two-State Conference,” 147 nations “recognized” Palestine (Ashley Wu, “The Changing Map of Palestinian Recognition,” New York Times, July 30, 2025). Has that ended the conflict? No. Instead, we got October 7—the bloodiest day for Jews since the Holocaust.

Critics of Israel’s government do not understand that it came to power because the entire Israeli public shifted to the right when Israel withdrew every soldier and civilian from Gaza in the 2005 disengagement and was rewarded with the launching of thousands of rockets, repeated suicide bombings, and other acts of terror. And the violence did not just come from Hamas; it also originated in the West Bank, where Israel evacuated four settlements, shattering the myth that “land for peace” was the formula for ending the conflict.

Following October 7, attitudes have only hardened as Israelis refuse to accept the establishment of an entity that could reprise the massacres. Today, 64% of Israeli Jews oppose the creation of a Palestinian state under any circumstances. Moreover, a similar figure of 57% of Palestinians oppose the concept of a two-state solution.

International declarations cannot create a Palestinian state. As Rubio noted, recognition not rooted in direct negotiations between the parties is futile: “It’s irrelevant. I mean, it’s annoying to some, but it’s irrelevant. It doesn’t mean anything. First of all, none of these countries have the ability to create a Palestinian state. There can be no Palestinian state unless Israel agrees to it. Number two, they can’t even tell you where this Palestinian state is. They can’t tell you who will govern it. And I think number three, it’s counterproductive” (“Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Brian Kilmeade of Fox Radio,” U.S. Department of State, July 31, 2025).

The Palestinians know the conditions for statehood: recognize Israel as a Jewish state, stop incitement and terror, and agree to coexistence. They have rejected every offer—from the 1937 Peel Plan to the 2020 Trump Peace Plan. After October 7, their obstinacy has only hardened.

Unilateral recognition does not bring peace—it prolongs war. It does not strengthen moderates—it strengthens Hamas. And it does not advance a two-state solution—it buries it.

MYTH

Israel is weaponizing humanitarian aid to Gaza.

FACT

Contrary to the propaganda churned out by Israel’s demonizers—and parroted by their allies in the press and human rights community—Israel is not starving Gazans. On the contrary, the government is working to ensure that humanitarian needs are met in cooperation with international partners, even as Hamas and its sympathizers actively try to sabotage those efforts for political gain.

The United Nations’ data betrays its narrative that Hamas is not stealing food and that the amount of aid is insufficient. Between May 19 and July 29, 87% of its Gaza food convoys—2,010 trucks—were intercepted, either looted by armed groups or swarmed by crowds. That’s 85% of food aid by tonnage diverted before reaching its intended recipients, according to UNOPS monitoring data. This data reflects a systemic failure of traditional aid channels and confirms long-standing concerns about Hamas’s interference with humanitarian efforts (@DavidMakovsky, July 30, 2025).

Furthermore, USAID’s Office of Inspector General is collecting evidence that Hamas systematically steals UN aid, from commandeering trucks and planting operatives inside UN facilities to directly siphoning supplies to its leadership. Whistleblowers and U.S. intelligence have confirmed that a large portion of “UN aid” in Gaza is either self-distributed by Hamas or stolen outright—sometimes with the cooperation of UN drivers seeking a cut (Adam Kredo, “Federal Investigators Compile Evidence of Systematic Hamas Aid Theft,” Washington Free Beacon, August 7, 2025).

On May 27, 2025, Israel and its allies launched the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a new aid mechanism designed to bypass the corrupt, slow-moving, and politically compromised international aid system—and to keep Hamas’s hands off desperately needed supplies. Within just two months, GHF overcame an initially chaotic start to establish four secure distribution sites that provided more than 105 million meals (Yonah Jeremy Bob, “GHF opens third Gaza aid center, hands out up to 1.8 million meals,” Jerusalem Post, May 29, 2025; @FoxNewsSunday, August 3, 2025).

The GHF has been vilified for Israel’s logistical role, the sidelining of ineffective and corrupt UN agencies, and the requirement for orderly food distribution, which undermines Hamas’s ability to weaponize hunger (Eitan Fischenberger, “Starvation by Feeding: The New ‘Genocide’ Narrative,” Fische Files, May 27, 2025). Its objective has been undermined by the UN’s refusal to participate—not because food was unavailable, but because it was reaching people through channels they did not create or control (“Department Press Briefing – May 27, 2025,” U.S. Dept. of State, May 27, 2025).

Even more disturbingly, Hamas has threatened civilians who accept the aid, erected roadblocks to block their access, and attacked distribution centers to maintain its stranglehold on food supplies. U.S. State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce confirmed that Hamas’s efforts to block deliveries have failed—and the food is getting through. But the cost has been high: on June 11, at least eight Palestinian GHF aid workers were murdered in a Hamas ambush while en route to a site near Khan Younis (Joe Truzman, “Hamas kills at least 8 aid workers, GHF reports; source claims Hamas trying to disrupt aid distribution,” FDD).

Instead of condemning Hamas for obstructing lifesaving aid, some UN officials attacked the GHF—not for inefficiency, but for not being their operation. As Brendan O’Neill noted, this is telling: For anti-Israel actors, success is only acceptable if it reinforces their narrative of Israeli villainy (Brendan O’Neill, “Israel’s latest crime? Feeding the people of Gaza, Spiked,” May 27, 2025). The UN is using threats, intimidation, and retaliation against NGOs that choose to work with GHF. The UN even punished NGOs that joined the GHF, removing them from the UN’s shared aid database—an essential tool created under a General Assembly resolution to track aid deliveries into Gaza. This exclusion, carried out without due process, was nothing less than extortion: cooperate with the UN’s political agenda, or be cut off (“The situation in the Middle East (including the Palestinian question) - Security Council, 9923rd meeting,” UN Web TV, May 28, 2025).

The United States now plans to dramatically expand humanitarian relief by funding a fourfold increase in Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites—from four to sixteen—ensuring that far more civilians can receive food without interference from Hamas. Yet, in a display of the warped priorities that plague the aid establishment, Hani Almadhoun, senior director of philanthropy at UNRWA’s U.S. office, chose to condemn rather than commend the effort. “Expanding the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation from four to 16 sites doesn’t mean more relief — it means more killing fields,” he claimed, referring to allegations that people were killed while trying to reach the original centers (Karen DeYoung, “Trump intends to launch big Gaza aid expansion, but funding is unclear,” Washington Post, August 7, 2025).

That framing is as cynical as it is revealing. By Almadhoun’s logic, the problem is not Hamas’s deliberate targeting of civilians en route to food, but Israel’s attempt to make food more accessible. Instead of condemning the terrorists who turn breadlines into battlefields, he reserves his outrage for the people bringing the bread. In doing so, he inadvertently confirms what critics of the UN system have long argued: for too many in the humanitarian sector, the greatest crime is not that Gazans go hungry, but that Israel might be the one feeding them.

The media, meanwhile, has played its part in keeping the “Israel is starving Gaza” narrative alive. On July 24, The New York Times published a dramatic photo of a malnourished Gazan child in his mother’s arms—only to later append a quiet editor’s note admitting the child’s condition was unrelated to food scarcity. That correction, buried from public view, received a fraction of the attention the original falsehood did (“NYT appends Gazan child photo with Editors’ Note,” i24 News, July 30, 2025).

Hamas’s cruelty is not limited to Gazans. In late July, the group released footage of two Israeli hostages—Evyatar David and Rom Braslavski—emaciated and visibly malnourished after nearly ten months in captivity. Braslavski’s appearance was likened to that of a concentration camp inmate. Analysts believe these images are meant to project dominance, confident that the international press will ignore Hamas’s deliberate starvation of hostages while continuing to accuse Israel of the very crimes Hamas commits (@jreichelt, August 2, 2025).

Images of Evyatar David (left) and Rom Braslavski (right), taken from footage released by Hamas and PIJ in late July 2025.

One Hamas video, meant to humiliate Israel, instead demolished their narrative. In it, a terrorist’s arm extends a can to the skeletal Evyatar David (see below). The terrorist’s arm is healthy and well-fed; David’s is emaciated, little more than skin stretched over bone. That single frame exposes the truth: Hamas is not starving because food is unavailable—they have plenty. They are starving civilians and hostages by choice.

The accusation that Israel is committing “genocide” by delivering food through faster, more secure channels is not just false—it is grotesque. It is a calculated perversion of humanitarian aid, turning lifesaving work into a weapon of propaganda. The real scandal is not that Israel is feeding Gazans. The real scandal is that so many are enraged precisely because Israel’s aid is working—and because it shatters the narrative they depend on.

MYTH

The Palestinians have a “right of return” to resettle in modern-day Israel.

There is no legal, historical, or moral foundation for a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel. The claim is not rooted in international law, but in politics—and its implementation would mean the end of the world’s only Jewish state.

From the outset, Zionist leaders recognized they would have to live alongside their Arab neighbors. They consistently sought coexistence, even as war loomed. Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence explicitly invited Palestinian Arabs to stay and help build the new state, promising equal rights for all, regardless of religion or ethnicity. That promise was fulfilled for the 150,000 Arabs who remained and became Israeli citizens.

But most Arabs chose a different path. Urged by their leaders to leave—assured they would return once the invading Arab armies had crushed the Jews—hundreds of thousands fled before, during, and after the May 14, 1948 Arab invasion of the nascent Jewish state. The war they expected would restore their homes instead created the refugee crisis still unresolved today.

Supporters of a so-called “right of return” often appeal to emotion, presenting personal stories as moral imperatives. In a July 28, 2025, New York Times op-ed, former Human Rights Watch official Sari Bashi recounts how her Palestinian mother-in-law, Fatima, was displaced from the village of Isdud (now Ashdod) during the war and never permitted to return. Bashi cites this as evidence of ongoing injustice and claims international law compels Israel to rectify it—pointing to UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) as her legal basis (Sari Bashi, “What We Talk About When We Talk About the Right of Return,” New York Times, July 31, 2025).

But this legal argument collapses under scrutiny.

Resolution 194 is not a binding law; it is a recommendation. It states that refugees “should be permitted” to return, and only if they are “willing to live at peace with their neighbors.” The word “should” underscores its advisory—not obligatory—nature (“UN Documents - A/RES/194,” SCR).

Moreover, the Arab states rejected the resolution when it was passed. They reversed course and began to invoke it as a political weapon only after failing to destroy Israel militarily.

As for the 1966 Covenant, it protects an individual’s right to return to their own country—not the country of their grandparents. Legal experts, including Stig Jagerskiold, have affirmed that it was never intended to apply to descendants of wartime refugees or mass population transfers like those of the post-World War II era (“International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” OHCHR).

The implications of enforcing such a “right” are not theoretical—they are existential. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), there are nearly six million Palestinian refugees, most of whom have never set foot in Israel and have no connection to the homes their grandparents left 75 years ago. Only a tiny fraction of the people who left in 1948-1949 are still alive. Most of their homes no longer exist or are occupied.

Allowing a mass influx of Palestinians into Israel would destroy the country’s Jewish character. As Bashi herself admits, implementing this demand would end Israel as a Jewish-majority state—turning it into yet another Arab polity in the region. According to 2025 UNRWA data, there are approximately 5,889,721 registered Palestinian refugees: 912,879 in the West Bank, 1,500,000 in Gaza, 2,390,000 in Jordan, 500,000 in Lebanon, and 586,842 in Syria. Of these, 3,476,842 live outside the Palestinian territories. If all were permitted to “return” to Israel, and combined with Israel’s 2,095,000 Arab citizens, the total Arab population would rise to nearly 8 million, surpassing the 7,689,000 Jews. Israel’s overall population would swell to 15,673,721, with Jews comprising only 49%, effectively ending the Jewish majority and the character of Israel as the world’s only Jewish state. That is not coexistence; that is conquest by other means. No Israeli government—left, center, or right—could accept such a proposition (Where We Work, UNRWA).

In reality, most “refugees” live in the historic territory of Palestine: in Jordan, the West Bank, or Gaza. Others have lived for generations as citizens in non-Arab countries. Yet they still demand not safety, not citizenship, but resettlement in the precise communities their ancestors left—communities that no longer exist.

Israel has already taken approximately 200,000 Palestinians to return under various frameworks. Meanwhile, Arab states, despite their rhetorical support, have refused to naturalize or integrate refugees, keeping them in squalid camps and denying them civil rights, all to preserve the myth of return and use them as permanent political leverage.

This demand has repeatedly derailed efforts to reach a peace settlement. Palestinian leaders view the refugee issue not as a humanitarian crisis to resolve, but as a strategic tool to undermine Israel’s existence. Their maps show a Palestine that extends from the river to the sea—not alongside Israel, but instead of it.

And while Palestinian displacement is tragic, it is not unique. Around the same time, 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands—their property confiscated, their communities erased. There was no UN agency created for them, no global sympathy campaign, no “right of return.” They were absorbed—mostly by Israel—and moved on with their lives.

No other country on earth is asked to commit national suicide in the name of diplomacy. The international community must face reality: the fantasy of return is not a path to peace. It is a recipe for endless conflict.

The Palestinian refugee issue should be addressed as every other post-conflict refugee crisis has been: through resettlement, integration, and international support. That is the path to justice. That is the path to peace.

Until then, peace will remain hostage to a myth—one that punishes Palestinians with false hope and threatens the survival of Israel.

MYTH

Jewish settlers deliberately torched a 1,500-year-old church in the Palestinian village of Taybeh.

FACT

Contrary to sensational headlines and statements by high-ranking church leaders, there is no evidence that Israeli settlers set fire to the ancient Church of St. George in Taybeh. The charge delivered alongside 20 foreign diplomats, and widely echoed in international media, was made on July 14, 2025, by Greek Orthodox Patriarch Theophilos III and Latin Patriarch Pierbattista Pizzaballa, who claimed “radical Israelis from nearby settlements” were behind a deliberate arson attack (“Burning Questions: What Really Happened at Taybeh’s Church?” TPS-IL, July 20, 2025).

However, independent investigations and official findings undercut the incendiary narrative. The Press Service of Israel (TPS) reviewed video footage released by the Taybeh municipality showing that the individuals labeled as arsonists were Jewish teenagers from a nearby farm attempting to extinguish the flames using fire-extinguishing equipment and a compressed-air blower commonly used to control brush fires. One of the youths, a 16-year-old shepherd, said he called for help after spotting the blaze while tending livestock and tried smothering it with his shirt (“Claims that extremist settlers set fire to ancient West Bank church may be inaccurate, probe finds,” Jerusalem Post, July 21, 2025).

Moreover, police records show that the Jewish farmer whose livestock grazed in the area reported fires on July 7, 8, and 11. The fire near the church cemetery appears to have been one of these earlier incidents, misinterpreted or reframed through a politicized lens.

The Israeli Police confirmed that the church was never damaged. “Findings gathered on the ground unequivocally show that no damage or harm was caused to the holy site itself,” the spokesperson said. The fire was confined to a nearby open area, with no buildings or infrastructure affected. A special investigation team continues to examine the cause (@Israellycool, July 21, 2025).

The damage done to Israel’s image is harder to contain.

Christian affairs analyst Amit Barak captured the deeper problem: “In the past, the blame was cast on ‘the Jew.’ Today, it’s ‘the settler,’” Barak noted (Zvika Klein, “Taybeh church: Retractions don't undo damage of false narratives,” Jerusalem Post, July 21, 2025).

This is an example of an all-too-common rush to judgment to delegitimize Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria.

Days later, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter confirmed that the fire had been started by Palestinians, not settlers—according to the ongoing investigation.

This incident should serve as a warning. When clergy and diplomats amplify unverified accusations, the consequences are real: they inflame tensions, erode trust, and obscure actual cases of interreligious violence that deserve serious attention. Hasty, headline-driven narratives cannot substitute for evidence.

MYTH

Israel’s recent attacks on Syrian President al-Sharaa’s regime were unprovoked.

FACT

Israel’s strikes on Syrian regime targets in July 2025 were a direct response to a dire and escalating threat to Syria’s Druze minority, a community with deep familial, historical, and civic ties to the Druze population in Israel. In the southern Syrian province of Sweida, over 200 people were killed in just four days of brutal clashes that began with attacks by Bedouin groups against local Druze civilians and escalated rapidly with the intervention of government forces aligned with the al-Sharaa regime (Christina Goldbaum, “What to Know About Israel’s Strikes in Syria,” New York Times, July 15, 2025).

Despite ceasefire claims, eyewitnesses and monitoring groups reported continued artillery and mortar fire from Syrian forces on Druze areas. The situation provoked an uproar among Israeli Druze leaders. Sheikh Mowafak Tarif called for a general strike and warned that if the Israeli government failed to act decisively, Druze citizens might cross the border to protect their kin themselves. Dozens of Israeli Druze did just that, infiltrating Syria to defend relatives under attack (“Israel’s Druze community declares day of rage, prepares to invade Syria if necessary,” Jerusalem Post, July 16, 2025).

Israel’s leadership responded with targeted military action. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the IDF and Israeli Air Force to strike regime forces and weaponry deployed in Sweida, citing both strategic and moral imperatives. These included the prevention of mass atrocities, the need to uphold Israel’s long-standing commitment to demilitarizing its border areas, and solidarity with the Druze people, many of whom serve in the IDF and are full participants in Israeli civic life (Rachel Wolf, “Israel strikes Syria’s military headquarters as the regime clashes with Druze civilians,” Fox News, July 16, 2025; @Israel_katz, July 16, 2025).

Israel targeted tanks, roads, and military headquarters used to suppress the Druze, including a strike near Syria’s Defense Ministry in Damascus. Netanyahu made clear the goal was “to save our Druze brothers and eliminate the regime’s gangs,” while also urging restraint from Israeli Druze citizens who sought to cross into Syria (“Israel strikes Syria ‘to halt the assaults against the Druze,’” Jewish Insider, July 16, 2025; @netanyahu, July 16, 2025).

As a nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust, Israel bears a moral obligation to prevent atrocities when it can act. Its military response in southern Syria was not an act of aggression, but a defensive measure rooted in humanitarian concern, national security, and loyalty to a deeply integrated minority population under existential threat across the border.

MYTH

Iran’s strike on Soroka Hospital is morally equivalent to Israeli strikes on hospitals in Gaza.

FACT

There is no legal, moral, or factual equivalence between Iran’s deliberate targeting of Soroka Medical Center and Israel’s actions against Hamas-occupied hospitals in Gaza. Equating the two not only distorts the laws of war—it enables terrorism and erodes the norms meant to protect civilians.

On June 19, 2025, Iran launched a ballistic missile that directly struck Soroka Hospital, a fully civilian medical facility in Be’er Sheva. The attack injured 89 people and caused widespread damage. Iran offered no justification—no claim of military activity at the hospital, no intelligence to suggest it was a legitimate target. This was a blatant war crime: a premeditated assault on a civilian institution with no military necessity (Lahav Harkov, “Iranian missiles hit hospital in Negev and residential areas in central Israel, injuring 89,” Jewish Insider, June 19, 2025).

By contrast, Israel has only struck hospitals in Gaza when there was clear, independently verified evidence that Hamas was using them for military purposes—command centers, weapons storage, tunnel access, and hiding hostages. Under international law, when hospitals are used for combat operations, they forfeit their protected status (Noah Rothman, “Israel Criticized for the Iranian Bombing of an Israeli Hospital,” National Review, June 19, 2025).

Hamas’s exploitation of medical facilities is well documented.

Al-Shifa Hospital was Hamas’s main command hub.
Kamal Adwan Hospital harbored fighters.
Rantisi Children’s Hospital concealed weapons and evidence of hostage abuse.
Nasser Hospital served as a base for Islamic Jihad militants.

These facts have been confirmed through captured documents, combat footage, testimonies, third-party investigations, and Western media reports. U.S. intelligence has publicly verified Hamas’s systematic use of hospitals for terrorism (@SachaRoytman, June 19, 2025).

To draw any equivalence between Iran’s unlawful missile strike on a civilian hospital and Israel’s operations against Hamas command centers embedded in hospitals is to commit a moral and factual inversion. It whitewashes terrorism and undermines the international legal framework designed to protect civilians, not shield combatants who violate it.

MYTH

Israel has deliberately fired on civilians at aid distribution sites in Gaza.

FACT

Israel once again finds itself in a no-win situation: condemned for allegedly harming civilians even as it facilitates aid delivery, while the real culprit, Hamas, loots, intimidates, and murders to keep food out of the hands of Palestinians.

After months of failure by the UN and other international aid groups, failures that Hamas exploited to withhold humanitarian assistance from Gazans, a new mechanism was launched to bypass terrorist interference. Since its creation, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has delivered nearly 55 million meals between May 26 and July 1, 2025, despite deliberate sabotage by other aid agencies. “We’d really like the people whose job it has been to do this for many years to decide to help us,” said Rev. Johnnie Moore, executive chairman of the GHF. “Instead, they spread lies that originate in Hamas and try to shut us down... I can’t think of anything more immoral than trying to shut down an operation that’s… feeding millions and millions of meals every day.” (Lahav Harkov, “‘Immoral’ U.N. ‘sabotaging’ food distribution, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation chairman,” Jewish Insider, July 2, 2025).

Rather than applauding this breakthrough in aid delivery, Hamas and its media enablers launched a propaganda blitz. In May, Hamas-controlled health authorities accused Israeli forces of killing dozens of civilians near aid convoys in Rafah. These claims, often citing unverifiable figures, were echoed uncritically by major media outlets. The IDF immediately denied the accusations as “exaggerated and false,” clarifying that soldiers had only fired warning shots at individuals approaching restricted areas (Emanuel Fabian, Nava Freiberg, and Jacob Magid, “IDF rejects ‘exaggerated’ Hamas claims of people killed by troops near Gaza aid site,” Times of Israel, June 3, 2025).

To counter the false narrative, the IDF released aerial surveillance footage showing masked Palestinian gunmen firing at civilians near aid trucks. No Israeli forces were shooting at the scene. Israeli officials said the evidence pointed to Hamas operatives seeking to instill fear and discredit the GHF (“Masked gunmen shoot at Gazans seeking humanitarian aid,” Jerusalem Post, June 1, 2025).

The backlash eventually prompted some outlets to correct the record. The BBC, for instance, was caught airing footage from a different time and location. Even the White House weighed in. “We urge journalists not to take the word of Hamas with total truth,” said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, affirming that “humanitarian aid distribution must be protected from manipulation by armed actors” (“Israel denies firing on civilians near Rafah aid point,” JNS, June 4, 2025).

“There have been incidents in the Gaza Strip of civilians being killed,” Moore acknowledged. “But what’s clear is that there is this very intentional disinformation campaign that is trying to say that … the GHF is a death trap, that we exist not to feed people 50 million meals, but to lure people. This is the lie that they keep telling.”

In late June, the IDF acknowledged that some civilians had been unintentionally harmed near aid distribution points. The army responded by implementing new safety protocols - clear signage, better fencing, revised fire control orders - to prevent stampedes and miscommunication. It emphasized that Israeli forces “take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm” and do not authorize live fire on civilians (Howard Goller, “Israel acknowledges Palestinian civilians harmed at Gaza aid sites, says’ lessons learned,’” Reuters, June 30, 2025).

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned as “malicious falsehoods” a media report claiming Israeli soldiers were ordered to shoot at civilians seeking aid, stating flatly that “no such directive was ever issued” (Julia Frankel, Fatma Khaled, Wafaa Shurafa, “Netanyahu denounces report that Israeli soldiers have orders to shoot at Palestinians seeking aid,” AP, June 30, 2025).

An independent analysis published in Spiked revealed that even the original Hebrew version of the controversial Haaretz report that referred to the issue did not support the incendiary claim. It stated that IDF troops were ordered to fire “toward” crowds, not “at” them - a key distinction military experts say denotes warning shots, not direct targeting. As one British Army veteran noted, “Toward is what soldiers call warning shots… it is done to send a warning, not to take a life.” Furthermore, the same report pointed out the implausibility of claims that Israel used heavy weapons such as mortars on aid-seekers but only caused “one to five” deaths a day. These numbers would be significantly higher if such weaponry had truly been used on civilians (Andrew Fox, “The myth of Israel’s ‘killing fields,’” Spiked, July 1, 2025).

Hamas remains the principal obstacle to providing aid to Gazans. The terror group has killed 12 GHF aid workers, threatened others, and deliberately spread lies to scare Palestinians away from food distribution sites. It prefers that the UN handle delivery because, as Moore explained, it’s easier to steal from them. In one shocking example, Hamas hijacked 52 of 55 UN aid trucks in a single day, after which the UN falsely claimed no aid had been diverted.

If this is what international “humanitarianism” looks like - smearing those who are feeding people, while covering for the terrorists blocking that aid, it’s no wonder Palestinians are still going hungry. The world must decide: stand with the truth and the people bringing food, or keep enabling Hamas’s deadly grip on Gaza.

MYTH

Iran did not attempt to build a nuclear weapon before the attacks on its nuclear facilities.

FACT

This claim distorts both the reality of Iran’s nuclear program and the broader context that compelled Israel and the United States to act decisively against the Ayatollah regime’s nuclear ambitions.

The 2025 U.S. Intelligence Community’s Annual Threat Assessment (ATA), frequently cited as “proof” that Iran did not seek to build a nuclear weapon, acknowledged that Iran had not made a formal political decision to assemble a nuclear weapon. However, it underscored that Iran had amassed enriched uranium far beyond civilian needs, was operating advanced centrifuges, and possessed all technical capabilities required to produce a nuclear device within a very short window if it chose to do so. This threshold status meant that the difference between possessing the components and producing a weapon was a matter of weeks or even days should Iran’s leadership make the decision to proceed (“Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community,” Office of the Director of National Intelligence, March 2025).

In an interview with NBC, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that the distinction between intent and capability is dangerously misleading. As he argued: “They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons... Why would you bury things in a mountain 300 feet under the ground? Why do they have 60% enriched uranium?... They have the delivery mechanisms. They have the enrichment capability. They have the highly enriched uranium that is stored. That’s all we need to see.” (@RapidResponse47, June 22, 2025).

CIA Director John Ratcliffe famously illustrated the imminent risk with a football analogy: “Iran was not on its own one-yard line; it was on the goal line. All it had to do was push the ball over to have a nuclear weapon” (Warren P. Strobel, Alex Horton, Abigail Hauslohner, “Navigating Iran crisis, Trump relies on experience over star power,” Washington Post, June 19, 2025). This assessment reflects the overwhelming consensus that Iran had crossed every technical barrier short of the final assembly.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who claimed that was misrepresented when briefing on the ATA in March 2025, echoed this concern, stating publicly: “America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can’t happen, and I agree.” (@DNIGabbard, June 20, 2025).

In this context, the military actions taken by Israel and the United States were not acts of preemption based on speculation but urgent responses to an imminent threat. As German Chancellor Friedrich Merz affirmed, “The evidence that Iran is continuing on its path to building a nuclear weapon can no longer be seriously disputed.” Merz explicitly supported the U.S. and Israeli strikes, noting that while the operations carried risks, doing nothing was not an option (“Germany’s Merz sees no reason to criticise Israeli, U.S. attacks on Iran,” Reuters, June 23, 2025).

For Israel, whose very existence is threatened by Iranian nuclear capabilities paired with its genocidal rhetoric, the danger was existential. As in past instances when the international community failed to prevent hostile regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, Israel could not afford to wait for further diplomatic failures until the bombs “fell on its head”. The United States, utilizing its expanded military capabilities, acted in concert with Israel to eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure before it crossed the point of no return.

The notion that Iran had not built a nuclear weapon before the strikes may carry some merit in the narrowest technical sense, but is dangerously deceptive in assessing the true nature of the threat. By dismantling Iran’s capabilities at the critical threshold moment, the U.S. and Israel averted a catastrophe that the international community had long failed to prevent.

MYTH

Iran’s missile campaign against Israel is a proportionate act of self-defense.

FACT

The assertion of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which it claimed its response to Israeli attacks was proportional, lawful, and targeting only Israeli military infrastructure, conveyed in Iran’s letter to the UN Security Council (“Iran tells UN strikes on Israel are self-defense,” Reuters, June 16, 2025), is demonstrably false. Iran’s missile and drone barrage struck numerous civilian targets, causing mass casualties and widespread destruction far from any legitimate military objectives.

According to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, as of June 21, Israel’s Operation Rising Lion has seen over 450 rockets and an estimated 1000 UAVs launched toward Israeli territory, resulting in approximately 45 impact sites. The attacks have left 25 people dead and 1272 injured, including 14 in serious condition, 51 moderately wounded, and over 1,207 with light injuries. The Israel Tax Authority has received 30,735 damage claims, 25,040 for buildings, 2,623 for vehicles, and 3,006 for other types of property. Additionally, more than 8,190 civilians have been evacuated from their homes under orders from the Home Front Command (“Operation Rising Lion – update,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 21, 2025).

In stark contrast to Iran’s assertion of a lawful, proportionate response under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the scale and nature of the strikes reflect an unprovoked act of aggression against densely populated areas. As Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon noted in his intervention at the UN General Assembly, “In the past days, Iran has launched hundreds of ballistic missiles directly at Israeli cities. Not military bases. Cities. Homes. Schools. Synagogues. Mosques. Over one thousand projectiles have been launched at our people so far. Missiles rained down on Haifa, on Jerusalem, on Tel Aviv, on Bat Yam, and on our southern communities. In every corner of Israel, air raid sirens screamed and families ran for shelter. That is the reality for every Israeli man, woman, and child....Iran has also unleashed waves of drones and UAVs, programmed to hit civilian targets. In one strike, an entire Arab Christian family in Northern Israel was murdered. Iran does not care who it kills. Jew, Christian, Muslim - it makes no difference.” (“General Assembly: 79th Plenary meeting, 79th session,” UN Web TV, June 16, 2025).

Moreover, Iran’s conduct following the cessation of large-scale hostilities underscores that its threat posture has not diminished but remains active and destabilizing. Iranian state media disclosed that Tehran conducted missile drills in multiple cities in December 2025, marking the second such exercise within a single month. Western governments view Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal as a central threat to regional and international security and as a potential delivery system for nuclear weapons, should Iran advance its nuclear program further. Even as Iranian officials issued contradictory statements attempting to downplay the exercises, the drills coincided with heightened Israeli and U.S. concern that Iran is rebuilding military and strategic capabilities damaged during the war. The continuation of missile exercises after the conflict reinforces a clear pattern: Iran is not signaling restraint or de-escalation, but rather demonstrating ongoing intent and capacity to threaten Israel and undermine broader regional stability (”Iran holds missile drills in various cities, state media say,” Reuters, December 22, 2025).

Targeting civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law, regardless of the political justification offered. Iran’s blanket claim of proportionality is not only unsupported by evidence - it is a dangerous distortion of legal norms designed to obscure war crimes.

MYTH

Israel illegally intercepts Flotillas to Gaza.

FACT

Flotillas attempting to breach Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza are neither legitimate humanitarian missions nor illegally intercepted, and their participants are not kidnapped.

Israel enforces a legal naval blockade on Gaza, consistent with international law, to prevent the smuggling of weapons and other materials that Hamas could use for terrorism. The legality of this blockade has been upheld by international precedent, including a 2011 UN Secretary-General’s committe led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, which affirmed Israel’s right to impose and enforce it in response to the threats posed by Hamas (“Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident,” United Nations, September 2011). Blockades are also recognized as lawful under the San Remo Manual on Naval Warfare and the London Declaration of 1909 (Jeremy Sharon, “A new Gaza flotilla is on its way; does Israel have the legal right to intercept it?” Times of Israel, September 24, 2025).

Flotilla organizers openly declare their intent to break the blockade despite these rulings. International law allows Israel to intercept such vessels even in international waters if they intend to breach the blockade. The San Remo Manual explicitly authorizes the capture of ships attempting to violate a lawful blockade, and neutral vessels can be intercepted if reasonably believed to be doing so.

In past cases, like The Freedom Flotilla Coalition in June 2025, the Israeli Navy intercepted the vessel in a peaceful and professional manner. Passengers aboard the yacht, including activist Greta Thunberg, were provided with sandwiches and water and were treated respectfully. The yacht was escorted to the Israeli port of Ashdod, where passengers underwent medical examinations and were processed according to Israeli law. Thunberg and the rest of the so-called “celebrities” were unharmed and arrived at Ben Gurion Airport to depart from Israel and return to their home countries. Consuls from the passengers’ home countries met them at the airport. Those who refused to sign deportation documents were brought before a judicial authority. Far from being “kidnapped,” all passengers were free to return to their home countries in an orderly and lawful manner (@IsraelMFA, June 8, 2025; @Israel, June 9, 2025; et al).

Far from being a serious humanitarian effort, flotillas are primarily political stunts. The amount of aid they carry has always been symbolic at best—a few hundred tons compared to the thousands of tons Israel facilitates weekly through land crossings. For example, in one week of September 2025 alone, 736 trucks carrying over 14,000 tons of aid entered Gaza, 86 percent of it food, alongside another 1,700 trucks facilitated inside Gaza. Israel revealed that none of the 40 September Global Sumud Flotilla vessels carried any humanitarian aid. Videos released by Israeli authorities showed the empty interiors of the flotilla’s largest ships, confirming that the operation was designed to be a publicity stunt, not provide relief (“Foreign Ministry: Flotilla to Gaza had no humanitarian supplies,” Jerusalem Post, October 3, 2025).

Moreover, such attempts to breach the blockade are dangerous and irresponsible. Hamas has a history of exploiting maritime routes to carry out terrorist attacks, including in connection with the October 7, 2023, massacre. Uncoordinated provocations like flotillas undermine the effectiveness of legitimate humanitarian efforts and threaten maritime security.

The fact remains: Flotilla participants deliberately enter a conflict zone illegally, are intercepted in accordance with international law, treated humanely, and returned safely. The portrayal of flotillas as humanitarian missions and Israel’s enforcement actions as violations of international norms is a cynical distortion designed to promote anti-Israel propaganda rather than to alleviate the suffering of civilians in Gaza.

MYTH

Terrorist attacks against Israelis are adequately reported in international media.

FACT

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has faced a relentless wave of terrorism emanating from the West Bank, resulting in the deaths of 64 Israeli civilians as of May 23, 2025, according to Shin Bet (“West Bank shooting kills heavily pregnant woman,” BICOM, May 15, 2025). These are not faceless statistics—they are lives extinguished and families shattered. And yet, outside of Israeli and Jewish news outlets, most of these tragedies pass unnoticed.

The international media has covered only a handful of the deadliest attacks. The rest are buried in silence.

Take the heartbreaking case of 17-year-old Yaheli Gur. In February 2025, she succumbed to injuries sustained in a deliberate ramming attack near Pardes Hanna. It was a clear act of terrorism. She was a child. And yet, her death barely registered beyond Israel’s borders. No global outcry, detailed coverage, or headlines echoing her name.

This silence stands in stark contrast to how Palestinian casualties are reported. When Palestinians are injured, whether in Israeli military operations or violent encounters with settlers, the world’s leading news organizations write blaring headlines, often on the front page, with detailed and graphic reporting. Names and ages are emphasized. Grieving relatives are quoted at length.

The disparity is striking—and deeply consequential.

It’s not that Palestinian suffering should be ignored. It shouldn’t be. But when Israeli victims, especially those living in Judea and Samaria, are routinely overlooked or dehumanized, it creates a dangerous imbalance in public perception. This asymmetry fosters a false narrative: that Palestinian pain is constant and newsworthy, while Israeli pain is rare, illegitimate, or simply not worth mentioning.

Even when attacks on Israelis are acknowledged, victims are often pejoratively labeled “settlers,” a term frequently used to strip them of their individuality and imply complicity or guilt. This language choice is not neutral; it shapes empathy, often denied to those who need it most.

Meanwhile, the reality on the ground remains grim. Although Israeli security forces successfully thwart many attacks, the threat is ever-present. The daily fear and trauma that Israelis endure and its impact on their attitudes toward the Palestinians cannot be understood if the world is not fully informed.

Media coverage can shape global perceptions and government policies. By ignoring the suffering of Israeli civilians and failing to provide context for the violence they face, the press is omitting critical facts and distorting the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For a complete, verified list of Israeli victims of terrorism, visit the Jewish Virtual Library’s comprehensive listing.

MYTH

Protests in Gaza represent a popular uprising that could topple Hamas.

FACT

Anti-Hamas protests in Gaza have made headlines and sparked hope among some observers that Hamas’s grip on power is slipping. Chants like “Hamas out, out!” and “We want to live in peace” reflect deep suffering and anger among civilians trapped in a war they did not choose. But while these protests are significant, they are not a revolution. And they are unlikely to dislodge Hamas (Samy Magdy, Protests broke out against Hamas in Gaza. What do Palestinians think about the militant group?” AP, April 2, 2025; Einav Halabi, “‘Gaza is humiliated’: Anti-Hamas protests erupt again, call for end to war and terror,” Ynet, April 16, 2025; Jack Elbaum, “‘Yes To Love, No To Terrorism’: Anti-Hamas Protests Reignite In Gaza Despite Hamas Threats And Violence,” Algemeiner, April 18, 2025).

Speaking out against Hamas comes at a terrible cost. Just ask the family of Uday Rabie, a Palestinian who was tortured to death by Hamas after participating in peaceful anti-war demonstrations. He’s not alone. Hamas continues to rule Gaza not just through ideology but through brutal repression, often branding dissenters as Israeli collaborators to justify torture, kidnapping, or murder. Such actions serve as a powerful deterrent to widespread and sustained public opposition (Ibrahim Dahman, Nadeen Ebrahim, “Palestinian man tortured to death by Hamas militants after criticizing group and attending protests, family says,” CNN, April 2, 2025).

Support for Hamas remains stronger than many would expect, especially when compared to the discredited Palestinian Authority. According to respected Palestinian pollster Khalil Shikaki, no other faction commands significantly greater support, even amid widespread disillusionment. It’s not that Gazans love Hamas, it’s that they see no alternative leadership capable of delivering stability, basic services, or protection. If Hamas were to fall tomorrow, chaos could take its place (Khalil Shikaki, What the Anti-Hamas Protests in Gaza Actually Mean, Time, April 2, 2025).

Moreover, despite years of dissatisfaction with its rule, most Gazans still blame Israel and the United States for their misery, not Hamas. Perhaps this explains why surveys show that Hamas would still win an election today. Furthermore, while many Gazans are angry with Hamas, a large percentage share its ideology and are equally committed to Israel’s destruction. This does not augur well for the postwar period as it increases the probability that Gazans will feel justified in continued “resistance” against Israel.

Meanwhile, where is the global outrage about these abuses? Where are the university protests, the calls for Palestinian human rights when it’s Palestinians oppressing Palestinians? Critics of Israel are silent when Gazans risk their lives to demand freedom not from an occupying force—but from their own rulers.

As Gazan activist Hamza Howidy, himself a victim of Hamas torture, put it: “Where are our pro-Palestine’ allies’ now?” The world has failed to stand with the Palestinians who want peace, democracy, and human dignity – but who happen to oppose the terrorist regime that claims to speak for them (Hamza Howidy, “Anti-Hamas protests erupt in Gaza. Where are our pro-Palestine ‘allies’ now,” USA Today, April 4, 2025).

The focus of Western activists remains to demonize Israel, the victim of Hamas’s crimes against humanity, rather than empowering the Palestinians who suffer under Hamas’s rule. As we see from the West Bank to Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, the denial of civil rights by their fellow Muslims generates no sympathy. The welfare of Palestinians is only of interest when it can be shoehorned into the narrative of Israel as the oppressor.

If the world truly cared about the Palestinian people, it would amplify the voices of those risking everything to challenge Hamas.

MYTH

Qatar is a friend of the Jewish people and the West.

FACT

Qatar presents itself as a U.S. ally and a neutral mediator in Middle East conflicts—but this image is carefully constructed and deeply misleading. Behind its glossy PR campaigns and diplomatic outreach lies a regime that actively supports some of the world’s most dangerous extremist groups, undermines Western interests, and promotes virulent anti-Israel sentiment (“Qatar,” BICOM, December 2024).

Qatar is an autocracy ruled by a single family for over a century. It bans political parties, censors speech, limits civil liberties, and disregards human trafficking. Yet no U.S. administration has pressured it to reform. More disturbingly, Qatar has long funded and hosted terrorist groups that are sworn enemies of the West and of Jews, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and even ISIS. As Michael Milshtein noted, “Qatar’s ideological alignment directly contradicts the values of Western nations that recognize these groups as terrorist organizations” (Michael Milshtein, “Israel’s Qatar dilemma: Ally, mediator or enemy?” Ynet, April 5, 2025; Khaled Abu Toameh, “Qatar’s Muslim’ Scholars’ Call For Death And Destruction,” Gatestone Institute, April 7, 2025).

Qatar has for years hosted the leadership of Hamas and provided the organization with significant financial support, even as Hamas plotted terror attacks. Before the October 7, 2023, attacks, Israel allowed Qatar to bring suitcases with millions of dollars to Hamas under the mistaken belief that the funds would improve the Gaza economy and create an incentive for Hamas to keep the peace. However, the invasion, massacre, and kidnappings on October 7 proved Hamas has no concern for the people of Gaza. The fact that Qatar continued to host Hamas leaders even after the attack, during which nearly 1,200 Israelis and over 40 Americans were slaughtered, underscores how it “continues to aid and abet terrorism” (“Deal of the Century: Solving the Middle East,” Vandenberg Coalition, January 2025).

Qatar’s enmity toward Israel has been explicit and longstanding. It publicly condemned Israel for defending itself, accused it of “war crimes,” and called on the world to isolate it. Even during hostage negotiations, Qatar obstructed provisions that would weaken Hamas militarily. Natalie Ecanow wrote in The Sun that Qatar, with its enormous leverage over Hamas, “could have secured earlier releases but chose to shield its client from pressure” (Natalie Ecanow, “To Make Progress on Gaza Hostages, Raise the Pressure on Hamas’ Sponsor: Qatar,” The Sun, March 14, 2025).

While the U.S. aims to isolate Iran, Qatar embraces it. Outside of Yemen, Doha is Tehran’s only Arab ally.

Qatar also funds Al Jazeera, a network notorious for promoting Islamist propaganda and anti-Israel incitement. Al Jazeera has been accused of inciting violence against Israel and employing “journalists” with direct ties to terrorist organizations (Elliot Abrams, “Why All the Criticism of Qatar?” Council on Foreign Relations, June 19, 2024). The network also targeted American Jews by sending a spy to infiltrate pro-Israel organizations to try to gather dirt on them and present their viewers with evidence of an all-powerful cabal controlling U.S. policy (Sue Surkes, “American pro-Israel lobby girds for Al Jazeera exposé,” Times of Israel, February 8, 2018).

Qatar has poured nearly $6 billion into American universities since 1981—making it the largest Arab donor in U.S. higher education. A 2020 Department of Education report warned that Qatar, along with Saudi Arabia and Russia, used university donations to “spread propaganda, steal sensitive research, and buy influence” (“Institutional Compliance with Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965,” U.S. Department of Education Office of the General Counsel, October 2020). Universities with Doha campuses have hosted pro-terror speakers and events that legitimize anti-Israel violence (Natalia Ecanow, “Qatar’s Footprint in the American Higher Education System,” FDD, April 2, 2025).

The investment in universities is just one example of how Qatar pays to whitewash its image. When Qatar faced a Gulf boycott, it turned to American Jews—not out of goodwill, but calculation. Believing in the anti-Semitic myth of Jewish political power, Qatar flew in Jewish leaders for lavish junkets, hoping they would lobby Washington to lift the boycott. As Armin Rosen reported in Tablet, the goal was to “neutralize criticism and reshape Qatar’s image” (Armin Rosen. “Qatar and American Jews,” Tablet, February 13, 2018).

The influence-peddling didn’t stop there. The “Qatargate” scandal in Israel revealed that close aides to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were allegedly paid to promote Qatari interests in Israeli media.

Members of the Trump administration also have Qatari connections, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was paid $115,000 per month to lobby for the emirate (Martha McHardy, “Pam Bondi’s Lobbying For Qatar Explained,” Newsweek, November 22, 2024). She worked on “anti-human trafficking efforts leading into the World Cup” at the time Qatar was accused of using forced labor to build facilities for the tournament. Bondi said she was “proud” of her work while The Guardian and others documented Qatar’s exploitative treatment of migrant workers (Gabby Deutch, “Trump AG nominee Pam Bondi: ‘I am very proud’ of lobbying work for Qatar,” Jewish Insider, January 15, 2025; Annie Kelly, “Ten years of hurt: how the Guardian reported Qatar’s World Cup working conditions,” The Guardian, November 22, 2022).

Qatar’s actions haven’t just alarmed Israel and the West. Arab neighbors like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain have severed or downgraded ties due to Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other destabilizing forces.

Even Qatar’s most obvious link to the West—hosting a major U.S. military base—isn’t a sign of loyalty. As Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick and Dan Donovan observed, “Qatar is the master of playing all sides.” They described its strategy: “pursue good relations with the United States, make false promises about combating terror, lavishly fund western universities and business projects—all while quietly financing and promoting terror, allying with Iran, and leveraging an American air base as an insurance policy against punishment for promoting terror” (Reps. Dan Donovan (R-N.Y.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), “It’s up to Congress to hold Qatar accountable,” The Hill, October 23, 2017).

In his first term, President Trump supported the Saudi call to shut down Al Jazeera and force Qatar to sever ties with terrorists and Iran. But he, like others before him, failed to follow through.

MYTH

U.S. Detentions of anti-Israel protesters constitute illegal suppression of free speech.

FACT

Concerns have been raised about the arrests and potential deportations of individuals involved in anti-Israel protests on U.S. campuses, with critics claiming that these actions violate freedom of speech. However, a closer examination reveals that legal grounds for detention and deportation may exist when activism crosses the line from protected speech into illegal activities, violating U.S. law.

U.S. law clearly defines the circumstances under which non-citizens can face visa revocation, detention, or deportation. For instance, during the Trump administration, the U.S. invoked a statute allowing the Secretary of State to revoke the visas of non-citizens deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. This provision has been applied to individuals associated with Hamas, which the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist organization. Any individual found to be directly supporting or affiliating with a designated terrorist group could face severe legal consequences.

Legal considerations for arresting and deporting activists arise when these individuals engage in activities that go beyond free speech and include illegal acts, such as promoting or supporting terrorism. Disseminating propaganda for a terrorist organization can violate U.S. national security laws. Furthermore, U.S. universities must maintain a safe, non-threatening educational environment. Activism that involves harassment, intimidation, or the incitement of violence may trigger legal intervention. Acts that disrupt the academic environment or endanger the safety of students and faculty could also lead to legal action.

While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, this protection is not absolute. The Supreme Court has long held that speech inciting violence is not protected. If activism crosses into unprotected speech, such as advocating for or inciting violent acts, it can become subject to legal scrutiny and potential punishment.

A troubling example occurred just days after the October 7, 2023, massacre. The National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) issued a “Day of Resistance Toolkit,” which celebrated “the resistance in Gaza, which launched a surprise operation against the Zionist enemy.” They declared, “Glory to our resistance, our martyrs, and our steadfast people,” and proudly proclaimed, “We as Palestinian students in exile are PART of this movement.” This statement reveals an explicit affiliation with Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization.

Several high-profile cases underscore the legal risks associated with pro-Hamas activism. Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish student at Tufts University, was arrested after an investigation revealed her participation in activities supporting Hamas. Mahmoud Khalil, a U.S. resident and Palestinian activist, was detained after his green card was revoked due to his involvement in campus protests, which officials claim amounted to support for Hamas. Additionally, Badar Khan Suri, an Indian scholar at Georgetown, was apprehended by Homeland Security for allegedly distributing Hamas propaganda (“A look at who has been detained or deported in a US crackdown on mostly pro-Palestinian protesters,” AP, March 28, 2025; “Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests: Who are the international students that faced arrests, deportation,” Times of India, March 31, 2025).

Several experts argue that Mahmoud Khalil and, by proxy, others engaging in activities similar to Khalil’s may not be protected under the First Amendment. Immigration attorney Michael Wildes suggests that his distribution of Hamas literature and obstruction of students could fall under the “fighting words” doctrine, which exempts speech that inflicts injury or incites an immediate breach of peace. Wildes also notes that non-citizens have fewer rights, and even when they have a green card, their status can be challenged for actions that threaten American security (Shira dicker, “The case against Mahmoud Khalil: Bold legal precedent or executive overreach? - analysis,” Jerusalem Post, March 22, 2025).

Legal analyst Thane Rosenbaum contends that calls to “Globalize the Intifada” and distributing Hamas-approved literature are not constitutionally safeguarded speech, equating them to inciting violence. He argues that this constitutes support for Hamas, not mere criticism of Israel and that non-citizens have limited, provisional constitutional rights, with the executive branch having broad authority over matters of foreign policy. Similarly, New York Congressman Mike Lawler highlights that non-citizens are not entitled to a visa or green card. The Secretary of State has significant power under the Immigration and Nationality Act concerning conduct that negatively impacts foreign policy.

While concerns about the suppression of pro-Palestinian speech are valid, it is critical to understand that the detentions and deportations of these activists are not based solely on anti-Israel rhetoric. Rather, they are grounded in violations of U.S. laws, particularly those concerning national security, incitement to violence, and campus safety. Each case must be examined individually, taking into account the specific actions and affiliations of the individuals involved.

Ultimately, anyone on U.S. soil is required to adhere to U.S. law. The U.S. government retains the prerogative to take legal action when violating those laws. As such, while freedom of speech remains a cornerstone of American democracy, it is essential to acknowledge that activism can cross the line from protected expression into illegal conduct—mainly when it involves support for terrorism or endangers public safety.

MYTH

The Houthis do not pose a danger to the international community.

FACT

Contrary to claims that their actions are limited, the Houthis have demonstrated a persistent and escalating threat to global stability. Their activities extend far beyond Israel and the immediate region, affecting international trade, security, and civilian safety. Since late 2023, this extremist Shia-Islamist group, backed by Iran, has intensified its attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and launched missiles at Israel, causing severe disruptions and endangering lives (“What to Know About the Houthis, Their Attacks on Israel and the U.S., and Their Treatment of Yemen’s Jews,” AJC, March 20, 2025).

The Houthis have a history of extremist ideology and human rights abuses. The U.S. has designated the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization, and their official motto, the Sarkha, explicitly calls for “Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse be upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.” Additionally, the Houthis have kidnapped aid workers and United Nations staffers and have been accused of torture, issuing death sentences on dubious charges, and brutal punishments such as crucifixion, stoning, and flogging, according to human rights activists (Ryan Mills, “Reuters Video Whitewashes the Houthis, Leaves Out Terror Group’s ‘Death to America, Death to Israel’ Mission,” National Review, March 26, 2025).

The economic ramifications of Houthi aggression are staggering. Reports indicate that container shipping through the Red Sea plummeted by approximately 90% from December 2023 to mid-February 2024, and at least 29 ships were damaged by Houthi missile or UAV attacks between November 2023 and March 2024. This strategic waterway typically accounts for nearly 12% of global maritime trade. The persistent threat has compelled major shipping and energy companies to reroute vessels around Africa, adding significant costs and delays. This adjustment has extended transit times by up to two weeks and increased fuel expenses by roughly $1 million per voyage, exacerbating inflationary pressures on global consumer goods. The Defense Intelligence Agency reported that these disruptions have affected the interests of at least 65 countries. Egypt, heavily reliant on Suez Canal tolls for revenue, has seen a drastic decline in income due to the rerouting of maritime traffic. Delays and increased costs have also impacted humanitarian relief efforts for regions like Sudan and Yemen (“DIA Report on Houthi Attacks and Pressure on International Trade”, U.S. Naval Institute, June 13, 2024; Noam Raydan, Farzin Nadimi, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, January 27, 2025; “President Trump Is Standing Up to Terrorism and Protecting International Commerce,” White House, March 15, 2025; Alex Longley, Paul Wallace, Caroline Alexander, “How the Houthi Red Sea Ship Attacks Upended Global Trade,” Bloomberg, March 18, 2025).

Ironically, while the Houthis have said their campaign is directed at Israeli ships or others using Israeli ports, it has had minimal impact on Israel’s economy because its trade routes with Asia are minor compared to most Western countries. Most of its trade is with Europe, which is unaffected by the Red Sea blockade (Idan Eretz, Houthis’ Red Sea blockade had minimal impact on Israel and global trade, study finds,” Jerusalem Post, December 12, 2024).

Beyond the impact on global commerce, the Houthis have directly endangered civilian lives. Since late 2023, they have launched numerous ballistic missiles and drones indiscriminately toward Israel, forcing millions into bomb shelters. Although Israeli defense systems and U.S. warships have intercepted many of these attacks, the psychological toll on the population has been profound. Imagine the terror of having mere minutes to evacuate elderly individuals, children, and those with disabilities to safety upon hearing a siren in the middle of the night. While no direct missile strikes have caused fatalities, people have sustained injuries in the scramble for shelter, and many have suffered panic attacks due to repeated bombardments (Avi Ashkenazi, “Houthi missile disintegrates over Saudi Arabian territory en route to Israel,” Jerusalem Post, March 22, 2025).

Sirens sound across Israel following Houthi missile, March 22, 2025

If a similar situation unfolded in the United States or Europe, where near-daily missile launches forced half the population into shelters, it would be deemed a national crisis demanding immediate military intervention.

Recognizing the severity of the threat, the U.S. and U.K. navies have taken decisive action. After multiple Houthi assaults on naval vessels, both nations initiated targeted military strikes to neutralize the group’s capabilities (Lolita C. Baldor, Tara Copp, “US, British militaries launch massive retaliatory strike against Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen,” AP, January 12, 2024). President Donald Trump vowed that the Houthis would be “completely annihilated” and warned Tehran to halt its support immediately (Ephrat Livni, “Trump Says Houthis in Yemen Will Be ‘Annihilated,’ as U.S. Keeps Up Strikes,” New York Times, March 19, 2025). Despite these warnings, the Houthis continued their missile barrage on Israel, prompting the Trump administration to assure Israel that American forces would handle the threat independently (Yossi Yehoshua, “U.S. urges Israel to hold fire after Houthi missile fire, officials say,” Ynet, March 20, 2025).

While the Houthis claim to act in solidarity with Palestinians, their actions have done nothing to aid the people of Gaza. Instead, their attacks serve Iran’s broader strategy to destabilize the region and force Israel to divert resources to an additional front. This calculated effort not only undermines regional security but also perpetuates suffering among innocent civilians.

MYTH

The international community is holding Syria’s new regime accountable.

FACT

The international community’s indifference to the heinous human rights abuses and the alarming rise of Syria’s Islamist regime is as shocking as it is unconscionable. Despite undeniable evidence of atrocities, global powers have turned a blind eye, welcoming Syria’s new leadership while failing to hold them accountable for their violent history. This blatant hypocrisy becomes glaring when contrasted with the relentless criticism often aimed at Israel.

Since Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an al-Qaeda affiliate, seized Damascus in December 2024, Ahmed al-Sharaa—once a key figure in both ISIS and al-Qaeda—has imposed a reign of terror as Syria’s interim president. In his wake, sectarian violence has engulfed the nation, with HTS fighters and Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) militants orchestrating horrifying massacres of Alawites and Christians (Nicolas Pelham, “The great pretender: how Ahmed al-Sharaa won Syria,” The Economist, March 5, 2025).

Patriarch John X of the Greek Orthodox Church has documented the indiscriminate murder of Christian men, women, and children. Nikolas Farantouris, a Greek MEP, has cited data revealing over 7,000 massacres of religious minorities, painting a grim picture of targeted extermination. Communities with millennia-old histories now face the terrifying prospect of extinction (Uzay Bulut, “Syria: Over 7,000 Christians and Alawites Massacred by New Jihadi Terrorist Regime,” The European Conservative, March 17, 2025).

Following reports of the widespread killing of Alawites in Syria, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated (@Israel_Katz, March 7, 2025):

“Al-Julani took off his galabiya, put on a suit, and presented a moderate facade. Now, he has removed the mask, revealing his true face: a jihadist terrorist from the Al-Qaeda school, committing atrocities against the Alawite civilian population.”

Despite this documented persecution, the international community has not responded with the expected condemnation and sanctions. Instead, there has been a notable eagerness to engage with and support al-Sharaa’s regime, including by the West.

Rather than condemn al-Sharaa and his Islamist regime, Western nations have extended an olive branch, engaging with Damascus diplomatically and financially. High-profile European officials have visited Syria, delivering “humanitarian assistance” to the perpetrators of these crimes. Sanctions on key Syrian industries have been lifted, and the EU has pledged billions of euros for reconstruction, accompanied by praise for Syria’s so-called “transition” (Mared Gwyn Jones, “Brussels hosts Syrian foreign minister for talks on country’s political and economic transition,” Euro News, March 17, 2025; “EU pledges €5.8 billion for Syria and neighbours to aid recovery,” France 24, March 17, 2025).

The United Nations has also engaged with al-Sharaa at the highest levels. UN Secretary-General António Guterres met with the Syrian leader in Cairo, exchanging views on Syria’s “historic opportunity” and pledging UN support for the country’s recovery and humanitarian needs (“Readout of the Secretary-General’s meeting with Mr. Ahmad Hussein al-Sharaa of Syria,” United Nations, March 4, 2025).

While the International Criminal Court (ICC) pursues arrest warrants for Israeli leaders for alleged crimes linked to their defense against Hamas, its chief prosecutor has met with al-Sharaa, offering support for “accountability” efforts—an irony so staggering that it undermines the credibility of international justice itself. How can the ICC prioritize actions against Israel, a democratic nation fighting a recognized terrorist organization, while ignoring the atrocities committed under Syria’s regime? Such selective enforcement raises profound questions about the integrity of international law (“ICC prosecutor holds talks on supporting Syria on war crimes prosecution,” Reuters, January 17, 2025).

What does this double standard say about global priorities? It reveals a willingness to sacrifice human rights and justice for political convenience. By courting Syria’s new rulers, the international community sends a chilling message: that mass atrocities and systemic persecution can be overlooked if they serve geopolitical interests. This abandonment of principle not only emboldens tyrants but also betrays the innocent victims of this regime’s brutality.

True justice demands consistency, not convenience. The world must confront the harrowing reality of what is unfolding in Syria, stand unequivocally with the victims of this violence, and hold its perpetrators accountable. Anything less is a stain on the conscience of humanity.

MYTH

“No Other Land” accurately depicts the case of Masafer Yatta.

FACT

The Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land presents a misleading, one-sided narrative about Masafer Yatta, a designated IDF live-fire training zone in the West Bank. The film fails to include interviews with Israeli officials, historians, or legal experts who could provide alternative perspectives to its depiction of Palestinian villagers as victims of Israeli oppression because of the demolition of their homes.

Historically, Masafer Yatta has been classified as state land and a closed military zone. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it served as a training ground for various IDF units. Aerial imagery from the 1980s confirms that no permanent settlements existed there before its military designation (Golan Ramraz, Guy Goldstein, “When Documentaries Become Propaganda: The Case for Rescinding the ‘No Other Land’ Oscar | Guest Column,” The Wrap, March 7, 2025; Gilad Morag, “High Court: Hundreds of Palestinians living in a live-fire training zone in the southern Hebron Hills can be evacuated,” Ynet, May 5, 2022 [Hebrew]).

Though Palestinians later claimed long-standing residence, Israeli courts found no credible evidence supporting these claims. A legal compromise allowed access for farming and herding when military training was inactive, yet Palestinians violated the agreement, leading to extensive illegal construction in the 1990s.

Legally, Masafer Yatta falls within Area C of the West Bank, which the Oslo Accords placed under Israeli control. All construction requires Israeli permits. Unauthorized buildings—whether Jewish or Palestinian—are subject to demolition. No Other Land deliberately omits this key context, portraying the destruction of illegally built structures as arbitrary and identity-based oppression (@hnaftali, March 7, 2025). Palestinian efforts in Masafer Yatta, backed by European funding, are part of a broader strategy to establish control over Area C for a future Palestinian state (Jonathan Lis, “EU Demands Reparations From Israel for Demolition of European-funded Palestinian Structures,” Haaretz, January 11, 2023).

Beyond distorting history and legal realities, the film’s credibility is further undermined by staged provocations. Footage shows filmmaker Yuval Abraham and activist Basel Adra harassing IDF soldiers, with Abraham even making false claims of sexual harassment (“Oscar-winning filmmakers caught on video pestering IDF troops,” Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, March 5, 2025).

Ironically, the film has also been rejected by the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for failing to meet its extreme anti-normalization demands. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) objected to the involvement of Israeli filmmakers who did not explicitly support the “full spectrum of Palestinian rights” (Ben Sales, “Israeli officials are criticizing Oscar-winner “No Other Land.” So are Palestinian activists.” JTA, March 6, 2025; Luke Tress, “BDS movement rejects Israeli-Palestinian Oscar winner ‘No Other Land,’” Times of Israel, March 7, 2025). Even as an anti-Israel film, it is not radical enough for BDS supporters.

No Other Land is a politically motivated film that distorts facts, history, and legal truths to push a false narrative.

MYTH

The Arab League produced a realistic proposal for the reconstruction of Gaza.

FACT

The Arab-backed plan for Gaza’s reconstruction is a non-starter, riddled with unrealistic assumptions and strategic omissions that render it unworkable.

Responding to President Donald Trump’s idea of the U.S. taking over the Gaza Strip and relocating Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan, Egypt produced an alternative plan that was endorsed at the March 2025 Arab Summit in Cairo. However, the United States and Israel immediately rejected the proposal as impractical.

The Egyptian plan, “Early Recovery, Reconstruction, Development of Gaza,” lays out a five-year, $53 billion reconstruction effort. It envisions a phased approach, beginning with six months of early recovery, followed by infrastructure rebuilding, economic development, and governance reforms leading up to 2030. The plan includes temporary housing, debris removal, infrastructure repairs, and long-term projects such as airports, seaports, and commercial hubs. An administrative committee of independent Palestinian technocrats would initially govern Gaza until a reformed Palestinian Authority can return. An independent Palestinian technocratic committee would initially manage governance to reinstate the Palestinian Authority (PA). Additionally, the plan calls for a ceasefire extension, hostage releases, and Palestinian elections, with financing expected from Gulf Arab states (“Full text: The Arab-backed plan for Gaza reconstruction,” Times of Israel, March 5, 2025).

Despite its ambitious scope, the plan is fundamentally flawed.

The plan’s comparison to post-WWII reconstruction is misleading—Hiroshima and Berlin saw the complete eradication of their former ruling ideologies, whereas Hamas ’s influence remains entrenched in Gaza (Haviv Rettig Gur, Amanda Borchel-Dan, “What Matters Now to Haviv Rettig Gur: Egypt’s farcical plan for postwar Gaza,” Times of Israel, March 6, 2025).

Key Arab leaders expected to fund the reconstruction—most notably from the UAE and Saudi Arabia—did not even attend the summit. Both nations view Hamas as a threat and demand its disarmament as a prerequisite for any investment (Jacob Magid, “After initial rejection, US sends mixed signals on Arab alternative to Trump’s Gaza plan,” Times of Israel, March 7, 2025).

Qatar, Hamas’s primary financial backer, objected to any provisions that would hinder the terrorist group’s operational capabilities. As a result, the plan deliberately sidesteps Hamas’s future role, effectively ensuring that the very entity responsible for Gaza’s destruction remains intact (Lazar Berman, Jacob Magid, “Aiming to stymie Trump’s ‘Riviera’ vision, Arab leaders endorse $53 billion Gaza plan,” Times of Israel, March 4, 2025).

From both American and Israeli perspectives, the omission of Hamas’s disarmament alone makes the plan untenable. Hamas, for its part, flatly refused to disarm. Spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri made it clear: “The weapon of the resistance is a red line, and it is not negotiable.” (“Hamas: Laying down arms non-negotiable,” MEMO, March 5, 2025). This statement alone guarantees the plan’s failure.

A U.S. National Security Council spokesperson dismissed the plan outright, stating that it “does not address the reality that Gaza is currently uninhabitable” due to widespread destruction and unexploded ordnance. Furthermore, he said President Trump “stands by his vision to rebuild Gaza free from Hamas.” (Benoit Faucon, Summer Said, “Arabs Offer Their Plan for a Gaza With Resorts. Trump’s Team Says No.” WSJ, March 5, 2025).

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has been unequivocal in its rejection, condemning the plan for “failing to address the realities of the situation” while ignoring Hamas’s role in Gaza’s destruction. Israeli officials further criticized its reliance on the Palestinian Authority (PA) and UNRWA, entities with long-documented corruption, ties to terrorism, and a history of failure in governance (“Israel slams Arab summit adoption of Egyptian alternative to Trump’s Gaza plan,” Jerusalem Post, March 4, 2025; @OrenMarmorstein, March 4, 2025). The PA, struggling to govern even parts of the West Bank, lacks the strength to assume control over Gaza. Security concerns extend to the Palestinian police, as training abroad does not negate the risk of continued Hamas loyalty.

Additionally, the plan’s demand for a United Nations peacekeeping force in both Gaza and the West Bank was immediately dismissed by Israel. Based on past experiences, such forces have repeatedly failed to prevent violence or enforce security arrangements. Even if weakened, Hamas can threaten peacekeeping forces, making their deployment untenable. Any attacks by Hamas during peacekeeper deployment would also constrain Israel’s ability to respond, risking broader escalation. Israeli officials also rejected Egyptian President el-Sisi’s insistence on the creation of a Palestinian state.

Even the plan’s projected five-year timeline is entirely unrealistic. Given the scale of devastation and ongoing security threats, experts estimate that meaningful reconstruction could take 15-25 years—if conditions were ideal, which they are not (“AJC Center for a New Middle East: Special Envoy Steven Witkoff in Conversation with Jason Isaacson,” AJC, February 26, 2025).

The Arab League’s plan lacks credibility, realism, and essential security guarantees. It ignores Hamas’s ongoing terrorism, assumes willing participation from disinterested Arab states, and relies on an unrealistic timeline. Without Hamas’s disarmament, a functioning governance structure, and actual security provisions, the plan has zero chance of success.

MYTH

Hamas treated its hostages humanely.

FACT

One might assume that Hamas, having taken 251 hostages on October 7, 2023, would have kept them alive as valuable bargaining chips to exchange for Palestinians in Israeli prisons (“The Hostages Released by Hamas, Including the Remains of a Mother and Her Sons,” Time, February 22, 2025). But that assumption would require believing that Hamas possesses even a shred of rationality or human decency. Instead, Hamas operates on a doctrine that glorifies death, while Israel cherishes life. Knowing that Israelis will pay any price to bring their people home—dead or alive—Hamas exploits this morality as a perceived weakness, using hostages as tools for psychological warfare, torture, and execution.

The testimonies of released hostages reveal a harrowing ordeal of terror, cruelty, and dehumanization. Their captivity followed a brutal sequence: violent abduction, short-term torment, prolonged suffering, and, for some, eventual release into a world forever changed by trauma.

Many hostages were dragged from their homes, witnessing the slaughter of family and neighbors before being thrown into open vehicles alongside the corpses of the dead. On the journey to Gaza, they endured beatings, humiliation, and torture (“The State of Israel’s Submission to the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Report on hostage-taking as torture: legal frameworks, supporting victims and families, and strengthening global response,” Israel Ministry of Health, December 23, 2024).

A manual retrieved from a terrorist group described methods of controlling their captives, including electric shocks and separating children from their parents —acts designed to break their will (Graeme Wood, “Hamas’s Hostage-Taking Handbook Says to ‘Kill the Difficult Ones’ and Use Hostages as ‘Human Shields,’” Atlantic, October 19, 2023).

For those who survived the initial horror, captivity meant being plunged into a nightmare of starvation, isolation, and relentless brutality. Hamas fed its prisoners lies, telling them Israel had abandoned them. They were forced to record propaganda videos. Hostages described being locked in underground dungeons, deprived of food, medical care, and sunlight. Some had suffered grave injuries in the initial attack, only to be subjected to surgeries without anesthesia—a veterinarian operated on one woman. Children were branded for identification and forced to witness unspeakable atrocities. Some were stripped of their ability to play, speak, or even cry; one child, upon release, could only whisper, conditioned by fear. Women endured beatings, restraint, and sexual violence, their suffering dismissed or outright ignored by those who seek to downplay Hamas’s crimes.

Several hostages who survived nearly 500 days of terror were emaciated from malnutrition. Their condition was described as “no different from that of people who spent a year in a concentration camp” (Or Hadar, “Medical official: “The condition of the returnees is no different from that of people who spent a year in a concentration camp,” Ynet, February 8, 2025 [Hebrew]). Some women were used as slaves, cooking and cleaning for their captors and their children (Alice Cuddy, “Starved, threatened and abused: Parents of freed Hamas hostages give details of ordeal,” BBC, February 13, 2025). Many spent their entire captivity in underground tunnels, with some enduring solitary confinement, not seeing a single person other than the terrorists that kept them. Others were kept chained in underground chambers too small to stand or walk. Hostages were often unaware of the fate of their family members, with some learning of their loved ones’ deaths through the radio or not at all (Jessica Steinberg, Shackled, starved, alone in tunnels: Families of freed hostages share new details, Times of Israel, Feburary 25, 2025).

The psychological torment did not end with captivity. Upon their release, masked terrorists orchestrated humiliating displays—forcing the hostages to sign “certificates of release,” pose for photos, and thank their captors. They were paraded through a gauntlet of jeering crowds, fearing they might not make it out alive, before being handed to the Red Cross, which never visited the hostages, enabled these circuses, and even signed the certificates (Jacob Magid, “Hamas hostage ceremonies angered US, spurring pressure for plan to push group out,” Times of Israel, February 25, 2025).

Upon their release, many hostages struggled with lingering trauma. Many hostages faced the destruction of their communities and the loss of family members. Former captives are now coping with long-term PTSD in addition to physical health problems created or exacerbated by starvation, lack of medical care, and other privations. They avoided food and hygiene routines, feared insufficient provisions, and faced nightmares and sleep deprivation. Some experienced derealization, struggling to believe they were in Israel rather than still in captivity.

Besides kidnapping the bodies of people they massacred on October 7, Hamas murdered many hostages. In a particularly monstrous display, the coffins of two children, aged nine months and four when they were captured, and an older person were paraded onstage before being handed over to cheering crowds. This grotesque violation of the dead deepened the wounds of survivors and their families, leaving scars that may never heal (Mick Krever, Ivana Kottasová, Mohammad Al Sawalhi, Kareem Khadder, Lucas Lilieholm, Edward Szekeres, “Hamas stages macabre ceremony to release bodies of four Israeli hostages, said to include Bibas children and their mother,” CNN, February 20, 2025).

Despite attempts to whitewash or downplay these atrocities, the truth is undeniable. The overwhelming evidence—brutal testimonies, physical scars, and undeniable suffering—paints a chilling picture of systematic torture and murder. These crimes violate not only the most basic principles of humanity but also international laws meant to protect civilians in war. Hamas’s actions shatter all norms of decency, setting a dangerous precedent that cannot be ignored. The world must not turn away. The hostages’ suffering demands justice.

MYTH

The Palestinian Authority has ended its “pay-to-slay” stipends.

FACT

On February 10, 2025, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas issued a decree restructuring payments to families of terrorists who were killed or incarcerated. Some observers framed this as the end of the PA’s “pay-for-slay” program, but evidence suggests it is a superficial rebranding rather than a genuine policy shift.

According to Abbas’s order, the “martyr payment” system and database would be transferred to the Palestinian National Foundation for Economic Empowerment, an entity whose leadership is appointed by Abbas. The order claimed that recipients would now be subject to “the same standards of comprehensiveness and justice” as other Palestinians in the social welfare system. However, the financial incentives for terrorism remain intact. Stipends are now based on financial need rather than sentence length, but terrorists still receive far more ($400-$3,500 per month) than the average welfare beneficiary ($75-$170 per month). Ahmed Majdalani, the chairman of the foundation, says the new law doesn’t diminish the old pay-for-slay but will “institutionalize this aid in the framework of an identical and unified program” (“President Mahmoud Abbas issues decree-law restructuring the social welfare system,” WAFA News Agency, February 10, 2025; Bassam Tawil, “Don’t Be Fooled: The Palestinian Authority Did Not Halt Payments To Terrorists,” Gatestone Institute, February 17, 2025; “Palestinian ‘Pay-for-Slay’ Rises Again,” WSJ, February 26, 2025).

Bassam Tawil quotes Monica al-Jaghoub, a senior official with Fatah, who explained the subterfuge:

President Abbas did not stop the salaries of anyone. President Abbas issued a law transferring these salaries, in their entirety, to another body. Instead of receiving their salaries from the Palestinian Prisoners’ Commission, the prisoners will, from now on, be paid by the social welfare system. The salaries will not be affected.

Tawil also highlights the Arabic version of the decree, which states the main goal is to “restore international aid programs that were suspended in the past years, which we need to implement development and economic recovery programs.”

Indeed, in exchange for allegedly ending “pay-for-slay,” the PA asked the U.S. to repeal the Taylor Force Act, the 2018 legislation that conditioned U.S. aid on the cessation of payments incentivizing terror (“PA to Modify ‘Pay to Slay’ Policy in Apparent Overture to Trump,” FDD, February 10, 2025).

The Trump administration responded positively, with a State Department spokesperson calling the change “a positive step and a big win for the Trump Administration.” The spokesperson added that the U.S. would monitor the law’s implementation to “verify that the practice has ended.” White House and State Department lawyers reviewed the decree for compliance with the Taylor Force Act but did not disclose their conclusion (Barak Ravid, “Trump admin welcomes reform of Palestinian prisoner payments dubbed ‘pay for slay,’” Axios, February 12, 2025).

Meanwhile, Israel denounced the reform as a “fraud.” Several U.S. lawmakers expressed skepticism. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) stated, “It would be naive to think that after years of facilitating terrorism against Israelis and Americans, the Palestinian Authority would suddenly have a change of heart.” Representative Mike Lawler (R-NY) said, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Representative Brad Schneider (D-IL) echoed, “I’ll believe it when it’s done.” (Marc Rod, Emily Jacobs, “PA’s claim of reforming ‘martyr’ payments policy meets skeptical reception,” Jewish Insider, February 11, 2025).

The PA is playing a shell game, rebranding but not eliminating “pay-for-slay.” Oversight remains under Abbas’s control, and the decree never stated the PA would stop paying, rewarding, or incentivizing terror attacks against Israel. Abbas aims to deceive the Trump administration into restoring aid while avoiding financial collapse and looming legal damages for funding terrorism (@Ostrov_A, February 10, 2025).

Despite its claims of financial hardship, the PA paid over $5.3 million in grants to terrorists released under the Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement. Some are now leaving prison as millionaires (Itamar Marcus, “Abbas throws even more money at released terrorist millionaires, PMW, February 16, 2025).

Days after issuing the decree, Abbas reaffirmed that payments to terrorists would continue (@israelmfa, February 23, 2025). In an address to the Fatah Revolutionary Council in Ramallah, he declared:

I told you once, and I stand by my word: If the PA has even a single penny left, it will go to Palestinian prisoners. I will not allow any reduction in commitments, interest, or even a single penny not allocated to them. They must receive everything just as they did in the past—they are more precious than all of us combined.

Pay-for-slay remains one of the PA’s few popular programs among Palestinians. Bassam Tawil sums up the reality: “Abbas did not—and never will—stop the payments to terrorists and their families. He knows that the moment he does so, his people will revolt against him, denounce him as a traitor, and try to kill him.”

MYTH

Arab countries offer unwavering support to Palestinians.

FACT

Despite strong public displays of solidarity, many Palestinians feel deeply disillusioned by the limited tangible support from Arab nations during the ongoing conflict. This frustration stems from several key factors, including the absence of unified action, continued normalization with Israel, border restrictions, and a reluctance to assist displaced Gazans.

While Arab governments have issued forceful condemnations of Israel’s actions, few have taken concrete steps beyond rhetoric. No Arab military has intervened directly. Instead, it has only been Iranian proxies in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon that have mounted attacks which they claim are in solidarity with the Palestinians.

The Jerusalem Post noted, “For all the fiery statements of support for the Palestinian cause, Egypt treats Gaza like a hostile entity, not a suffering neighbor.” The Gulf states, it observed, have funded radicalism “while doing little to improve the actual lives of Palestinians” (Editorial, “Arab leaders talk big on Palestine—but where’s the real support?” Jerusalem Post, January 30, 2025).

A major source of Palestinian frustration is the continued diplomatic and economic ties between Israel and Arab nations. The UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco—having normalized relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords—have not severed or downgraded their ties despite the war. Saudi Arabia, which had been in talks to normalize relations before the war, has continued those discussions even amid the conflict. After decades of the Palestinians holding a veto over Arab states’ relations with Israel, the taboo was broken. Palestinian interests no longer supersede those of the regimes.

Egypt, the only Arab country sharing a border with Gaza, imposed restrictions on the Rafah crossing from the first days of the fighting, which significantly hindered the movement of aid and civilians. It has constructed a wall and deployed troops to prevent Gazans from entering Egypt unless they pay thousands of dollars in bribes (Salma El Wardany, Tarek El-Tablawy, “Biden and Sisi Agree Gazans Shouldn’t Be Displaced to Egypt,” Bloomberg, October 30, 2023; Jake Horton, Daniele Palumbo, “Walled site grows at Egypt border near Gaza,” BBC, February 22, 2024).

Adding to Palestinian grievances is the refusal of many Arab nations to accept prisoners freed under the Israel-Hamas ceasefire and hostage exchange deal. Several detainees remain stranded in Egypt and Gaza as they await relocation. Tunisia flatly refused to accept any Palestinian prisoners, while Egypt has selectively agreed to take only those affiliated with Fatah, Hamas’s political rival. This has led to an outpouring of frustration among Palestinians, who have repurposed the lyrics of the pan-Arab anthem “The Arab Lands Are My Nation” to lament their abandonment sarcastically. Palestinian journalist Nezam Mahdawi described the situation as one in which “all masks are removed” (Nagham Zbeedat, “Palestinians Feel Abandoned by Arab States as Some Prisoners Freed by Israel Are Left in Limbo,” Haaretz, February 9, 2025).

Complicating matters further is the deep distrust many Arab leaders hold toward Hamas because of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan consider Hamas a direct threat to their national security.

It is not only Hamas that is seen as a danger. The supposedly secular PLO was seen as an existential threat to Jordan and Syria. As former U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker noted, “It is noteworthy there is no Palestinian population in Egypt. Going back to the days of [former Egyptian leader] Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptians saw the threat.”

While the Arab states once agreed on their objection to Israel’s existence; today, Crocker said, “As you go around the region almost all [the Arab governments] were united on one point, which was that the Palestinians were a threat, a foreign population that should be weakened if not exterminated” (Michael Hirsh, “Arab States Are Giving Palestinians the Cold Shoulder. Here’s Why,” Politico, February 21, 2024).

The Jerusalem Post editorial summarized the relationship between the Arab world and the Palestinians:

“Their support is largely symbolic. They will fund Hamas with millions of dollars, ensure the conflict remains alive as a political cause, and shout slogans of “resistance.” But when it comes to real, material support – taking in refugees, investing in infrastructure, ensuring governance that does not rely on terror – there is nothing.”

MYTH

Faculty are not lying to students about sexual violence by Hamas.

FACT

Since the Hamas massacre and kidnappings of October 7, 2023, many professors have praised the terrorists and downplayed or outright denied their atrocities, contributing to a toxic, anti-Semitic environment on campuses and misleading students. Among the most troubling examples of this is the denial of sexual abuse committed against Israeli hostages.

At the University of California, Berkeley, the Gender and Women’s Studies department was set to sponsor a lecture in March 2025, moderated by Paola Bacchetta, the department’s vice-chair of research. The lecture, titled “Feminist and Queer Solidarities With Palestine,” was to promote the idea that Zionism has weaponized feminism to serve Israel’s supposed genocidal intent, and dismiss allegations of Hamas’s mass sexual assaults. The event aimed to perpetuate the false narrative that these claims were debunked, despite overwhelming evidence of the abuse (Gabe Stutman, “UC Berkeley Removes Event Description Denying October 7 Rapes,” JWeekly, January 24, 2025; Steven Davidoff Solomon, “Mr. Trump, Investigate My Campus,” WSJ, February 2, 2025).

Gender and Women’s Studies departments across the country, lacking expertise in Middle Eastern history, have produced some of the most anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statement. Berkeley’s department was one of many that signed a statement in 2021 expressing solidarity with “Palestine liberation” and accusing Israel of “settler colonialism” (“Gender Studies Departments In Solidarity With Palestinian Feminist Collective,” May-June 2021). Bacchetta herself signed the “UC Berkeley Faculty Statement of Solidarity with Palestinians” on October 16, 2023—just nine days after the October 7 massacres—yet failed to mention the killings and kidnappings, instead accusing Israel of genocide (“UC Berkeley Faculty Statement of Solidarity with Palestinians,” October 16, 2023).

The absurdity of this lecture is evident in its premise. Anyone with knowledge of Palestinian society and Hamas’s brutal rule knows that LGBTQ individuals under Hamas are persecuted, with many facing execution. To ignore or dismiss the widespread evidence of Hamas’s sexual abuse of Israeli hostages is not only irresponsible but deeply harmful.

Exemplifying how universities frequently neither acknowledge nor act against such blatantly false and anti-Semitic conversation, Berkeley refused to condemn or cancel the lecture even after reviewing whether it violated school policy against the “use of the classroom for political advocacy.” The university hid behind the hollow claim of “academic freedom” – a defense that is only valid if the information presented is factual and scholarly. Allowing someone who clearly has no knowledge of the region to promote lies under the guise of academic inquiry is a dereliction of responsibility and a violation of the institution’s duty to protect students from anti-Semitic propaganda.

Elsewhere, faculty have similarly minimized or denied the assault of Israelis. In December 2023, Amin Husain, an adjunct professor at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study, spoke to students saying, “They’re trying to say... ‘Oh my God, you support rapists and people that behead babies,’ both of which, whatever, we know it’s not true” (“At teach-in, NYU professor denies Hamas sexual violence on Oct. 7,” JNS, January 26, 2024).

Sima Shakhsari, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s Department of Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies, who was under consideration for a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) position, told a review panel “I am a rape crisis counselor, I believe the survivors. I am yet to see Israeli rape survivors of Hamas come and speak” (Michael Horovitz, US professor who denies Oct. 7 rape cases up for top role at campus diversity office,” Times of Israel, December 23, 2023).

In April 2024, over 50 journalism professors wrote to the chairperson of the New York Times questioning the veracity of the paper’s report on sexual abuse of Israelis and requesting an independent review of the article “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7” (New York Times, December 28, 2023). They insinuated that by revealing how Hamas treated its victims, the paper had done irreversible damage to “Palestine and to Palestinians” and contributed to “genocide” (Letter to A.G. Sulzberger, April 29, 2024).

This denial of truth on the part of faculty is not just misleading—it’s part of a dangerous effort to downplay the reality of the violence committed by Hamas and to shield it from public scrutiny. The facts are clear: Hamas’s sexual abuse of Israeli hostages is real, and denying this perpetuates an atmosphere of lies, hatred, and anti-Semitism.

MYTH

Egypt welcomed Palestinian refugees during the Israel-Hamas War.

FACT

Egypt has consistently rejected accepting large numbers of Palestinians from Gaza despite the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis. Despite international outcry over the suffering of Gazans, Egypt, backed by the United States, has kept Palestinians trapped in a war zone rather than allowing them refuge.

After the October 7, 2023, massacre, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and President Joe Biden agreed that Palestinians should not be resettled in Egypt or any other country (Salma El Wardany, Tarek El-Tablawy, “Biden and Sisi Agree Gazans Shouldn’t Be Displaced to Egypt,” Bloomberg, October 30, 2023). This decision condemned Gazans to remain in Hamas -controlled territory, where they were used as human shields, resulting in thousands of casualties. Instead of being offered safe haven, they were caught in the crossfire of war and faced dire humanitarian conditions. To guarantee their captivity, Egypt constructed a wall along its border with Gaza, physically sealing Gazans inside their war-torn enclave (Jake Horton, Daniele Palumbo, “Walled site grows at Egypt border near Gaza,” BBC, February 22, 2024).

Egypt’s refusal to accept Palestinians is not new. Those who fled to Egypt during Israel’s 1948 War of Independence have been denied refugee status, citizenship, and fundamental rights for decades. Barred from quality education, healthcare, and employment, they have been kept in limbo, their suffering used as a political weapon to pressure Israel into resettling them—effectively altering Israel’s demographic makeup and threatening its Jewish identity (“No recognition, no rights: The abject plight of Egypt’s Palestinian refugees,” New Arab, June 15, 2023).

The roughly 100,000 civilians who managed to enter Egypt after paying bribes as high as $15,000 are unlikely to receive better treatment. Those without resources had no escape (Jesse Marks, “It’s Time to Help Palestinians Left Behind in Egypt,” Refugees International, October 8, 2024; Rewert Hoffer, Heba Khamis, “There is no Gaza anymore: Palestinian refugees in Cairo face uncertain future after ceasefire,” NZZ, January 21, 2025).

When President Donald Trump proposed on January 26, 2025, that Egypt temporarily host Palestinians while Gaza is rebuilt, Cairo immediately rejected the idea. The Egyptian Foreign Ministry reaffirmed its commitment to the “steadfastness of Palestinians on their land” and their “legitimate right to their homeland,” viewing any displacement of Palestinians as “a violation of their inalienable rights” (Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Vivian Yee, “Trump Pushes Jordan and Egypt to Take in Palestinians to ‘Clean Out’ Gaza,” New York Times, January 26, 2025; Farah Fangary, “Cairo rejects displacement of Palestinians outside their land after Trump suggests Egypt ‘take’ Gaza Strip population,” Mada, January 27, 2025).

Behind this rhetoric lies a hard truth: Egypt sees Gazans as a security threat. Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has long sought to overthrow the Egyptian government and establish an Islamist regime. Egypt has no intention of allowing Hamas operatives to spread instability within its borders.

For lasting peace, Egypt and other Arab states must stop using Palestinians as political pawns and grant them equal rights. They must also take responsibility for providing refuge and essential services instead of leaving them to suffer under Hamas’s grip. Egypt’s outright refusal to offer shelter not only impedes Gaza’s reconstruction but also strengthens Hamas’s control, perpetuating conflict and blocking any path to peace.

MYTH

Israel and Hamas are exchanging prisoners.

FACT

The profiles of those exchanged in the Israel-Hamas hostage and ceasefire agreement are vastly different, highlighting a stark humanitarian and moral disparity.

Under the agreement’s first phase, Hamas is releasing 33 hostages, most of whom are vulnerable civilians who have endured over 15 months of unimaginable suffering. Testimonies from hostages who came home in the first ceasefire after only two months reveal harrowing conditions: severe malnourishment, lack of sunlight while confined in claustrophobic underground spaces, and denial of medical care. Some hostages who were injured during the October 7, 2023, attack were operated on without anesthesia. All were in constant danger of being murdered, as tragically occurred to six Israeli captives, including American Hersh Goldberg-Polin.

The hostages expected to be freed include:

Two children, Kfir Bibas, abducted as an infant and now two years old, and his five-year-old brother Ariel.
Their mother and father, Shiri and Yarden Bibas, who were abducted separately during the October 7, 2023, attack.
Ten women were held under uncertain and dire conditions.
Ten older men, aged 50 to 85, whose health has drastically deteriorated.
Nine sick and wounded individuals who require urgent medical attention.
Two long-term hostages, Hisham al-Sayed and Avera Mengistu, have been held by Hamas for over a decade (“These are the 33 hostages set to be returned in phase one of the Gaza ceasefire,” Times of Israel, January 17, 2025).

Most of these hostages are innocent civilians, many seized from their homes or a music festival. Several were abducted after witnessing family members murdered by Hamas terrorists. None of the soldiers taken had done anything to provoke the violence against them. Several were unarmed female observers, some snatched from their beds in pajamas. Israel estimates that out of the remaining hostages, eight are not alive (Itamar Eichner, Roee Rubinstein, Einav Halabi, “Ahead of Hamas’s Lists: Israel Faces Cruel Dilemmas Once Again,” Ynet, January 24, 2025 [Hebrew]); Hamas has cynically and inhumanely held their bodies for leverage.

In return, Israel is set to release 736 Palestinian prisoners, most of whom are convicted terrorists responsible for heinous acts of mass murder. These include:

Zakaria Zubeidi: A commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades responsible for attacks during the Second Intifada, killing six people.
Ahmad Barghouti: A Fatah commander serving 13 life sentences for orchestrating multiple suicide bombings.
Wael Qassem and Wissam Abbasi: Perpetrators of attacks that killed 35 Israelis.
Bilal Abu Ghanem: Sentenced to three life terms for his role in a 2015 bus attack that killed three and wounded 15 (Avi Ashkenazi, Alon Hachmon, “Rapists and Serial Killers: The 735 Terrorists Set to Be Released as Part of the Deal,” Maariv, January 18, 2025).

Unlike the Israelis held by Hamas, these Palestinian prisoners were treated humanely during their incarceration. They received food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. Once home, the freed Israeli hostages will strive to heal and rebuild their lives. In stark contrast, history shows that most released Palestinian prisoners—82% of the 1,027 in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit—returned to terrorism (“‘80% return to terrorism’ – Israel braces for terror surge caused by released Palestinian prisoners,” All Israel News, January 20, 2025).

The hostage and prisoner swap underscores the profound imbalance in the deal, not only in terms of the large numbers of criminals traded for each Israeli but also in moral terms. This is unlike an exchange of spies or prisoners of war where those freed engaged in similar activity. Israel is recovering innocent civilians—children, women, and elderly non-combatants—while Hamas gains hardened terrorists and reinforcements for future violence.

Yet Israel’s decision to make such a sacrifice underscores its profound value on human life. In Jewish tradition, the Talmud teaches: “Whoever saves one life saves the world.” While the cost of each hostage’s freedom is heartbreakingly high, every Israeli understands the moral obligation to bring their people home, even at the risk of future threats.

This is not a prisoner exchange—it is a moral chasm, with one side prioritizing life and the other exploiting it.

MYTH

Israel illegally attacked Kamal Adwan Hospital to kill civilians.

FACT

Israel has attacked several hospitals in Gaza, asserting that they are used by Hamas as command-and-control bases because they feel safely shielded by civilians. The media quotes aid and hospital workers who play the three blind mice, insisting they don’t see or hear any terrorists and say that they don’t exist. Then, when Israel raids a hospital, the media reports it as if the IDF is intentionally launching unproved attacks on medical personnel and patients. Illogically, they describe gunfights at the hospitals where we’ve been told terrorists are absent.

A case study involved IDF operations at the Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, a facility named after a terrorist involved in attacks in Nahariya and the Carmel Market. Before entering the hospital, IDF soldiers encountered and neutralized improvised explosive devices. They then evacuated civilians, patients, and medical personnel. During the operation, over 240 individuals were detained, including at least 15 participants in the October 7 massacre. Some terrorists attempted to escape disguised as patients, while others fled in ambulances or masqueraded as women. Armed resistance included anti-tank missiles and RPGs fired at soldiers, who neutralized these threats. Within the hospital, the IDF uncovered an arsenal of weapons (Yonah Jeremy Bob, Sam Halpern, Mathilda Heller, “IDF reveals how Kamal Adwan Hospital raid dismantled Hamas’s hold of Jabalya,” Jerusalem Post, December 29, 2024).

Israel faced criticism for arresting Dr. Hussam Abu Safiyeh, the hospital director. However, interrogations revealed he orchestrated Hamas’s activities within the hospital. An IDF source told the Jerusalem Post, “Kamal Adwan Hospital is a Hamas operations and organization base, including the preparation of explosives, ammunition, and weapons.” Further evidence revealed that hostages had passed through the hospital and that “Hamas set up operational rooms inside the hospital, and no civilian ever entered those rooms” (“‘His disguise was a façade’: How IDF revealed identities, Hamas’s plans in hospital - N12,” Jerusalem Post, (January 4, 2025).

The media often presents a skewed narrative, readily accepting information from Hamas and aid workers while casting doubt on Israeli claims. For example, after the IDF released footage of the interrogation of a terrorist who confirmed Hamas used the hospital, the New York Times emphasized it “was not able to independently verify the claims made in the video or to determine the circumstances under which the detainee made the admission” (Ephrat Livni, “In Israeli Video, Detainee Says Hamas Operates Out of Gaza Hospital, New York Times, January 7, 2025).

Similarly, the Washington Post downplayed Israel’s findings, stating, “Israel has long maintained that Kamal Adwan is a Hamas stronghold where militants have been operating,” implying a lack of evidence (“Gaza’s Kamal Adwan Hospital forced to evacuate by IDF, director says,” Washington Post, December 27, 2024).

Reporters could have interviewed U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew, who confirmed “there were significant Hamas fighters embedded there, with various kinds of assets, both in terms of communication and fighting.” Rather than a gratuitous attack on a protected area as portrayed by the media and health workers, Lew said the hospital was a war zone: “It has not been the resistance of a few isolated fighters. It has been a fierce battle” (David Horovitz, “The ambassador’s farewell warning: You can’t ignore the impact of this war on future US policymakers,” Times of Israel, January 12, 2025).

Given reporters’ notoriously short memories, it was not surprising that coverage of Israel’s December 2024 raid on Kamal Adwan left out what was learned almost precisely a year earlier. At that time, 90 terrorists, including 80 involved in the massacre, were apprehended in and around the hospital, where a weapons cache was uncovered (“IDF conducts operation in Hamas-controlled hospital, apprehends 90 terrorists,” i24 News, December 16, 2023).

Israel also arrested the hospital director. Afterward, Ahmad Kahlot confessed that about 16 hospital staffers, including doctors, nurses, paramedics, and clerks, were members of Hamas. He revealed that Hamas leaders maintained private offices, and up to 100 fighters used the hospital as a base. When asked why Hamas chose the hospital, Kahlot stated, “Because, from their perspective, the hospital is a safe place. They won’t be harmed inside the hospital“ (Snejana Farberov, “Gaza hospital chief admits to being Hamas commander, using clinic as military base,” New York Post, December 19, 2023).

From a legal perspective, John Spencer, head of the Urban Warfare Department at the Modern War Institute at West Point, explained that while hospitals are protected under the laws of war, “the prohibits the use of hospitals to shield military objectives from attack.” Spencer highlighted the challenges Israel faces, noting that “after the IDF completes its operations—making significant efforts to avoid damaging hospital structures and infrastructure—it doesn’t take long for Hamas to resume using the hospital for warfare” (Jude Taragin, “Hamas uses hospitals to exploit Israel’s warfare tactics, expert says,” Jerusalem Post, December 31, 2024).

Spencer also highlighted the hypocrisy of aid organizations. “The fact that the Red Cross, the World Health Organization, and the UN condemn Israel for searches in hospitals while never condemning Hamas for using hospitals in the first place is alarming. This creates a global perception that hospitals are entirely immune to military action, sending a message to terrorist organizations that using hospitals is an effective, albeit illegal, military strategy.”

MYTH

Lebanon’s new president is granting Palestinians basic rights.

FACT

Lebanon’s new president, Joseph Aoun, has made it clear that the fundamental rights of Palestinians living in Lebanon will not improve during his presidency. In his first speech, Aoun announced, “I pledge that we all uphold the principle of rejecting the resettlement of our Palestinian brothers” (“Speech of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun after his election,” Al Arabiya Arabic, January 9, 2025). This statement signals that Lebanon’s longstanding policy of denying Palestinians citizenship and even the most fundamental human rights will continue, locking them into a state of perpetual second-class citizenship.

The international community’s response was conspicuously silent despite this grave injustice. No emergency sessions were called at the United Nations, no human rights groups denounced the denial of Palestinian rights, and no protests erupted across the globe in solidarity with their struggle. There was no condemnation from the U.S. State Department, nor were Lebanese officials criticized in the media. Students did not build encampments or burn Aoun in effigy. Departments of Gender Studies did not write statements accusing Lebanon of apartheid. No one demanded that Lebanon be boycotted. The “Squad” in Congress did not introduce legislation to cut off aid to Lebanon.

Why?

Many of those who claim to care about Palestinians often use them as political tools—propagating narratives that justify the demonization of Israel while disregarding the suffering of Palestinians at the hands of their Arab neighbors.

The mistreatment of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon is not new. It has persisted for decades. The terrorist-supporting aid agency, UNRWA, has reinforced Palestinian helplessness since its creation. Rather than solve the refugee issue, UNRWA exacerbated it. In 1948, only 110,00 Palestinians fled to Lebanon. Today, using UNRWA’s refugee-creating definition, there are 250,000 refugees. Nearly half live in 12 UNRWA camps where living conditions are poor and overcrowded. Those outside the camps live mostly in adjacent neighborhoods. They are barred from owning or inheriting property. Refugees are attacked, and Lebanese call for their detention and deportation (Sherif Elsayed-Ali, “Palestinian refugees in Lebanon,” Forced Migration Review,” undated).

Considered foreigners, they face systemic discrimination and are denied fundamental rights. Some are arrested arbitrarily and detained. They face significant barriers to education and healthcare, and they are excluded from 72 professions, resulting in rampant unemployment and poverty that force many young Palestinians into child labor and early marriage. (Amena ElAshkar, “Palestinian refugees in Lebanon denounce new ‘inhumane’ work restrictions,” Middle East Eye, July 23, 2019). Nevertheless, accusations of apartheid are curiously absent.

Facing extreme poverty and lack of opportunity, women endure gender-based violence with little recourse, as they remain vulnerable and disenfranchised (“Lebanon,” UNRWA). Where is the concern we hear for women and children in Gaza?

While the media focuses on the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, few pay attention to the humanitarian disaster that has persisted in Lebanon for years. In 2022, UNRWA said, “People are dying a slow death as many are unable to afford medicines or co-share the cost of treatment especially for chronic diseases and cancer. Levels of poverty and unemployment are unprecedented due to one of the worst economic crises in recent history. The spread of cholera is the latest tragic layer that adds to acute hardship and helplessness” (“Palestine Refugees in Lebanon Fall Further into Abyss,” UNRWA, November 24, 2022).

Where were the demands for humanitarian aid?

President Aoun’s justification for denying Palestinians their rights is that doing so would preserve their right to return to the nonexistent state of “Palestine.” However, this argument ignores that no such “right” exists and that Palestinians deserve fundamental rights regardless of their future status.

As early as 1949, Palestinian nationalist leader Musa Alami expressed anger at the treatment of Palestinians by their fellow Arabs: “It is shameful that the Arab governments should prevent the Arab refugees from working in their countries and shut the doors in their faces and imprison them in camps” (Musa Alami, “The Lesson of Palestine,” Middle East Journal, October 1949, p. 386). More than 75 years later, nothing has changed. Even the Palestinians keep their people in camps in Gaza and the West Bank and they are home.

Lebanon’s new president has made it clear that he will continue to ensure Palestinians remain trapped in a cycle of poverty and marginalization. The international community, especially those who claim to advocate for Palestinian rights, must confront this hypocrisy and demand that Lebanon’s treatment of Palestinian refugees be addressed. Will anyone stand up and protest, or will this latest injustice be ignored, as it has been for decades unless somehow Israel can blamed?

MYTH

The media is concerned with press freedom in the Palestinian Authority.

FACT

The glaring double standard in global responses to press freedom violations is again on display. While Israel faces relentless criticism for its relationship with the media, the Palestinian Authority (PA) systematically suppresses press freedoms with impunity.

Consider the case of Al Jazeera. When Israel shut down Al Jazeera’s office following the network’s role in what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described as “actively participating in the October 7 massacre and inciting against IDF soldiers,” the international backlash was swift (Simone McCarthy et al., CNN, April 2, 2024).

The Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem declared it a “dark day for democracy” (Liam Scott, Voice of America, May 8, 2024). The Committee to Protect Journalists expressed “deep concern,” Human Rights Watch’s Omar Shakir labeled the move “an alarming escalation.” Even the White House weighed in, calling the action “concerning” (McCarthy).

Contrast this with the muted response to the PA’s recent ban on Al Jazeera. The PA accused the network of broadcasting “misinformation, incitement, sedition and interference in Palestinian internal affairs,” (“Palestinian Authority suspends Al Jazeera broadcasts,” Ahram Online, January 2, 2025).

The PA was upset about reporting on its crackdown on armed groups that threaten its rule in the West Bank. “The troops were focused on “eradicating” Iran-backed terror groups that were trying to incite “anarchy,” according to PA security forces spokesperson Brig. Gen. Anwar Rajab (“Why PA security forces are cracking down on Palestinian terror groups in West Bank,” Times of Israel, December 25, 2024).

“The Palestinian Authority shares Arab states’ discomfort with Al Jazeera coverage,” said Mohanad Hage Ali, deputy director of research at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut. More specifically, “The crackdown on Al Jazeera has been because of its critical stance on the Palestinian Authority operation in the West Bank, and at the same time, the Hamas-friendly coverage of the Gaza war” (Dov Lieber and Rory Jones, “Palestinian Authority Bans Al Jazeera in West Bank,” Wall Street Journal, January 2, 2025).

On January 19, 2025, Al Jazeera journalist Givara Budeiri and her cameraperson were detained by the Palestinian Authority while covering the first day of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. They were reporting near Israel’s Ofer prison in the West Bank, where they were monitoring the release of Palestinian prisoners as part of a prisoner exchange deal. The arrest occurred shortly after Budeiri’s live report for Al Jazeera Arabic (“Palestinian Authority reportedly arrests Al Jazeera journalist covering prisoner exchange,” Middle East Eye, January 19, 2025).

Where are the indignant statements from media watchdogs or democratic governments? Where is the global outrage?

Other than a condemnation by the Committee to Protect Journalists and Al Jazeera it is hard to find much concern for the actions of the PA (“CPJ urges Palestinian Authority to lift ban on Al Jazeera’s operations in West Bank,” Committee to Protect Journalists, January 1, 2025; “Al Jazeera slams Palestinian Authority move to suspend West Bank operations,” Al Jazeera, January 2, 2025).

The disparity becomes even starker when considering Al Jazeera’s history in the region. Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco have all banned the network over its biases and role in political agendas (Suzan Quitaz, “Al Jazeera – Feeding the Muslim Brotherhood’s Political Agenda to the Arab World,” JCPA, June 18, 2024). These actions rarely elicit more than a shrug from the international community. Why, then, is Israel alone subjected to such disproportionate condemnation?

The media’s silence on the PA’s restrictions exposes troubling hypocrisy. If the principle of press freedom is truly universal, then it must be defended universally—regardless of who is infringing upon it. Until this standard is upheld, claims of concern for press freedom ring hollow.

2024 Myths

Supporters of the Palestinians express outrage over their persecution by other Arabs.
Jesus was a Palestinian.
Israel has no legitimate claim to the Golan Heights.
The next Palestinian Authority leader is expected to be a moderate.
Israel’s ban on UNRWA undermines its mission.
Francesca Albanese is an impartial UN Rapporteur.
The U.S. should cut off weapons to Israel if it doesn’t increase aid to Gaza.
UNIFIL is a neutral peacekeeping force that kept peace between Israel and Lebanon.
The UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal is binding.
The October 7th attack by Hamas was a justified response to Israeli oppression.
The Palestinian Authority is grateful to the United States for its support.
Nasrallah’s assassination sparked collective mourning across the Middle East.
Targeting Hezbollah’s communication systems was a war crime.
Hezbollah only targets military sites in Israel.
Israel rushed into a full-scale war with Hezbollah without giving diplomacy a chance.
Israel uses bulldozers to damage infrastructure to displace Palestinians.
Israel is an “ethnostate.”
The Palestinian Authority (PA) condemned Hamas’s actions on October 7.
UNIFIL has maintained peace in southern Lebanon.
Within Our Lifetime operates legitimately within free speech boundaries.
Israel’s actions have caused polio to spread in Gaza.
Israel intentionally targeted the World Central Kitchen aid workers.
Israel’s policy of targeted killings is illegal and counterproductive.
The IDF’s use of 2,000-lb bombs is a violation of international law.
The ICJ’s ruling proves Israel’s occupation is unlawful.
Israel is committing the war crime of “domicide.”
Israel has killed 186,000 Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel has prevented humanitarian aid from entering Gaza.
Israel closed the Rafah crossing to prevent Gazan civilians from escaping.
Israel’s ban on Al Jazeera’s operations is an illegal infringement on free speech.
Israel targeted civilians when it bombed a UNRWA school in central Gaza.
Israel bombed Rafah with no regard for civilian lives.
Israel is defying the ICJ’s order concerning Rafah.
Israeli leaders have committed war crimes in Gaza.
Hamas accepted Israel’s hostage proposal on May 6, 2024.
Hamas leaders are brave fighters prepared for martyrdom.
Journalists were not present during the October 7 massacre.
Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Israeli soldiers raped a woman at the Shifa Hospital.
Israel must pause its military campaign for Ramadan.
Israel is starving the people of Gaza.
The Biden administration’s position on settlements continues longstanding U.S. policy.
Israel must agree to a ceasefire to save Palestinian lives.
“Extremist settler” attacks against Palestinians have increased.
Benjamin Netanyahu strengthened Hamas to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state.
Hamas adopted a new charter repudiating its goal to destroy Israel.
Israel is targeting journalists in Gaza.
Israel is spreading infectious diseases to kill children in Gaza.
The Associated Press considers the murder of Israelis as terrorism.

MYTH

Supporters of the Palestinians express outrage over their persecution by other Arabs.

FACT

While detractors incessantly accuse Israel of injustices against Palestinians, they are silent when it comes to their mistreatment by their fellow Arabs, including fellow Palestinians. This selective outrage directed at Jews is anti-Semitic and fuels Jew-hatred.

For example, in 2021, when Palestinian Authority security officials beat Palestinian political activist Nizar Banat to death, protests broke out in the West Bank but were absent globally.

In 2007, Hamas hunted and murdered its Fatah rivals in Gaza. Despite this, no campus outcry, United Nations resolutions, or International Criminal Court complaints followed (“Hamas seizes control in Gaza, ousting Fatah,” New York Times, June 15, 2007).

Reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International detail Hamas’s abduction, torture, and execution of Palestinians in Gaza. Yet, no campus sit-ins or faculty statements emerged in response (“Under Cover of War,” Human Rights Watch, April 20, 2009; “Gaza: Palestinians tortured, summarily killed by Hamas forces during 2014 conflict,” Amnesty International, May 27, 2015).

Advocates for Palestinian rights have been silent about the mistreatment of refugees in Lebanon since 1948. Considered foreigners, they face systemic discrimination, are barred from professions, and are denied fundamental rights (Amena ElAshkar, “Palestinian refugees in Lebanon denounce new 'inhumane' work restrictions,” Middle East Eye, July 23, 2019). Nevertheless, accusations of apartheid are curiously absent.

The fall of the Assad regime has highlighted the complete lack of interest in the welfare of Palestinians in Syria over the last 50 years. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees were prevented from becoming citizens. The Yarmouk refugee housed some 160,000 Palestinians before the civil war. By mid-2012, the camp had been devastated, with Syrian regime forces and opposition groups clashing violently. By 2013, the Assad regime imposed a siege on the camp, blocking humanitarian aid and subjecting its residents to starvation and violence. More than 1,270 Palestinians in Yarmouk died from attacks, hunger, and lack of medical supplies (Abby Sewell, “Palestinian refugees return to Yarmouk amid questions about their place in the new Syria,” AP, December 14, 2024; “Yarmouk (unofficial camp*),” UNRWA; “The forgotten suffering of Palestinians in Syria,” Middle East Eye, December 19, 2024; “In ruined homes, Palestinians recall Assad’s torture,” AFP, December 22, 2024). No one demanded a ceasefire or insisted Syria allow humanitarian aid into the camp. Bashar Assad was not hung in effigy or used as a pinata on college campuses. No students formed groups for Palestinian justice in Syria.

By 2021, 91% of Palestinians in Syria lived below the poverty line. More than 4,300 Palestinians were killed during the war and over 3,000 detained, according to the UK-based Action Group for Palestinians of Syria (Daniel Hilton, Omar al-Aswad, In shattered Yarmouk, the Palestinians of Syria mourn their ‘paradise’ lost to war, Middle East Eye, December 18, 2024). UNRWA reported that up to 280,000 Palestine refugees were displaced inside Syria, and 120,000 fled to other countries (UNRWA, undated). No protests were mounted over their dislocation, and no demands were made for their return to their homes. Palestinians were not forced to stay in the crossfire of fighting in Syria.

Now that Syrians are unearthing mass graves, you might expect some outcry over the Nazi-like burial of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children, which undoubtedly includes Palestinians who were detained in Assad’s secret prisons. However, the sound you hear from campuses and squares around the world where tens of thousands gathered to heap scorn on Israel is crickets.

When Palestinians suffer at the hands of Arab governments or internal factions, the outrage is muted or nonexistent. Social justice warriors so filled with righteous indignation over Israel’s defense of its existence against the Islamists and other terrorists rarely utter a peep. Only when Israel can be blamed does the global community and activists mobilize. This selective indignation undermines genuine advocacy for Palestinian rights and perpetuates anti-Semitic double standards.

MYTH

Jesus was a Palestinian.

FACT

Certain myths are recycled year after year. One such myth propagated by Palestinians is that Jesus was a Palestinian.

In a high profile demonstration of this claim, in December 2025, the American Arab Discrimination Committee (ADC) put out a Times Square digital billboard reading “Merry Christmas, Jesus Is Palestinian,” alongside a second billboard displaying a Quranic verse about the birth of Jesus (“Times Square Billboard Pushes ‘Jesus Is Palestinian’ Claim in Politicized Christmas Campaign,” CAM, December 25, 2025).

To give just one of many examples, Laila Ghannam, District Governor of Ramallah, said, “The entire Palestinian people celebrates Christmas because we are proud of Jesus being Palestinian” (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 24, 2019, translated by Palestinian Media Watch; Itamar Marcus, “Is Jesus a Palestinian? The PA lies to its own people and to the world,” Palestinian Media Watch, December 27, 2023).

Here is how Emily Devereaux presents this myth:

Although Jesus did not discuss Palestinian heritage or Arab heritage, we still know that Jesus spoke Aramaic, which is a language sharing roots with Arabic. Additionally, we know for sure that Nazareth, where Jesus’ human familial line is from and where he lived, is in Galilee which was recognized as an Arab Palestinian town. Since the land was formerly part of Palestine, it is more likely that Jesus was a descendant from the Palestinian heritage (Emily Devereaux, “Is Jesus Christ a Palestinian Superstar?” Arab America, December 25, 2019).

Historically, the land in which Jesus lived was not Palestine. The area was not given that name until a century after Jesus’s death. The Romans labeled the area “Judaea,” and its inhabitants were “Judeans” or “Jews.”

Moreover, Nazareth could not be an “Arab Palestinian town” since the people known today as Palestinian Arabs did not arrive in the region until after the Muslim invasion in the seventh century.

Jesus, like other Jews, spoke Aramaic, but this is not evidence of him being a Palestinian. Arabic did not originate from Aramaic.

Palestinian scholar Bassam Tawil noted the absurdity of the myth. “Most of us are the descendants of foreign workers who came to [the] British Mandate of Palestine from the various Arab countries in the wake of the Zionist enterprise. By trying to trace our “ancestry” to the Canaanites, we lie to ourselves and demonstrate our silliness and self-deception to the world. And when we try to claim that Jesus was a Palestinian, we make ourselves an international laughing stock (Bassam Tawil, “Muslim Blood and Al-Aqsa,” Gatestone Institute, October 31, 2015).

Historian Paula Fredriksen explained why this myth is dangerous: “Besides being historically false, the claim is inflammatory. For two millennia, Jews have been blamed for Jesus’ execution by the Romans; casting him as a Palestinian just stokes the fires of hate, using Jesus against Jews once again” (Paula Fredriksen, “This Easter, let’s not try to pretend Jesus was a ‘Palestinian Jew,’” Washington Post, March 28, 2024).

MYTH

Israel has no legitimate claim to the Golan Heights.

FACT

On December 16, 2024, the Israeli cabinet unanimously approved a plan to double the population of the Golan Heights. While this decision, designed to enhance the region’s development and fortify its communities, has drawn sharp international condemnation, these critics fail to acknowledge the vital historical, strategic, and security considerations that underpin Israel’s presence in the Golan Heights (Lazar Berman, “Cabinet approves $11 million plan to double population of Golan Heights,” Times of Israel, December 16, 2024; “Germany, Turkey criticize Israel’s plan to step up its Golan Heights population,” Times of Israel, December 16, 2024).

The 1949 Israel-Syria Armistice Agreement, which ended the War of Independence, was never intended to establish permanent borders but merely set temporary “armistice lines” and demilitarized zones, with the expectation of a future peace agreement—an agreement that never materialized. Syria’s refusal to negotiate a peace settlement and its rejection of Israel’s territorial claims have fueled the ongoing tension.

Israel captured the Golan Heights during the Six-Day War in 1967, a defensive action after Syria, along with other Arab nations, sought to annihilate Israel. Before this, Syria used the Golan’s elevated terrain to launch repeated artillery attacks on Israeli civilian areas, creating a constant security threat. Israel’s acquisition of the Golan Heights provided a crucial buffer zone, protecting the northern border from future aggression. While United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 called for Israeli withdrawal in exchange for peace, Syria refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist peacefully alongside its neighbors.

In 1981, Israel annexed the Golan Heights but remained open to territorial compromises in exchange for peace. Syria rejected these offers, remaining belligerent. The outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011 underscored the critical importance of Israel’s control over the region, as the Assad regime permitted Iranian and Hezbollah forces to operate in the region, posing direct threats to Israel’s security.

The collapse of Assad’s regime in December 2024 created a vacuum filled by hostile actors, including extremist groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an al-Qaeda affiliate, and remnants of ISIS. If Israel were to withdraw under these circumstances, it would expose its citizens to immediate danger.

The United States formally recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019, acknowledging the political and security realities. Despite the consistent condemnation of Israel’s control over the region by the UN General Assembly routinely condemns Israel’s “occupation” of the Golan Heights, this criticism is deeply hypocritical. No such outcry exists over Turkey’s illegal occupation of 5,500 square miles of Syrian territory. Since 2016, Turkey has progressively seized control of large swaths of Syrian land, deploying military forces and proxies to solidify its grip. In these occupied regions, Turkey has imposed its currency, infrastructure, and governance while backing jihadist groups that target Kurdish populations. For Turkey—an active occupier of Syrian territory—to criticize Israel’s defensive presence in the Golan Heights is both ironic and unjustified (Jake Wallis Simons, “For many on the Left, itis only Israel that can go wrong,” Telegraph, December 15, 2024; @OrenMarmorstein, December 17, 2024).

Today, the Golan Heights is home to approximately 50,000 residents, evenly divided between Jews and Druze. Israel’s investment in the region underscores its strategic importance, and the proposed population increase will only further solidify the fact that this territory will remain under Israeli control.

MYTH

The next Palestinian Authority leader is expected to be a moderate.

FACT

Eighty-nine-year-old Mahmoud Abbas, who began his presidency in 2005, has refused to hold elections, knowing that Hamas would win. He is extremely unpopular, with 89% of Palestinians demanding he resign. His autocratic, corrupt rule remains one of the greatest barriers to the Palestinian Authority (PA) assuming control of Gaza after Israel achieves its military objectives. Under intense international pressure to reform, Abbas named 75-year-old Rawhi Fattouh his interim successor. However, Fattouh’s appointment raises serious concerns about the PA’s potential role in Gaza and the prospects for peace negotiations with Israel.

Born in a Rafah refugee camp, Fattouh moved to Jordan following Israel’s 1967 capture of the Gaza Strip and joined the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). By the age of 20, he was conducting terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians as part of Fatah’s armed wing, al-Asifah. After the PLO was expelled from Jordan in Black September, he fled to Syria, where he continued his militant activities (Rami Chris Robbins, “Meet the (potential) new boss at PA,” JNS, December 8, 2024; Lt. Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch, “Understanding Abbas’s appointment of Rawhi Fattouh as his successor,” JNS, December 8, 2024, “Who is Rawhi Fattouh, the Palestinian politician who could succeed President Abbas?” The New Arab, November 28, 2024). Following the Oslo Accords, Fattouh returned to Gaza and shifted toward political roles, eventually serving as the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) speaker and later as Abbas’s minister of agriculture.

Beyond his violent past, Fattouh’s views on peace are troubling. He staunchly supports the PA’s pay-for-slay program, which financially rewards convicted terrorists and the families of suicide bombers (Rami Chris Robbins, “Meet the (potential) new boss at PA,” JNS, December 8, 2024).

In June 2023, as president of the Palestinian National Council, he said, “Palestine in its entirety belongs to us, and to no one else. We do not share it with anyone.” Responding to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remark that Jews have lived in the Land of Israel for 3,000 years, Fattouh made the fabulist claim that the first human civilization appeared in caves on Mount Carmel in “Palestine” (the word first appears in relation to the Philistines in the 5^th century BCE) 1.5 million years ago; that is, 1.2 million years before the oldest known evidence of humans. He also invented the idea that Jerusalem was built by his Palestinian ancestors in 5,000 BCE and asserted the city belongs “exclusively to the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Muslims” (Tash Mosheim, “‘Palestinians have been here for 1.5m years, Jews for 3000’ senior Palestinian official,” The JC, June 7, 2023).

He also subscribes to the anti-Semitic Campbell-Bannerman conspiracy theory, which claims that the British established Israel in 1907 to perpetuate conflict between Arabs (Rami Chris Robbins, “Meet the (potential) new boss at PA,” JNS, December 8, 2024).

More troubling, Fattouh celebrated the Hamas massacre of 1,200 Israelis on October 7, 2023, lauding it as “brave resistance.” His call for trials to punish Israel and its leaders for “crimes” reveals his unwillingness to move beyond a mindset of conflict (Rami Chris Robbins, “Meet the (potential) new boss at PA,” JNS, December 8, 2024).

Fattouh is no reformer. He embodies the same extremist, authoritarian mentality that has plagued Palestinian politics for decades.

The appointment of 63-year-old Hussein al-Sheikh as vice president of the Palestinian Authority further demonstrates that Abbas has no intention of enacting meaningful reform. Though some Western observers have portrayed him as a moderate, al-Sheikh’s public record tells a different story. Like Fattouh, he represents the entrenched, authoritarian leadership that has long undermined peace prospects and glorified terrorism.

Al-Sheikh has repeatedly defended Hamas and blamed Israel for Palestinian violence. In December 2023, he denied ever labeling Hamas a “non-role model,” instead affirming Abbas’s defense of the group and declaring that “the real terror is the occupation.” Even after the October 7 massacre, he maintained that “our arms are still open” to Hamas. In February 2023, he called for Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad to unite and “fight this enemy [Israel] on all fronts, in all arenas”—language the PA routinely uses to justify terrorism (Ephraim D. Tepler, “Who is Hussein al-Sheikh, the new Palestinian Authority vice president?” PMW, April 28, 2025).

Al-Sheikh is also a vocal proponent of the PA’s pay-for-slay policy, promising that “even if we are left with one penny, it will be paid to the families of the Martyrs and the prisoners.” He has personally honored some of the most notorious terrorists, including Walid Daqqa—who murdered Israeli soldier Moshe Tamam—and Karim Younes, convicted of killing an Israeli civilian. Rather than condemning such crimes, al-Sheikh praised Daqqa’s “legacy of struggle and sacrifice” as a model for future generations.

Far from symbolizing generational change or reform, Hussein al-Sheikh epitomizes the very pathologies that have long plagued the PA: rejectionism, incitement, and glorification of violence. His elevation to vice president confirms that under Abbas’s rule, the Palestinian leadership remains deeply resistant to peace and accountability.

If these are the types of leaders Palestinians choose, the PA will remain an obstacle to peace, and Israelis will have little hope for reconciliation.

MYTH

Israel’s ban on UNRWA undermines its mission.

FACT
Israel’s decision to prohibit the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from operating within Israeli-controlled areas is controversial. It is also overdue. The new legislation ends the 1967 arrangement that permitted UNRWA to operate in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. This marks a decisive break with a failed status quo—a status quo that has long harmed both Israelis and Palestinians.

For decades, UNRWA survived in Israel not because it worked well, but because it was perceived as unavoidable. Israeli officials regarded the agency as “the only game in town,” fearing that without it, Israel would be forced to assume responsibility for providing education, healthcare, and welfare services to Palestinians. This calculation explains Israel’s historical resistance to congressional efforts in Washington to defund UNRWA. That tolerance collapsed after October 7, 2023.

The massacre and the revelations that followed exposed that UNRWA was not only ineffective but also compromised. About 10% of UNRWA employees in Gaza had ties to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, according to Israeli intelligence. Some even took part in the October 7 atrocities. UNRWA facilities hid terror tunnels, weapons depots, and command centers (“Israeli intel shows 10% of UNRWA workers in Gaza have ties to terror groups — report,” Times of Israel, January 29, 2024). At that point, continuing to grant the agency immunity and access was no longer a matter of humanitarian prudence. It was negligence. (“Israeli intel shows 10% of UNRWA workers in Gaza have ties to terror groups — report,” Times of Israel, January 29, 2024).

This reckoning has been decades in the making. Over nearly seventy years, UNRWA has not resolved the refugee problem; it has institutionalized it, thereby perpetuating Palestinian misery. Its camps have served as incubators for terrorism, while its welfare programs have sustained the delusion that more than five million people—most born decades after 1948—remain “refugees” entitled to return to their “homes” in Israel.

UNRWA was not designed to create a permanent refugee class. Its original mission focused on addressing the needs of Palestinians and Jews displaced after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In 1951, UNRWA Director John Blandford Jr. indicated that Arab governments were expected to assume responsibility for relief by July 1952. This did not happen (Joseph Schechtman, The Refugee in the World, NY: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1963, p. 184). Instead, some states chose not to pursue resettlement, citing the refugee issue's importance to broader regional concerns.

Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon were expected to accept many refugees but proved unwilling to do so. Egypt controlled Gaza for nearly two decades, yet barred Palestinians from entering Egypt or relocating elsewhere (Isi Leibler, The Case for Israel, Australia: The Globe Press, 1972, p. 48). This was a deliberate strategy to keep the problem alive as a tool against Israel. As Sir Alexander Galloway, a former head of UNRWA in Jordan, stated in 1952, “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die” (Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky, “A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography,” Middle Eastern Studies, September 2010).

Jordan alone granted citizenship to many Palestinians—though notably not Gazans. King Abdullah considered the Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians one people. By 1950, he annexed the West Bank and forbade the use of the term “Palestine” in official documents (“Speech to Parliament—April 24, 1950,” Abdallah, 16–17; Aaron Miller, The Arab States and the Palestine Question, Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1986, p. 29). In 2004, Jordan began revoking the citizenship of Palestinians who lacked Israeli permits to reside in the West Bank (Khaled Abu Toameh, “Amman Revoking Palestinians Citizenship,” Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2009).

UNRWA’s failure to secure long-term solutions has left the agency and its beneficiaries entrenched in a cycle of dependency.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership has not dismantled the camps under its control. The Palestinian Authority oversees the 19 West Bank camps yet leaves them intact. Hamas governed Gaza for years, received substantial international aid after Israel’s disengagement, and did not construct new homes in the eight camps under its jurisdiction—allocating resources to other priorities.

UNRWA’s educational role has been equally corrosive. Its schools have repeatedly used curricula that glorify violence. They erase Israel. These curricula promote anti-Semitic tropes. In 2021, UNRWA’s own commissioner-general conceded that agency textbooks contained “inappropriate” material that promoted hatred and terrorism (Melissa Weiss, “U.N. agency head admits printing ‘inappropriate’ content in Palestinian classroom materials,” Jewish Insider, January 14, 2021). An agency tasked with humanitarian relief has instead perpetuated grievance and radicalization.

The most consequential distortion has been definitional. UNRWA originally defined a refugee as “a needy person who, as a result of the war in Palestine, has lost his home and his means of livelihood.” This definition included Jews. Later, in 1965 and again in 1982, UNRWA redefined “refugee” to include descendants of the original refugees. Legal expert Jay Sekulow pointed out that this process differs from all other global refugee definitions, including those used by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the laws in the United States (Jay Sekulow, “UNRWA Has Changed the Definition of Refugee,” Foreign Policy, August 17, 2018). Changing the definition of “refugee” caused the number of Palestinian refugees to increase from about 300,000 in 1948 to nearly six million today. The actual number of 1948 refugees still alive is less than 35,000. UNHCR focuses on resettlement and integration. By contrast, UNRWA has kept Palestinians in a state of limbo, which has prevented any lasting solution.

Given this record, Israel’s decision is not radical. Instead, it is corrective. Replacing UNRWA is possible and necessary. Israel’s legislation opens the way for alternative aid models that stress accountability, neutrality, and real solutions (“Israel outlaws UNWRA, bucking international pressure,” Jerusalem Post, October 28, 2024). In East Jerusalem, Israeli municipal and national institutions can provide services directly. Elsewhere, established UN bodies—UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO, the World Food Programme, and UN-Habitat—have the required expertise and mandates. They can deliver assistance without prolonging the conflict or promoting political fantasies (@Ostrov_A, October 29, 2024; @Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, October 31, 2024).

Transitioning from UNRWA to a broader array of international agencies could pave the way for a more sustainable future for Palestinians. This shift offers an opportunity to break free from the cycle of dependency, indoctrination, and extremism that has kept refugees in camps for decades. If the international community is willing to embrace this change, it could lead to greater self-sufficiency for Palestinians, a reduction in violence, and, ultimately, a more secure and peaceful future for both Israelis and Palestinians.

In January 2026, Israel began enforcing the law by demolishing UNRWA’s former headquarters compound in East Jerusalem and cutting water and electricity to facilities operating without legal authorization. Energy and Infrastructure Minister Eli Cohen emphasized that the measures followed advance notice and reflected UNRWA’s loss of legal standing and diplomatic immunity. Israeli officials framed the move as an assertion of sovereignty—and a necessary response to an agency that had forfeited neutrality. (Keshet Neev, “Israel to shut down UNRWA’s water, electricity after demolition of HQ, Eli Cohen tells ‘Post,’” Jerusalem Post, January 21, 2026; “Jerusalem requires sovereignity: UNRWA dismantling gives Israel power over the land - editorial,” Jerusalem Post, January 21, 2026).

Ending UNRWA’s role is not an abandonment of Palestinians. It is a rejection. For decades, this system has trapped generations in dependency, false hope, and violence. A transition to responsible humanitarian governance could finally replace grievance with opportunity. It could replace ideology with development. It could replace stagnation with self-sufficiency. If the international community is serious about peace, it must stop preserving the institutions that make peace impossible. Israel’s decision to prohibit the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from operating within Israeli-controlled areas is controversial. It is also overdue. The legislation ends the 1967 arrangement that permitted UNRWA to operate in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. This marks a decisive break with a failed status quo, one that has long harmed both Israelis and Palestinians.

For decades, UNRWA survived in Israel not because it worked well, but because it was perceived as unavoidable. Israeli officials regarded the agency as “the only game in town,” fearing that without it, Israel would be forced to assume responsibility for providing education, healthcare, and welfare services to Palestinians. This calculation explains Israel’s historical resistance to congressional efforts in Washington to defund UNRWA. That tolerance collapsed after October 7, 2023.

The massacre, and the revelations that followed, exposed UNRWA not merely as ineffective but as compromised. Israeli intelligence found that roughly 10%of UNRWA employees in Gaza had ties to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad; some actively participated in the October 7 atrocities, while UNRWA facilities were used to conceal terror tunnels, weapons depots, and command centers (“Israeli intel shows 10% of UNRWA workers in Gaza have ties to terror groups — report,” Times of Israel, January 29, 2024). At that point, continuing to grant the agency immunity and access was no longer a matter of humanitarian prudence—it was negligence. (“Israeli intel shows 10% of UNRWA workers in Gaza have ties to terror groups — report,” Times of Israel, January 29, 2024).

This reckoning has been decades in the making. Over nearly seventy years, UNRWA has not resolved the refugee problem; it has institutionalized it, thereby perpetuating Palestinian misery. Its camps have served as incubators for terrorism, while its welfare programs have sustained the delusion that more than five million people—most born decades after 1948—remain “refugees” entitled to return to their “homes” in Israel.

UNRWA was never intended to create a permanent refugee class. Its original mission was narrowly defined: to address the plight of Palestinians and Jews displaced after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In 1951, UNRWA Director John Blandford Jr. wrote that Arab governments were expected to assume responsibility for relief by July 1952. They never did (Joseph Schechtman, The Refugee in the World, NY: A. S. Barnes and Co., 1963, p. 184). Instead, Arab states deliberately blocked resettlement, weaponizing refugee suffering to keep the conflict alive.

Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon were expected to accept many refugees but proved unwilling to do so. Egypt controlled Gaza for nearly two decades, yet barred Palestinians from entering Egypt or relocating elsewhere (Isi Leibler, The Case for Israel, Australia: The Globe Press, 1972, p. 48). This was a deliberate strategy to keep the problem alive as a tool against Israel. As Sir Alexander Galloway, a former head of UNRWA in Jordan, stated in 1952, “The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die” (Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky, “A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography,” Middle Eastern Studies, September 2010).

Jordan alone granted citizenship to many Palestinians—though notably not Gazans. King Abdullah considered the Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians one people. By 1950, he annexed the West Bank and forbade the use of the term “Palestine” in official documents (“Speech to Parliament—April 24, 1950,” Abdallah, 16–17; Aaron Miller, The Arab States and the Palestine Question, Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1986, p. 29). In 2004, Jordan began revoking the citizenship of Palestinians who lacked Israeli permits to reside in the West Bank (Khaled Abu Toameh, “Amman Revoking Palestinians Citizenship,” Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2009).

UNRWA’s failure to secure long-term solutions has left the agency and its beneficiaries entrenched in a cycle of dependency.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership itself has done nothing to dismantle the camps under its control. The Palestinian Authority governs the19 West Bank camps yet leaves them intact. Hamas ruled Gaza for years, received billions in international aid after Israel’s disengagement, and did not build a single home for refugees in the eight camps under its jurisdiction—choosing instead to invest in tunnels and weapons.

UNRWA’s educational role has been equally corrosive. Its schools have repeatedly used curricula that glorify violence, erase Israel, and promote anti-Semitic tropes. In 2021, UNRWA’s own commissioner-general conceded that agency textbooks contained “inappropriate” material that promoted hatred and terrorism and hatred (Melissa Weiss, “U.N. agency head admits printing ‘inappropriate’ content in Palestinian classroom materials,” Jewish Insider, January 14, 2021). An agency tasked with humanitarian relief has instead perpetuated grievance and radicalization.

The most consequential distortion has been definitional. Originally, UNRWA defined a refugee as “a needy person who, as a result of the war in Palestine, has lost his home and his means of livelihood.” This included Jews. In 1965 and again in 1982, UNRWA redefined “refugee” to include descendants of the original refugees. Legal expert Jay Sekulow noted, “This classification process is inconsistent with how all other refugees in the world are classified, including the definition used by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the laws concerning refugees in the United States” (Jay Sekulow, “UNRWA Has Changed the Definition of Refugee,” Foreign Policy, August 17, 2018). By altering the definition of “refugee,” the number of Palestinian refugees ballooned from roughly 300,000 reported by the UN in September 1948 to nearly six million today. The actual figure for refugees from 1948 who are still living is less than 35,000. Moreover, unlike the UNHCR, which focuses on resettlement and integration, UNRWA has kept Palestinians in a state of limbo, preventing any lasting solution.

Against this record, Israel’s decision is not radical—it is corrective. Replacing UNRWA is not only possible; it is necessary. Israel’s legislation opens the door to alternative aid models that emphasize accountability, neutrality, and durable solutions (“Israel outlaws UNWRA, bucking international pressure,” Jerusalem Post, October 28, 2024). In East Jerusalem, services can be provided directly through Israeli municipal and national institutions. Elsewhere, established UN bodies—UNHCR, UNICEF, WHO, the World Food Programme, UN-Habitat—possess the expertise and mandates to deliver assistance without perpetuating conflict or political fantasies (@Ostrov_A, October 29, 2024; @Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, October 31, 2024).

Transitioning from UNRWA to a broader array of international agencies could pave the way for a more sustainable future for Palestinians. This shift offers an opportunity to break free from the cycle of dependency, indoctrination, and extremism that has kept refugees in camps for decades. If the international community is willing to embrace this change, it could lead to greater self-sufficiency for Palestinians, a reduction in violence, and, ultimately, a more secure and peaceful future for both Israelis and Palestinians.

In January 2026, Israel began enforcing the law by demolishing UNRWA’s former headquarters compound in East Jerusalem and cutting water and electricity to facilities operating without legal authorization. Energy and Infrastructure Minister Eli Cohen emphasized that the measures followed advance notice and reflected UNRWA’s loss of legal standing and diplomatic immunity. Israeli officials framed the move as an assertion of sovereignty—and a necessary response to an agency that had forfeited neutrality. (Keshet Neev, “Israel to shut down UNRWA’s water, electricity after demolition of HQ, Eli Cohen tells ‘Post,’” Jerusalem Post, January 21, 2026; “Jerusalem requires sovereignity: UNRWA dismantling gives Israel power over the land - editorial,” Jerusalem Post, January 21, 2026).

Ending UNRWA’s role is not an abandonment of Palestinians. It is a rejection of a system that has trapped generations in dependency, false hope, and violence. A transition to responsible humanitarian governance could finally replace grievance with opportunity, ideology with development, and stagnation with self-sufficiency. If the international community is serious about peace, it must stop preserving the institutions that make peace impossible.

MYTH

Francesca Albanese is an impartial UN Rapporteur

FACT

Francesca Albanese embarked on a tour of U.S. colleges that will spread misinformation and further inflame the toxic environment for Jewish students on campus (“Antisemitism Goes on a College Tour,” Wall Street Journal, October 30, 2024). As the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, she has engaged in a pattern of inflammatory statements, anti-Semitic rhetoric, and endorsements of extremist positions. Far from being the impartial observer required by her role, Albanese’s bias has attracted condemnation from governments and discredited her as an advocate for human rights.

Her position was created to report on conditions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but Albanese’s rhetoric does not reflect a dispassionate observer. She often calls into question Israel’s legitimacy as a UN member and has suggested that it is “time to unseat Israel from the UN” (@FranceskAlbs, July 18, 2024).

Albanese routinely disregards her mandate to support peace and non-violence by aligning herself with terror groups that seek Israel’s demise (Luke Tress, “UN Palestinian rights official’s social media history reveals anti-Semitic comments,” Times of Israel, December 14, 2022). Albanese rationalizes Palestinian violence as “inevitable” and a legitimate form of dissent against Israel’s “occupation.” Hence, it was no surprise that she suggested that the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,200 people and the kidnapping of 252, was a response to “Israel’s oppression” rather than an anti-Semitic act of terror. Her reaction prompted rebukes from the U.S., France, and Germany, which condemned her for implying that the massacre had justifiable motives (@francediplo, February 10, 2024; @Germanydiplo, February 11, 2024; @USAmbHRC, February 12, 2024).

Albanese does not recognize Israel’s right to self-defense. She labels its security measures as acts of “aggression.” She denounced Israel’s killing of the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah as “murders” (@FranceskAlbs, August 9, 2024). Such language not only distorts reality but also incites further hostility.

Albanese repeatedly made comparisons of Israeli military actions to the campaigns of the Nazis, including calling Gaza a “concentration camp”, likenening the systematic extermination of Jews under the Nazis’ “pure race” policy to Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza, and falsely claiming it is a “genocide”. These comparisons are deeply offensive and dangerous (@FranceskAlbs, August 10, 2024; @FranceskAlbs, October 14, 2024). Such statements demonize an entire nation and its people, perpetuating hatred. Furthermore, her endorsement of conspiracy theories about a “Jewish lobby” in politics and media echoes age-old anti-Semitic tropes, posing a direct threat to Jewish communities worldwide (@USAmbHRC, December 14, 2022).

Albanese’s college tour was particularly concerning, as it allowed her to propagate her dangerous ideology directly to students who may lack the knowledge to evaluate her assertions critically. Students must be made aware of her biases, misrepresentations, and anti-Semitism.

Invitations to Albanese are an example of the double standard whereby universities tolerate attacks against Jews and Israel, whereas such bigotry would never be allowed if directed at other groups. While universities champion diversity and inclusion, they must also recognize that allowing speakers like Albanese perpetuates an environment where anti-Semitism can thrive unchecked.

Even more concerning, a 2025 UN Watch report revealed that Albanese accepted approximately $20,000 from Hamas-linked groups to fund trips to Australia and New Zealand in late 2023, shortly after the October 7 massacre, despite publicly claiming the UN had paid for her travel. Albanese lied about this, saying the UN funded the trips, only to backtrack later and claim she had “nothing to hide” after evidence surfaced contradicting her statements (Itamar Eichner, UN envoy took trips paid for by Hamas-linked groups and lied about it, report says, Ynet, May 14, 2025).

Albanese’s behavior has further tarnished the already discredited United Nations Human Rights Council and threatened the integrity of the UN itself. This is why, along with Israel, the U.S. has called for Albanese’s removal from her position (@USAmbUN, October 29, 2024; @dannydannon, October 30, 2024).

In March 2025, UN Watch launched a comprehensive campaign opposing the reappointment of Francesca Albanese as the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, citing her alleged anti-Semitism and support for Hamas. Their efforts combine legal arguments, procedural challenges, and public advocacy. They accuse Albanese of violating the UN Human Rights Council’s Code of Conduct and argue that under resolution 8/PRST/2, the UNHRC President must submit complaints about her conduct before reappointment. UN Watch submitted a 60-page report titled “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” and an “Official Notice of Illegality” to UN Secretary-General António Guterres while also condemning the UNHRC President for bypassing proper review by deferring complaints to a Coordination Committee they claim lacks the authority to handle such matters. UN Watch dismisses the Committee’s defense of Albanese as biased, pointing to alleged conflicts of interest and describing the review as a fake inquiry. They also compiled statements of condemnation from multiple governments, lawmakers, and international bodies, launched a “#FireFrancesca” petition that garnered 100,000 signatures, and warned that reappointing her without addressing these complaints could be legally null and void—potentially exposing her to lawsuits if UN immunity is challenged (“UN Finds Francesca Albanese Not Guilty of Antisemitism, Clears Her for Reappointment Today,” U N Watch, April 3, 2025).

Despite the widespread condemnation, Francesca Albanese will remain the UN Special Rapporteur until April 2028, following a UN Human Rights Council session that renewed her mandate, dismissing numerous complaints about her anti-Semitic remarks and anti-Israel bias. Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, stated that her renewal is “a disgrace and a moral stain on the United Nations.” He described her as “a notorious anti-Semite” who has consistently expressed biased views against Israel and engaged in hateful rhetoric targeting the Jewish people (Luke Tress, “Anti-Israel UN investigator keeps her job despite push for removal by US, EU lawmakers,” Times of Israel, April 5, 2025).

In a forceful letter dated May 19, 2025, U.S. DOJ official Leo Terrell and Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism nominee Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun condemned Albanese for her campaign, which included suggesting institutions supporting Israel may be complicit in genocide. The letter accuses her of legal baselessness, defamation, and anti-Semitism, citing her failure to unequivocally condemn Hamas’s atrocities, including the October 7 massacre, hostage torture, and the glorification of violence against Jews. It contrasts Israel’s adherence to the laws of war with Hamas’s use of civilians as shields. It criticizes Albanese for spreading biased narratives and allegedly accepting funds from pro-Hamas groups. The authors urge the UN to remove her from her post (“U.S. Justice Department Calls for Removal of Francesca Albanese After Pro-Hamas Funding Exposed by UN Watch,” UN Watch, May 20, 2025).

MYTH

The U.S. should cut off weapons to Israel if it doesn’t increase aid to Gaza.

FACT

The U.S. administration’s pressure on Israel to increase humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza contradicts its previous positions and misrepresents the underlying causes of the humanitarian crisis. President Biden stated in October 2023, “If Hamas diverts or steals the assistance, they will have demonstrated once again that they have no concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people and it will end.” Yet, despite evidence that Hamas is indeed seizing aid intended for civilians, the administration persists in demanding that Israel send even more (“Biden’s Pre-Election Threat to Israel,” Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2024).

Since the onset of the conflict, Hamas has consistently siphoned off humanitarian aid, ensuring its members have the means to survive while innocent civilians suffer. Israel’s Channel 12 News reported, for example, that in October 2024 Hamas commandeered 47 of 100 aid trucks entering Gaza (@israelinun, October 17, 2024). When Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin threatened to cut off military supplies to Israel, they said that the amount of relief entering Gaza had dropped by 50%. At the same time, a State Department official told reporters about 50% of the aid entering through the Kerem Shalom crossing had been stolen (Adam Taylor, John Hudson, and Hajar Harb, “Blinken presses Israel’s Netanyahu on dire conditions in northern Gaza,” Washington Post, October 22, 2024). This reality contradicts the narrative that increased aid alone will alleviate the crisis.

Israel has made significant efforts to facilitate aid deliveries into Gaza, even while fighting Hamas. Since the conflict began, Israel has opened new aid crossing points and constructed roads within Gaza to ensure humanitarian supplies reach those in need. As of October 15, 2024, 1,081,294 tons, equivalent to 54,786 trucks of humanitarian supplies, have been successfully delivered since the beginning of the war. The supplies included food, water, medical stockpiles, shelter equipment, cooking gas, and fuel. These extraordinary steps in an active combat zone, reflect Israel’s exceptional commitment to humanitarian principles. Restrictions on aid imposed by Israel are meant to prevent the delivery of weapons or dual-use items that could further endanger its civilian population, a necessary precaution in the face of ongoing terrorism. On November 11, 2024, the IDF intercepted ammunition hidden in a convoy traveling within Gaza, underscoring the need for thorough inspections to prevent weapons from reaching hostile actors (Swords of Iron Humanitarian Efforts,” COGAT; “Israel is being sacrificed to hand Kamala Harris’ failing campaign a few extra votes,” Telegraph, October 16, 2024; “IDF seizes ammunition hidden in internal coordinated Gaza convoy,” Jerusalem Post, November 11, 2024).

Instead of holding Hamas accountable for stealing aid, the Biden administration threatened on October 15, 2024, that it would cut off military supplies to Israel if more aid was not sent in the following 30 days. This ultimatum risks undermining Israel’s ability to defend itself during a multi-front war and diverts attention from the root problem: Hamas’s theft of aid (Tom Bateman, David Gritten, “US gives Israel 30 days to boost Gaza aid or risk cut to military support,” BBC, October 15, 2024).

The U.S. had its own challenges delivering aid from the pier it built. In one instance, 11 trucks bringing supplies to the World Food Program warehouse “were cleaned out by Palestinians” (Michelle Nichols, “Gaza aid piles up in Egypt, US pier delivery falters, Reuters, May 21, 2024). That same month, Israel’s Channel 12 reported that Hamas had profited by at least $500 million from stealing aid, a staggering figure that underscores the scale of the problem (“Hamas reaped hundreds of millions off Gaza aid since Oct. 7,” JNS, May 20, 2024).

Meanwhile, no pressure has been exerted on Egypt, which has limited the movement of refugees and aid through its Rafah border crossing. In May 2024, for example, Reuters reported that “food and medicine for Palestinians in Gaza are piling up in Egypt because the Rafah crossing remains closed” (Nichols). Had Egypt been compelled to allow Gazans to leave at the outset of the fighting, countless lives could have been saved, and the dependency on aid would have significantly diminished.

On November 12, 2024, the Biden administration announced that Israel had made progress in increasing the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza and, therefore, would not limit arms transfers to Israel (Julia Frankel, Matthew Lee, Samy Magdy, “US says it will not limit Israel arms transfers after some improvements in flow of aid to Gaza,” AP, November 12, 2024).

MYTH

UNIFIL is a neutral peacekeeping force that kept peace between Israel and Lebanon.

FACT

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established with a crucial mandate: to enforce peace in southern Lebanon and to prevent armed groups, particularly Hezbollah, from operating freely in the region. Unfortunately, rather than fulfilling this responsibility, UNIFIL has failed to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarmament of militias. Instead, Hezbollah fortified its position along the Israeli border, constructing an extensive military infrastructure—complete with weapons depots, missile sites, and tunnels—right under UNIFIL’s nose. These activities were part of Hezbollah’s plan for an invasion even more destructive and extensive than the Hamas attack on October 7 (Arsen Ostrovsky, Ilan Berman, “The failure of UNIFIL: Do your job or get out of the way,” The Hill, October 17, 2024).

Despite documenting suspicious activities, such as the emergence of tunnel entrances near the border, UNIFIL has consistently failed to take meaningful action. When Hezbollah established rocket-launching sites and weapon storage facilities—often in civilian areas—UNIFIL did not intervene. Its claims of being obstructed from accessing Hezbollah-controlled zones, where militants prevented inspections, further illustrate its ineffectiveness. This passive approach rendered UNIFIL ineffective and allowed Hezbollah’s threat to Israel to grow unchecked (Aluf Benn, “UNIFIL in South Lebanon Reminds Us of Israel’s Famous Keystone Cop,” Haaretz, October 18, 2024).

A former soldier from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) responsible for reporting violations of Resolution 1701 described a chilling reality: “We were totally subject to Hezbollah. We clearly had limited freedom of movement. For example, we never operated after dark for fear of Hezbollah. So, they had free time in the evening and night hours.” Hezbollah confiscated their equipment and barred them from certain areas when they attempted to collect evidence of violations. “They didn’t want us to see what they were doing.”

“We reported daily violations of resolution 1701 to our superiors, including in particular restrictions on our freedom of movement, and we were instructed to report all violations regardless of number. But nothing ever happened,” he said. “We did not hear back from them, and nothing was initiated. It was wildly frustrating, and it only confirmed to me what I had experienced in other countries I was posted to: The UN is incompetent” (Danielle Greyman-Kennard, “‘We were completely at Hezbollah’s mercy,’ former UN peacekeeper says,” Jerusalem Post, October 21, 2024).

Beginning on October 8, 2023, Israelis faced daily rocket bombardment, forcing some 60,000 Israelis to leave their homes and making roughly 250 square miles along Israel’s northern border uninhabitable. Hezbollah’s strategic use of UNIFIL’s presence to shield its military installations hindered Israel’s operations. Captured Hezbollah fighters disclosed that the group had bribed UNIFIL personnel to use their positions and take control of the peacekeepers’ cameras to watch the Israeli border (Lilach Shoval, “Dramatic testimony suggests UN peacekeepers bribed by Hezbollah,” Israel Hayom, October 21, 2024).

When the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entered Lebanon on October 1, 2024, to dismantle Hezbollah’s positions, UNIFIL obstructed their operations, refusing to relocate its personnel from combat zones despite repeated requests from Israel. UNIFIL personnel were consequently unnecessarily endangered and suffered casualties. Meanwhile, the IDF discovered weapons and tunnels close to UNIFIL positions and came under fire from Hezbollah forces shooting from locations near UNIFIL forces (“UN Peacekeepers Are Hezbollah’s Best Friend,” Wall Street Journal, October 15, 2024; Eugene Kontorovich, “Trump Should Fire the UN Forces in Lebanon,” Wall Street Journal, October 15, 2024).

UNIFIL’s role as a peacekeeping force has been compromised by its inability to enforce its mandate. Hezbollah has used UNIFIL’s presence to its advantage, knowing the force will not act against it. By obstructing Israel’s defensive efforts and failing to disarm Hezbollah, UNIFIL became an enabler of terrorism. When the war ends, it will be necessary to find an alternative to UNIFIL to guarantee that Hezbollah cannot rearm and return to any area where it can threaten Israel.

MYTH

The UN resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal is binding.

FACT

On September 18, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly voted 124-14 to adopt a resolution concerning the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, following the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) advisory opinion that Israel’s “occupation” of these territories is illegal. The resolution mandates that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw to pre-1967 lines within 12 months and prohibits member states from supplying arms to Israel for use in these areas. (“UN General Assembly demands Israel to end ‘unlawful presence’ in Occupied Palestinian Territory,” United Nations, “thinc. briefing concerning the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice,” thinc., September 3, 2024).

Despite the attention this resolution has garnered, it is both nonbinding and unenforceable, amounting to little more than diplomatic posturing. It also violates the condition set for talks as part of the Oslo Accords. In the seventh paragraph of the Final Clauses of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, signed in Washington on September 28, 1995 (commonly known as Oslo II), the parties agreed explicitly that:

“Neither side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.”

Historically, UN resolutions regarding Israel—no matter how biased or disconnected from the complex realities on the ground—have passed with an automatic majority in the General Assembly. This resolution is no exception. It offers a distorted, one-sided narrative, casting Israel as solely responsible for the conflict while conveniently ignoring the ongoing threats posed by Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, the violence against Israeli civilians, and the malign influence of countries like Iran, which fuel unrest through their proxy forces (Tovah Lazaroff, “UN votes 124-14 to strip Israel of right to self-defense in Gaza, West Bank,” Jerusalem Post, September 18, 2024).

Moreover, this resolution fails to acknowledge the legitimate historical, political, and religious ties the Jewish people have to Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. Sites like the Western Wall, Hebron, and Bethlehem are integral to Jewish identity, a connection that spans thousands of years. By ignoring these realities, the UN dismisses not only the deep-rooted significance of these places but also Israel’s right to defend its people and its land.

The demand for Israel to retreat to pre-1967 borders within a year is not only unrealistic but reckless. Such a move disregards the multifaceted security concerns that would arise from an abrupt withdrawal, particularly in a region where Israel faces constant threats from terror organizations. It also ignores the fundamental reality that peace cannot be imposed through international decree. For decades, negotiations have stalled not because of Israel’s borders but because the Palestinian leadership has consistently refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

Further compounding the problem, the resolution’s call for boycotts and an arms embargo against Israel represents yet another divisive tactic, one that undermines any real chance for dialogue. By pushing for these punitive measures, the Palestinian Authority shows a blatant lack of interest in genuine peace talks, instead opting for symbolic victories on the international stage. This approach only worsens tensions and fosters resentment within Israel.

Ultimately, this resolution does nothing to advance peace in the region. It is a politically driven maneuver that ignores Israel’s security needs, its historical ties to the land, and the complex realities that shape the conflict. A lasting resolution can only come from direct negotiations between the parties involved—negotiations built on mutual recognition, respect, and compromise, not arbitrary deadlines or one-sided international mandates.

Before the vote, US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the plenum that the resolution “refuses to address the reality that Israel, a United Nations member state, simply has a right to protect and defend its people from acts of terror and violence.”

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said: “Instead of marking the anniversary of the October 7 massacre by condemning Hamas and calling for the release of the remaining 101 hostages, the General Assembly continues to dance to the music of the Palestinian Authority, which backs the Hamas murderers.”

MYTH

The October 7th attack by Hamas was a justified response to Israeli oppression.

FACT

The assertion that Hamas’s brutal actions on October 7, 2023, were justified must be harshly condemned. Such claims legitimize acts of barbarism, oversimplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and ignore essential historical and geopolitical realities. While Palestinians face undeniable hardships, attributing Hamas’s atrocities solely to Israeli policies overlooks the pivotal role that Hamas plays in perpetuating Gaza’s suffering. It is Hamas, not Israel, that has controlled Gaza since 2005, and their extremist actions serve their agenda of terror, not the welfare of the Palestinian people.

Commentators like Ta-Nehisi Coates attempt to frame the actions of Hamas within a narrative of oppression, dangerously blurring the lines between humanitarian concerns and the justification of terrorism. Coates’s argument that the violence may stem from the conditions in Gaza fails to acknowledge the individual moral agency of those involved in terrorism. By implying that violence is an almost inevitable consequence of oppression and that no amount of bloodshed may go “too far,” Coates detracts from the fundamental moral question of choosing to engage in or endorse acts of terror (John Aziz, “What Ta-Nehisi Coates Doesn’t Understand About Us Palestinians,” Newsweek, October 14, 2024).

It is all too common for someone with little or no knowledge of the region’s history to make rash judgments based on limited experience. The New York Sun’s David Christopher Kaufman, a Black Jew, noted that “Coates, despite his claim of racial license, knows very little about Israel and Palestine – he’s been there once, for barely 10 days – and has made clear he has no interest in presenting Israeli voices that do not espouse his anti-Zionist views” (David Christopher Kaufman, “Take it from someone who’s both Black and Jewish: Ta-Nehisi Coates weaponizes race to spread antisemitism,” Forward, October 15, 2024).

Based on his few days in the West Bank, where he suffered the inconvenience of having to wait 45 minutes at a checkpoint, and in Israel, Coates compared Israel to the Jim Crow South. “I don’t think I ever, in my life, felt the glare of racism burn stranger and more intense than in Israel,” he wrote (Coates, Ta-Nehisi. The Message. First large print edition. New York, Random House Large Print, 2024).

First, Palestinians are not a race; second, he fails to mention checkpoints would not exist if there were no Palestinian terrorism; and third, the people in the Palestinian Authority he spoke to are governed by a kleptocracy that denies its residents all fundamental freedoms. Israel, far from being a state of racial segregation, is a vibrant democracy where Arabs serve in roles from doctors to diplomats and even as Supreme Court justices. Moreover, those “racist” Israelis include Jewish people of color from Ethiopia, Yemen, and other countries. Coates’s comparison fails to account for the freedoms and rights enjoyed by all citizens of Israel, irrespective of their race or ethnicity.

Michal Cotler-Wunsh, Israel’s special envoy for combating anti-Semitism, has emphasized that such skewed portrayals of Israel contribute to a dangerous narrative that delegitimizes the country and justifies violence against its citizens. By focusing solely on the hardships in Gaza without recognizing Hamas’s violent agenda, Coates reinforces a distorted view of the conflict. This narrative not only omits the brutal tactics employed by Hamas but also undermines the aspirations of Palestinians who desire peace and freedom from extremist terror groups like Hamas (“Ta-Nehisi Coates chided for saying if he grew up in Gaza, he might’ve joined October 7 attack,” JNS, October 11, 2024).

While Coates’s empathy for Palestinians is well-intentioned, his selective framing contributes to a troubling trend where the actions of extremists are excused or justified. CBS Journalist Tony Dokoupil was admonished for questioning Coates’ failure to interview anyone pro-Israel and omitting any references to Palestinian terror in his book The Message. “Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it?” he asked. “Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it? Why not detail anything of the first and the second intifada, the cafe bombings, the bus bombings, the little kids blown to bits?”

Coates’s response: “I wrote a 260-page book. It is not a treatise on the entirety of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” (Yirmiyahu Danzig, “I’m a Jew of color. Ta-Nehisi Coates can’t apply US lessons to Israel.” Forward, October 11, 2024; Becket Adams, “CBS Coates saga isn’t a laughing matter, it’s our future,” Washington Examiner, October 12, 2024).

Coates also claims that by speaking for the Palestinians he is giving a voice to those who are not heard. To the contrary noted, Tal Fortgang, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, “Unlike the Kurds, Copts, Uyghurs, and any number of other ethnic and religious minority groups, Palestinians have a chorus of vocal advocates in the United States, especially within elite media and academic circles.” Fortgang suggested that where Dokupil erred was in not asking Coates two pertinent questions: “First, what good is it to lend your voice to a group when you use your voice to advance a dishonest account? And second, why do you think that advancing the interests of Palestinians requires you to lie by omission about the context of the situation?” (Tal Fortgang, “Lying by Omission,” City Paper, October 11, 2024).

Journalist Batya Ungar-Sargon observed that the prevailing narrative often absolves those who see themselves as oppressed from moral responsibility, even in the face of atrocities (Jonathan S. Tobin, “The big lie of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s 10 days in ‘Palestine’,” JNS, October 9, 2024).

The brutal attacks on October 7 were not spontaneous acts of desperation; they were premeditated atrocities aimed at maximizing humiliation and torment. Hamas’s jihadist ideology calls for the murder of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. It is uncompromising and unrelated to oppression. Not a single Israeli soldier or citizen was in Gaza when Hamas planned its attack.

The oversimplified narrative of Israel as a colonial oppressor ignores the historical, religious, and political connections to the land, which cannot be accurately understood through the lens of American racial history. Reducing this complex conflict to a single, distorted interpretation does a disservice to both Israelis and Palestinians.

MYTH

The Palestinian Authority is grateful to the United States for its support.

FACT

One might expect the Palestinian Authority (PA), as a significant recipient of U.S. financial assistance, to express gratitude for its benefactor’s generosity. The United States has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, including a recent allocation of $336 million in September 2024 for humanitarian relief in Gaza and the West Bank. Moreover, the U.S. has consistently advocated for a two-state solution to resolve the conflict with Israel (“The United States Announces Nearly $336 Million in Humanitarian Assistance to Support Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank,” USAID, September 30, 2024). Yet, rather than appreciation, PA officials often respond with hostility, directing blame at the U.S. for suffering in the region.

For example, Nabil Abu Rudeina, spokesman for PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, claimed the U.S. was responsible for “chaos, wars, and instability” in the Middle East. According to Rudeina, successive American administrations, through their policies and support of Israel, have “encouraged [Israel] to commit more crimes against our people” (WAFA, official PA news agency, September 29, 2024).

This hostility is not limited to individual statements but is widespread among PA officials. Abbas Zaki, a Fatah Central Committee member, went so far as to label the U.S. the “head of global terror,” asserting that it manipulates Israel as a tool to wage war on Palestinians. Zaki contended that the real conflict is “against the U.S. and not Israel”. He also charged the U.S. with complicity in “Nazi holocausts” orchestrated by NATO, portraying America as the primary instigator of violence against Palestinians (Al-Quds website, September 8, 2024; Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki, Facebook page, May 16, 2024).

Mahmoud Al-Habbash, an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas, echoed similar sentiments, alleging that the U.S. is the mastermind behind Israel’s military actions. He stated, “Israel is nothing more than an American interest that is carrying out American policies,” and blamed the U.S. for pushing Israel toward extremism. Al-Habbash has repeatedly branded the U.S. “the biggest liar” and “the true threat,” accusing the American administration of inventing lies to justify its policies in the region (PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations Mahmoud Al-Habbash, Facebook page, January 29, 2024; August 29, 2024).

This demonization is pervasive, and these incendiary accusations reveal a deep-rooted resentment that goes far beyond mere policy criticism. The rhetoric highlights the PA’s ungrateful and antagonistic stance toward one of its principal political and financial benefactors.

MYTH

Nasrallah’s assassination sparked collective mourning across the Middle East.

FACT

Hassan Nasrallah’s death sparked widespread celebration among Lebanese Christians and Sunni Muslims and across the Arab and Islamic world, signaling Hezbollah’s waning influence and growing resentment toward Iran’s terror proxy. Following reports of his assassination in an Israeli airstrike, videos surfaced of jubilant crowds in northern Syria. This reaction underscores the deep-seated disdain toward Hezbollah due to its backing of Bashar al-Assad during the Syrian civil war. Once viewed as a hero by many, Hezbollah’s image has now shifted to that of a destabilizing force, as its backing of oppressive regimes has left a legacy of violence and suffering (Fared Al Mahlool, “Syrians take to the streets to celebrate Hassan Nasrallah’s death,” Telegraph, September 28, 2024; Ruth Sherlock, “Israel’s killing of Hezbollah leader sparks mixed reactions across the Middle East,” NPR, September 29, 2024).

Nasrallah, whose leadership built a powerful cult of personality, has become emblematic of a group more interested in regional domination than genuine “resistance” (Muhannad Alazzeh, “Why the Arab Street Is Celebrating Israel’s Killing of Hezbollah Chief Nasrallah | Opinion,” Newsweek, September 29, 2024).

Hezbollah’s involvement in violent repression across Syria, Iraq, and Yemen eroded its former standing as a champion of the oppressed. Instead, it is now seen as a destabilizing force and tool of Iranian expansionism (Giorgia Valente, “Syrians in rebel-controlled Idlib celebrate Nasrallah’s death,” Jerusalem Post, September 29, 2024; “Nasrallah’s death celebrated across Middle East and beyond,” JNS, October 1, 2024).

Pockets of mourning still emerged in regions of Lebanon loyal to the group. In places like Basra and Ramallah, Hezbollah supporters paid tribute to Nasrallah, hailing him as a “martyr of resistance” who fought for Palestinian rights and against Western influence. However, these expressions of grief were far outnumbered by the widespread sense of relief and hope that his death symbolizes a new era—one where Hezbollah’s grip on power begins to loosen (Adam Kredo, “WATCH: Syrians Celebrate Reported Death of Hezbollah Head Hassan Nasrallah,” Washington Free Beacon, September 27, 2024).

In Lebanon, Hezbollah is facing growing scrutiny for its role in undermining the state. Increasingly, it is seen as a destructive force, stoking sectarian conflicts and fostering instability rather than uniting the country. The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri is just one example of the violence attributed to Hezbollah’s unchecked power. Nasrallah’s assassination exposed Hezbollah’s vulnerabilities and diminishing influence.

By decapitating Hezbollah’s leadership, killing its members, and destroying its military capabilities, Israel has created an opportunity for the Lebanese to reclaim their country from Iranian influence. That, too, would be cause for celebration.

MYTH

The inverted red triangle only symbolizes solidarity with Palestinians.

FACT

The inverted red triangle, originally used by the Nazis to identify political prisoners in concentration camps, carries deep historical significance for Jewish communities. It was part of a dehumanizing classification system where prisoners were identified by different colored triangles based on their perceived “crimes.” The red triangle specifically marked political dissidents, such as socialists and communists. After World War II, survivors and their families reclaimed the symbol as a representation of resistance against fascism (“Classification System in Nazi Concentration Camps,” Holocaust Encyclopedia).

However, the triangle has recently taken on a troubling new association with Hamas. Following the October 7, 2023, massacre, Hamas began using the symbol in its propaganda to mark Israeli military targets. This usage has spread to anti-Israel protests, especially on college campuses and social media, where some demonstrators use it to show solidarity with Palestinians. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) cautions that the symbol’s modern use often extends beyond mere support for Palestinians, serving instead as a representation of Hamas and its violent methods. As a result, its presence in protests and online can normalize extremism and violence under the guise of “resistance” (“Inverted Red Triangle,” Anti-Defamation League; Julie Gregson, “Red triangle symbol: Germany debating a ban,” Deutsche Welle, April 8, 2024).

The inverted red triangle has also appeared in anti-Semitic acts. In several incidents, pro-Palestinian groups have painted the symbol on Jewish homes and institutions, such as a Jewish director’s residence and a museum in Brooklyn. In these cases, the triangle is not just a symbol of resistance but a deliberate act of hate and intimidation, marking Jewish individuals and institutions as targets (Lauren Markoe, “Pro-Palestinian vandals are painting red inverted triangles on their targets. What does it mean?,” Forward, August 8, 2024).

Proponents of the triangle argue that it can represent “resistance” or “liberation,” drawing connections to its use in the Palestinian flag. However, this interpretation often overlooks the symbol’s violent modern usage. As scholar Costanza Musu notes, “it’s a lot harder to say that it wasn’t intended as a way of identifying a target, when it’s painted on a Jewish person’s house, far from a college protest where students are using a variety of symbols.” When used in an anti-Semitic context, the inverted red triangle becomes a dangerous and threatening marker (Natalie Stechyson, “What does the inverted red triangle used by some pro-Palestinian demonstrators symbolize?,” CBC, June 4, 2024).

While the inverted red triangle might have various interpretations, in the context of anti-Semitism and violence, it becomes unmistakably harmful and dangerous. When used to target Jewish people, glorify Hamas, or promote violent “resistance,” the symbol’s sinister connotations cannot be ignored. The meaning of symbols like this may evolve, but their capacity to incite fear and violence should never be downplayed. No matter the alternative explanations, its widespread adoption as a symbol of hate and extremism should raise serious concern.

MYTH

Targeting Hezbollah’s communication systems was a war crime.

FACT

The operation targeting Hezbollah’s communication systems was lawful, adhering to the principles of international law: necessity, proportionality, and distinction between combatants and civilians. Hezbollah operatives, using pagers and walkie-talkies for terrorist activities, became legitimate military targets under these laws. By focusing on devices known to evade Israeli surveillance, Israel effectively minimized the risk to civilians (Alan Dershowitz, “Dershowitz: Israel’s pager attack was legal under the laws of war,” The Hill, September 24, 2024).

Though Israel did not officially claim responsibility, reports strongly suggest Israeli involvement. Speculation indicates that Israel infiltrated Hezbollah’s supply chain, potentially using shell companies to load explosives into communication devices that were then unknowingly distributed by Hezbollah. The coordinated detonations resulted in the deaths of 12 Hezbollah terrorists and incapacitated 1,500 more, severely weakening Hezbollah’s ability to fight. The psychological impact of the attack sowed confusion and distrust within their ranks, forcing Hezbollah to abandon its primary communication systems (Laila Bassam, Maya Gebeily, “Israel planted explosives in Hezbollah’s Taiwan-made pagers, say sources,” Reuters, September 20, 2024).

The military necessity of the operation was clear: For over ten months, Hezbollah had launched indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel, killing dozens of civilians and displacing tens of thousands. Disabling Hezbollah’s communication systems was a calculated and effective strategy to disrupt their ability to coordinate further attacks (John Spencer, Mark Goldfeder, Arsen Ostrovsky, “The Law Of Exploding Pagers,” Daily Wire, September 24, 2024; Arsen Ostrovsky, John Spencer, Mark Goldfeder, “Sorry, AOC: Israel’s Precision Attack Against Hezbollah Was Humane—and Legal,” Newsweek, September 20, 2024; Peter Berkowitz, “Israel’s retaliation is completely lawful,” Washington Post, September 20, 2024).

Hezbollah’s operatives engaging in terrorist operations as well as those supporting such activities are lawful targets. The operation was also proportionate to the military advantage sought. International law permits targeting military objects, such as communication systems, that contribute to an adversary’s combat capabilities if reasonable efforts are made to minimize civilian harm. In this case, the explosives were confined to devices used solely by Hezbollah terrorists underscoring Israel’s commitment to minimizing civilian casualties. Some occurred because Hezbollah deliberately operates within densely populated areas—a cynical tactic aimed at shifting the blame for any harm away from Israel’s lawful actions.

By focusing on devices used for terrorist purposes, Israel’s actions were consistent with the Geneva Conventions, which allow the destruction of such targets in pursuit of military objectives.

MYTH

Hezbollah only targets military sites in Israel.

FACT

Despite Hezbollah’s claims, the terrorist group’s rockets target civilian areas in blatant disregard for international law.

One of the most tragic examples occurred on July 27, 2024, when a Hezbollah rocket hit a soccer field in Majdal Shams, a Druze town in the Golan Heights. The rocket struck near a playground far from any military installation, killing 12 children and injuring over 20 others. This was the deadliest terrorist attack by Hezbollah since it began its daily bombardment of northern Israel (Seth J. Frantzman, “Majdal Shams attack aftermath: When the Golan became a new front in Israel’s war - analysis,” Jerusalem Post, September 7, 2024; “Golan Heights attack: The claims and counterclaims on Majdal Shams strike,” Middle East Eye, July 29, 2024).

Hezbollah fired more than 9,300 rockets between October 8, 2023, and September 25, 2024, with only a handful landing anywhere near a military target. These killed 20 soldiers and 26 civilians and wounded dozens more.

The indiscriminate attacks have also landed in Arab cities and caused casualties. In the Arab city of Tamra, which was struck by a Hezbollah rocket on September 24, 2024, a 58-year-old woman was lightly wounded by shrapnel, while a 61-year-old man sustained serious injuries. Additionally, damage to a house was noted, and shrapnel forced the temporary closure of Highway 70. Debris from rocket interceptions was also found in Nazareth and other areas across northern Israel, highlighting the wide-ranging impact of the rocket barrage? (“Debris and fragments cause damage in North following Hezbollah rocket barrages,” Jerusalem Post, September 24, 2024).

Hezbollah’s attacks also extended into Palestinian territories. On September 23, 2024, a rocket fired by Hezbollah hit Deir Istiya, a town in the northern West Bank, injuring two Palestinians — a 60-year-old man and an elderly woman. The rocket, part of a barrage of 10 long-range projectiles aimed at Israel, caused significant material damage, striking between homes and damaging a car and a nearby building. The damage and injuries underscore the indiscriminate nature of Hezbollah’s attacks, which do not spare civilians, whether Israeli or Palestinian (“At least 2 West Bank Palestinians hurt in Hezbollah rocket attack,” Times of Israel, September 24, 2024).

The Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted many incoming projectiles, preventing more casualties. Still, tens of millions of dollars in property damage has been done in towns throughout the north. Rockets caused fires that burned nearly 49,000 acres of land since the escalation with Hezbollah commenced.

More than 60,000 Israelis – Jews and Arabs – were forced to evacuate their homes and cannot return until the threat from Hezbollah rockets and infiltration is eliminated.

MYTH

Israel rushed into a full-scale war with Hezbollah without giving diplomacy a chance.

FACT

On September 16, 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally announced that the cabinet had voted to make the safe return of approximately 60,000 residents from communities along Israel’s northern border an official war objective. These civilians had been evacuated to shield them from Hezbollah’s relentless rocket, drone, and missile attacks that followed Hamas’s October 7, 2023, invasion of Israel. While this return was always viewed as a political necessity, this marked the first time it was officially declared a war goal (@israeliPM, September 16, 2024).

Earlier, President Biden’s envoy for negotiations with Hezbollah, Amos Hochstein, had arrived in Jerusalem hoping to prevent a full-scale war, but Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant told him the ongoing violence and the inability to allow civilians to return to their homes had become intolerable. The same message was conveyed to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who had urged Gallant to allow talks time to succeed. Netanyahu later said, “While Israel appreciates and respects the support of the U.S., it will ultimately do what is necessary to safeguard its security and return the residents of the north securely to their homes.” (Emanuel Fabian, Jacob Magid, “Gallant tells US envoy only ‘military action’ can return Israelis to homes in north,” Times of Israel, September 16, 2024).

Israel had sought a diplomatic solution for over ten months while enduring more than 8,000 Hezbollah rocket, drone, and missile attacks, most of which targeted civilian areas. The bombardment caused extensive damage and fires that ravaged about 56 square miles of vegetation along the northern border (Sue Surkes, “146 square kilometers of vegetation scorched in north since October 7 — study,” Times of Israel, August 29, 2024).

Tensions escalated on August 25 when Israel detected that thousands of Hezbollah launchers were set on a timer to begin a massive attack targeting sites in northern and central Israel, including Mossad headquarters. The IDF preemptively attacked launch sites in 40 locations across southern Lebanon. Although Hezbollah managed to launch 210 rockets and 20 drones, most were intercepted or caused minor damage (Maytaal Angel, Maya Gebeily, “Israel and Hezbollah in major missile exchange as escalation fears grow,” Reuters, August 25, 2024).

Israel demanded an immediate halt to the attacks. It called for Hezbollah to withdraw several miles from the Israeli border to mitigate the threat of short-range projectiles and prevent an October 7-type invasion. Israel was aware that Hezbollah’s elite Radwan force was planning such an attack but lost the element of surprise when Hamas acted prematurely.

Throughout the fighting, Israel showed considerable restraint, limiting its military response to precise, proportionate airstrikes on launchers and terrorists planning attacks while U.S. and French diplomats engaged in fruitless ceasefire negotiations. Hezbollah consistently rejected every proposal.

Israel is in this predicament due to U.S. pressure to accept a ceasefire that ended the 2006 Lebanon War. Israel was assured that Hezbollah would be neutralized as a threat, and UN Security Council Resolution 1701 was adopted to back up those promises. The resolution called for Hezbollah’s disarmament and the demilitarization of southern Lebanon. However, neither the Lebanese government (controlled by Iran through Hezbollah) nor the United Nations took action to enforce the resolution. Meanwhile, Hezbollah stockpiled 120,000 to 200,000 rockets and escalated its terrorist attacks, culminating in daily barrages after October 7, 2023 (Seth G. Jones, Daniel Byman, Alexander Palmer, Riley McCabe, “The Coming Conflict with Hezbollah,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 21, 2024; “The U.N. Is Failing to Hold Hezbollah Accountable,” AIPAC, July 29, 2024).

Current negotiations have failed to demand Hezbollah’s disarmament or relocation of its forces north of the Litani River, as originally required by Resolution 1701. The inability of Lebanon or the international community to enforce these provisions has left Israel with no choice but to go to war, restore its deterrence, and secure the safe return of its citizens.

MYTH

Israel uses bulldozers to damage infrastructure to displace Palestinians.

FACT

According to the Qatari propaganda network Al Jazeera, “Israeli soldiers raiding the occupied West Bank are regularly accompanied by bulldozers razing their way through Palestinian neighborhoods.” Among Nada Qaddourah’s claims are that the use of bulldozers is part of an Israeli strategy to create a coercive environment, encourage Palestinians to leave, keep Palestinians at a social and economic disadvantage, and dispossess their land and property (Nada Qaddourah, “What is Israel’s bulldozer strategy in the occupied West Bank?” Al Jazeera, April 24, 2024).

The reason Israel uses bulldozers is that Palestinian terrorists are increasingly planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in neighborhoods to discourage the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from entering. These are often homemade bombs that can be buried under streets to “destroy, incapacitate, harass, or distract” (“IED Attack,” News & Terrorism, National Academies and the Department of Homeland Security, Undated). IEDs can be detonated by remote control or by contact with a vehicle. They have disabled vehicles and injured soldiers.

The armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers clear roads and areas of IEDs, mines, and other explosives safely, reducing the risk of accidental explosions that could harm both soldiers and civilians. The D9 was modified with an Israeli-made armor kit and slat armor to protect its crew from bullets, bombs, and sniper fire and withstand explosive forces from IEDs, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), and other threats (“Israel Defense Force uses armored Caterpillar D9 bulldozers to destroy IEDs,” Army Recognition Group, July 7, 2023). The IDF also uses remotely operated D9 bulldozers for high-risk operations where human lives are at greater risk (Kurt Knutsson, “How Israel’s D9R armored bulldozer earned the nickname ‘The Teddy Bear,’” Fox News, October 15, 2023).

IEDs have been used in terrorist attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing (1995), the attack on commuter trains in Madrid (2004), the murder of Londoners (2005), the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta (1996), and were responsible for more than half of U.S. military combat casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan (Multiple authors, “Frequency of Improvised Explosive Devices and Suicide Attempts in the U.S. Army,” Military Medicine, 2017).

The use of IEDs is another example of terrorists using civilian shields. The bulldozers are indeed destructive but would be unnecessary in the absence of the threat. As is typically the case, it is the innocent Palestinians who suffer the consequences.

MYTH

Israel is an “ethnostate.”

FACT

On August 29, 2024, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Temple University held a protest targeting the campus Hillel, with inflammatory chants like “There is no room for an ethnostate in a truly liberated Middle East.” Similar slogans have been expressed in other SJP protests nationwide. However, this claim distorts the definition of an ethnostate and misrepresents Israel’s societal structure.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “ethnostate” as “a sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.”

By this definition, Israel does not qualify as an ethnostate. While Israel was founded as the homeland for the Jewish people, it is a pluralistic nation that guarantees legal equality to all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Approximately 25% of Israel’s population is non-Jewish, encompassing Arab Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouins, and other minority groups. These citizens are fully integrated into Israeli society and enjoy the same legal rights as Jewish citizens. They participate in all facets of public life, including politics, where Arab parties hold seats in the Knesset. Additionally, some non-Jewish citizens, particularly Druze and Bedouin communities, serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). This level of inclusion and civic participation is inconsistent with the concept of an ethnostate, where the dominant ethnic group typically marginalizes or excludes others (“Population - Statistical Abstract of Israel 2023 - No.74,” Israel Central Bureau of Statistics).

Israel’s legal framework safeguards the rights of all its citizens. The country’s Basic Laws guarantee freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. The Supreme Court ensures that no ethnic group is legally privileged over others, reinforcing Israel’s commitment to equality and justice for all its people, regardless of their background (“The State: The Law of the Land,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 29, 2021).

In contrast, many of Israel’s neighbors are far closer to the definition of an ethnostate. Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority have enshrined Islam as the official religion, providing privileges to Muslim citizens while restricting the rights of non-Muslims. For instance, in Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims cannot openly practice their faith, and apostasy can be punishable by death. These nations lack the legal protections and freedoms that are cornerstones of Israeli democracy (“World Report 2023,” Human Rights Watch; “Amnesty International Report 2022/23: The state of the world’s human rights,” Amnesty International, March 27, 2023).

The designation of Israel as a Jewish state refers to its cultural and historical identity, not to an exclusive ethnic or religious state. The Law of Return allows Jews to immigrate to Israel, recognizing their historical connection to the land; it does not deny others the right to immigrate or live in the country. Israeli nationalism is built on a shared national identity that transcends ethnic and religious lines.

The claim that Israel excludes or marginalizes non-Jews is simply false.

MYTH

The Palestinian Authority condemned Hamas’s actions on October 7.

FACT

Despite claiming to seek peace, most Palestinian Authority (PA) officials did not condemn Hamas’s actions on October 7. Instead, many Palestinian officials celebrated the attacks, justified the violence, and demonized Israel, reinforcing concerns about a future role for the PA after the war in Gaza ends.

Jibril Rajoub, Fatah Central Committee Secretary, praised Hamas for the massacre, stating that “Our brothers in Hamas – what they did on October 7, [2023] made them part of the Palestinian national self-liberation movement and outside the framework of the Muslim Brotherhood.” He also said, “I do not see any obstacle that could thwart achieving a common understanding for building an umbrella that will include the entire Palestinian people, a national consensus government, but for all Palestinians,” referring to the inclusion of Hamas in the PA (Jibril Rajoub, Facebook page, Nov. 30, 2024). Fatah Tulkarem Branch Secretary Iyad Jarrad said the Hamas massacre “was carried out by our fighters and our people there...We stand alongside our brothers in the Gaza Strip, because truly they are a source of pride, heroism, and honor for the Palestinian people” (Official PA TV, October 10, 2023). The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades said “our fighters are currently recording spectacular epics of heroism and sacrifice” (Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Telegram channel, October 7, 2023). Fatah Movement Deputy Chairman Mahmoud Al-Aloul called the attack “nothing but a natural response” and said “this is also the position of the Palestinian [PA] leadership” (WAFA, official PA news agency, October 10, 2023). These are just a few of the many examples of PA officials praising the Hamas murder of 1,200 Israelis and capture of 251 as hostages (Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “Fatah applauds Hamas murderers and rapists: ‘A source of pride, heroism, and honor,’” PMW, October 23, 2023; Itamar Marcus, “Palestinian Authority/Fatah leader says October 7 atrocities raised Hamas to status of Fatah as a Palestinian liberation movement,” PMW, December 3, 2024).

An investigation by the GnasherJew group, a digital investigation team, has uncovered troubling social media activity by numerous Palestinian diplomats worldwide, including those at the United Nations, in Europe, and across other regions. Many of these diplomats celebrated the October 7 Hamas attack, compared Israeli actions to those of the Nazis, and made statements supporting the destruction of Israel. The dossier, based on an analysis of hundreds of posts from over 30 profiles, found senior diplomats expressing anti-Semitic views and endorsing terrorism, a reminder of why Israel does not see the PA as a peace partner (“Palestinian Diplomats or Terrorists in Suits,” GNASHERJEW).

Some of the most egregious examples include Hassan Albalawi, the deputy head of the Palestinian mission to the EU, celebrating Hamas as “heroic,” and Khuloussi Bsaiso, a Palestinian diplomat at the UN, sharing a map of the Middle East that erased Israel. Similarly, Rana Abuayyash, consul at the Palestinian mission to London, shared posts comparing the Israeli flag to Hitler. Hala Abou-Hassira, the Palestinian ambassador to Paris, attempted to justify Hamas’s actions during the Nova Festival massacre (Jane Prinsley, “Revealed: Dozens of Palestinian diplomats celebrated October 7,” The Jewish Chronicle, August 29, 2024).

The investigation also revealed similar behavior among Palestinian diplomats in Africa and Asia. For example, the embassy in Tanzania shared content denying Israel’s legitimacy, while Thaer Abubaker, ambassador to Guinea and Sierra Leone, praised the October 7 attack as “heroic” and posted anti-Semitic content.

The report highlights that many of these diplomats, regarded as moral authorities in their host countries, continue to post such material on public profiles, often without facing any significant repercussions. The investigation’s findings have sparked calls for the immediate removal of these diplomats from their positions and their expulsion from host countries.

Prominent figures like former Ambassador Dennis Ross, and Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, have condemned the diplomats’ behavior. Ross emphasized the inconsistency in the PA’s claims of seeking peace while supporting Hamas, stating that such actions undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. Neuer accused the diplomats of hypocrisy, noting that despite their supposed commitment to peace and human rights, they openly defend and promote Hamas’s atrocities.

MYTH

UNIFIL has maintained peace in southern Lebanon.

FACT

In 1978, the United Nations Security Council ratified Resolutions 425 and 426, which simultaneously called upon Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory and created a UN force “for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.”

The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has been stationed in southern Lebanon since 1978. Since its arrival, UNIFIL’s mission has been threefold: prevent attacks on Israel, support the established Lebanese government, and, keep the peace, an objectively difficult task in the fractious region that has been dominated in the past by terrorist organizations and paramilitary forces such as the PLO, the Southern Lebanon Army, and Hezbollah. For most of its history, UNIFIL has either failed to prevent conflict or has stood by silently as terrorists have built up arsenals that enabled them to start or renew violent attacks against Israel. Under UNIFIL’s watch, southern Lebanon has served as the staging ground for terrorist attacks on Israel, which have provoked two wars, and is on the verge of starting a third, all of which could have been averted had the peacekeeping force fulfilled its mandate.

The 2006 war was triggered by Hezbollah attacks on Israel and the abduction of three of its soldiers. Rather than abandoning the idea of international peacekeepers, the UN decided to employ a similar force with a slightly expanded mandate. In passing UN Security Council Resolution 1701, the UN called for a larger UNIFIL contingent of up to 15,000 troops. The resolution required the disarmament of Hezbollah and other armed groups, the demilitarization of southern Lebanon, and the strengthening of UNIFIL to prevent the area from being used as a terrorist haven.

Once again, Israel was promised that its security would be enhanced. However, UNIFIL failed on every count. Despite the resolution’s call for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, Hezbollah continued to smuggle weapons in from Iran and Syria, turning southern Lebanon into a fortress of underground bunkers and rocket-launch sites (@israelmfa, August 25, 2024; “The U.N. Is Failing to Hold Hezbollah Accountable,” AIPAC, July 29, 2024).

With Iran’s support, Hezbollah has increased its arsenal since the resolution’s passage from 15,000 rockets to over 150,000 missiles and rockets today. In the ten months after the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre of Israelis, Hezbollah has fired more than 8,000 missiles, rockets, and drones into Israel, resulting in the deaths of over 40 Israelis and displacing more than 62,000 people in northern Israel. Furthermore, Hezbollah’s entrenchment in civilian areas, including hospitals, homes, mosques, and schools, has put Lebanese civilians at risk and violated Article 57 of the Geneva Conventions.

Despite its impotence, UNIFIL’s mandate continues to be renewed annually.

MYTH

Within Our Lifetime operates legitimately within free speech boundaries.

FACT

Within Our Lifetime (WOL), originally known as Students for Justice in Palestine NYC, supports violent “resistance” and terrorism as methods to achieve its objectives of ensuring that Israel is “wiped off the map” and Jews leave the country. WOL also endorses the actions of U.S.-designated terrorist organizations like Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The First Amendment does not protect such advocacy (“Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know,” Anti-Defamation League, March 2, 2023).

Furthermore, the organization’s calls for violence against Jewish individuals and pro-Israel organizations, coupled with encouragement to engage in actions that threaten public safety, constitute incitement and hate speech (“Who are the Primary Groups Behind the U.S. Anti-Israel Rallies?” Anti-Defamation League, October 20, 2023).

WOL’s connections with controversial groups, such as the Muslim American Society, which has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, should raise red flags for law enforcement.

In addition to these concerns, WOL has transparency issues that cast doubt on WOL’s legitimacy and accountability. The organization lacks public tax filings, and using a broken donation link for fundraising suggests potential attempts to evade scrutiny (“The NGO Network Orchestrating Antisemitic Incitement on American Campuses,” NGO Monitor, April 25, 2024).

MYTH

Israel’s actions have caused polio to spread in Gaza.

FACT

The claim that Israel has caused polio to spread among the Palestinian population in Gaza is unfounded. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 90% of the population in Gaza was vaccinated against polio in the first quarter of 2024, creating a significant barrier against an outbreak (@LTC_Shoshani, August 18, 2024).

In July, poliovirus was detected in environmental samples collected from sewage in Khan Yunis and Deir al-Balah. This virus was identified as a mutation found in samples collected in Egypt. Despite this detection, WHO’s ongoing surveillance has shown no cases of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), which is a key indicator of polio infection. This suggests that the virus has not led to an outbreak among the population (@israelmfa, August 19, 2024).

Since the onset of the conflict, the IDF’s Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) unit has played a critical role in managing the situation. They have coordinated the entry of over 282,000 vials of the polio vaccine into Gaza, providing nearly 2.8 million doses. In response to the detection of the virus, an additional 9,000 vials were brought in through the Kerem Shalom crossing, offering 90,000 more doses. Moreover, 43,250 vials of vaccine tailored to the detected virus are expected to arrive in the coming weeks, enough to vaccinate over one million children in Gaza in two rounds, totaling more than 2.1 million doses (“Gaza’s polio vaccination rate hits 90% with 282,000 vials distributed,” Jerusalem Post, August 19, 2024).

COGAT, along with the Israeli Ministry of Health, WHO, and UNICEF, conducts bi-weekly assessments to monitor the spread of the virus and coordinate vaccination efforts. These efforts include establishing 14 field hospitals in Gaza and delivering over 25,000 tons of medical supplies. Furthermore, three polio experts from WHO and UNICEF have been deployed to Gaza to assist local teams, collect stool samples, and prepare for an extensive vaccination campaign targeting 600,000 children aged 0-8 (“UNRWA chief says Gaza polio vaccine drive has reached 90% of children,” Times of Israel, September 16, 2024).

As of September 16, 2024, Polio vaccination coverage in Gaza has reached 90% following a campaign that began on September 1 to immunize approximately 640,000 children under 10. Over 446,000 children in central and southern Gaza were vaccinated, with the final 200,000 in northern Gaza receiving doses from September 10. The next step is administering a second dose at the end of September.

It’s worth noting that despite dozens of hospitals built with EU donations, thousands of UN relief workers on the ground for decades, and some of the highest per capita healthcare spending in the Arab world, Hamas failed to vaccinate Gaza’s children before the war. That is why Israel had to step in and carry out mass vaccinations. It raises a critical question: if Hamas claims to represent the rights of the people in Gaza, why did it fail to ensure the vaccination of children in the Strip?

MYTH

Israel intentionally targeted the World Central Kitchen aid workers??.

FACT

Seven employees of the World Central Kitchen (WCK) were tragically killed on April 1, 2024, by an Israeli airstrike. WCK said its team was transferring food to Gazans in marked cars when it came under attack and that it had coordinated its movements with the IDF. President Joe Biden said he was “outraged and heartbroken” by the incident (Statement from President Joe Biden on the Death of World Central Kitchen Workers in Gaza, White House, April 2, 2024).

Israel immediately apologized and pledged to investigate. Its initial conclusions were:

After the vehicles left the warehouse where the aid had been unloaded, one of the commanders mistakenly assumed that the gunmen were located inside the accompanying vehicles and that these were Hamas terrorists. The forces did not identify the vehicles in question as being associated with WCK. Following a misidentification by the forces, the forces targeted the three WCK vehicles based on the misclassification of the event and misidentification of the vehicles as having Hamas operatives inside them.

Several officers found responsible were dismissed.

Unsatisfied by the report, CNN’s Jim Acosta asked how the IDF failed to correctly identify the vehicles with WCK markings on the roof and sides. Lt. Gen Mark Hertling (Ret.) told him, “You don’t pick up anything like that at nighttime with a surveillance drone or an aircraft…. It’s really even difficult to see those kinds of marking during the day by a jet or a drone” (CNN, April 5, 2024).

The president has expressed concern over the conditions in Gaza and the insufficiency of aid. While acknowledging the tragedy, Biden understands that mistakes can happen in war, as they have during his time as both president and vice president.

For example, during the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, a U.S. drone strike in Kabul on August 29, 2021, mistakenly killed an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, the youngest a 2-year-old girl. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, initially called it “a righteous strike” that killed at least one person from ISIS. The Pentagon later concluded that “military surveillance may have misinterpreted information” and “multiple issues, including confirmation bias and communication breakdowns, led to the mistaken drone strike.” While Israel apologized and admitted its error within days, it took nearly three weeks for Milley to acknowledge the mistake, which he said was “heart wrenching” and “a horrible tragedy of war” (Lara Seligman, “‘Tragic mistake’: U.S. determines Kabul drone strike killed innocent aid worker, nine family members,” Politico, September 17, 2021). More than a year after the attack, the family had not been compensated or helped to resettle in the U.S. as the Biden administration promised (Courtney Kube, “Family, colleagues of Afghan aid worker killed in U.S. strike one year ago not yet in U.S., lawyer says,” NBC News, September 6, 2022).

In October 2015, during President Barack Obama’s term, a U.S. gunship attacked a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, operated by Doctors Without Borders, in which 42 staff and patients were killed and many wounded. The aircrew mistook the hospital for a Taliban-controlled building, which the Pentagon attributed to “avoidable human error compounded by process and equipment failures” (Richard Kemp, “Civilian casualties occur in fog of war as in killing of WCK staff,” Ynet, April 3, 2024).

That was only one instance. Obama authorized 542 drone strikes that killed 324 civilians (Micah Zenko, “Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 20, 2017).

On August 2, 2024, an independent Australian inquiry concluded that the strikes were not deliberately directed at World Central Kitchen. However, the inquiry emphasized the need for “stronger protocols” to protect aid workers in Gaza. The findings were described as “fairly consistent” with an Israeli military investigation, reinforcing Israel’s claims and accountability (“Special Adviser Public Report on the Government of Israel’s Response to the IDF Attack on World Central Kitchen Aid Workers In Gaza on Monday 1 April 2024,” Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, August 2, 2024).

MYTH

Israel’s policy of targeted killings is illegal and counterproductive.

FACT

In late July 2024, Israel targeted and killed a senior commander of Hezbollah and the Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau. Few people outside Lebanon or the Palestinian Authority shed a tear for the death of two arch terrorists; nevertheless, Israel was criticized for what some called illegal and counterproductive assassinations (Ibrahim Al-Marashi, “Israel’s assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders will backfire,” Al Jazeera, August 1, 2024; Cathrin Schaer, “Israel-Hamas: Are ‘targeted killings’ legal?” DW, August 1, 2024).

Israel is faced with a nearly impossible situation in which it must protect its civilian population from terrorists who are prepared to commit suicide to murder innocent Jews and indiscriminately fire rockets into Israeli towns. Israelis would prefer to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians and Lebanese, but radical Islamists and their backers in Iran have made clear they will accept nothing short of Israel’s destruction.

Outsiders advise Israel to “exercise restraint” rather than respond to terrorism. While this strategy may win praise from world leaders, it does nothing to assuage the victims’ pain or prevent further attacks.

When Israel knows a terror attack is imminent and has identified the masterminds planning it, the government has sometimes chosen to eliminate the threat. Israel’s attorney general reviewed the policy and determined that “targeted killing” is legal under Israeli and international law (Hirsh Goodman, “A Lesson Learned,” Jerusalem Report, September 19, 2005).

Then Deputy Chief of Staff Major General Moshe Ya’alon explained the policy this way:

There are no executions without a trial. There is no avenging someone who had carried out an attack a month ago. We are acting against those who are waging terror against us. We prefer to arrest them and have detained over 1,000. But if we can’t, and the Palestinians won’t, then we have no other choice but to defend ourselves (News Conference, September 12, 2001).

Targeting terrorists has several benefits:

It places a price on terror: Israelis cannot be attacked with impunity; terrorists know they will become targets themselves.
It is a method of self-defense: preemptive strikes eliminate the people who would otherwise murder Israelis.
It eliminates key leaders who may not easily be replaced.
It is a blow to their morale, exposing their vulnerability.
It throws terrorists off balance. Extremists cannot casually plan an operation; instead, they must stay on the move, always look over their shoulders, and work much harder to carry out their attacks.
It sows distrust among terrorists who must worry about collaborators and leakers, which can provoke internal dissension (Daniel Byman, “Do Targeted Killings Work?” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006).

In the specific cases of the targeted killing of Hezbollah’s Fuad Shukr and Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh, Israel sent a message “that Israel is not the paper tiger on the verge of collapse that many of Israel’s foes increasingly see when they look toward Jerusalem, and to put to rest any doubts about Israeli capabilities” (David Suissa, “There’s a Difference Between Fighting Terrorists and Terrorizing Them,” Jewish Journal, August 1, 2024).

“The [Hezbollah] party leadership has become certain that its ranks are infiltrated by networks of Israeli agents at high levels,” a source told the Jerusalem Post. “The party fears that Israel has complete data on the party’s formations, including names, photos, phone numbers, addresses, and audio data: (Danielle Greyman-Kennard, “Hezbollah tearing itself apart looking for internal leak that led to Shukr’s elimination,” Jerusalem Post, August 4, 2024).

The policy also has costs. Besides international condemnation, Israel risks revealing informers who provide the information needed to find the terrorists. Both success and failure can turn a terrorist into a martyr and hero. Those assigned to carry out the policy must engage in sometimes high-risk operations that occasionally cause tragic collateral damage to property and persons. The group targeted may also feel the need to take revenge, which can lead to escalation.

In the case of Shukr and Haniyeh, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas all vowed revenge. The prospect of a wider war prompted the United States to deploy significant resources to the region to deter an attack and, if necessary, defend Israel. The killings also came at a sensitive time when Haniyeh was the interlocutor in negotiations to free the Israeli hostages taken on October 7, 2023, in exchange for a ceasefire.

The most common criticism of targeted killings, in general, is that they are ineffective because they perpetuate a “cycle of violence” whereby the terrorists seek revenge. This is probably the least compelling argument because the people who wish to kill Jews to become martyrs always find a justification for their actions. Their goal is to destroy Israel, and they will not stop until they achieve their objective.

Meanwhile, nations that urge Israel to exercise restraint have often reacted forcefully in similar situations. For example, the British targeted IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland, and the United States targets al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders. The United States has launched hundreds of drone strikes to kill terrorists, and specific individuals have been targeted, as when President Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 (“Drones are Lynchpin of Obama’s War on Terror,” Der Spiegel, March 12, 2010); Scott Wilson, Craig Whitlock and William Branigin, “Osama bin Laden killed in U.S. raid, buried at sea,” Washington Post, May 2, 2011), and President Trump sanctioned the assassination of the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force Qasem Soleimani.

Most Israelis support the policy – 90% in a July 2001 Maariv poll (Steven R. David, “Fatal Choices: Israel’s Policy Of Targeted Killing,” BESA, September 2002). The American public also supports the tactic. A 2011 CBS News Poll found that 53% approved of killing a U.S. citizen in a foreign country if that person is known to be a terrorist. The following year, a Washington Post/ABC News Poll reported that 83% of Americans approved of the use of drones against terrorists; 79% supported using them against U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. In 2012, the Pew Research Center found 62% approval for drone strikes. The following year, several polls recorded similar results (Micah Zenko, “U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes,” Council on Foreign Relations, March 18, 2013). A 2015 survey found that 60% of Americans favored the use of drones to “target and kill people belonging to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda” (Cody M. Poplin, “New A.P. Poll on U.S. Targeted Killing Program,” The Lawfare Institute, May 1, 2015). In 2020, several polls found a plurality of Americans supported the killing of Soleimani (“Polls: Americans on Soleimani Strike,” United States Institute of Peace, January 27, 2020).

MYTH

The IDF’s use of 2,000 lb bombs is a violation of international law.

FACT

The use of 2,000-pound bombs by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) does not automatically constitute a violation of the laws of war. Western militaries, including the United States, have employed these weapons in various theaters. John Spencer, West Point’s urban warfare expert, noted that during its 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. dropped more than 5,000 of these bombs on military targets, including those in metropolitan areas such as Baghdad, Nasiriyah, and Basra. For example, four of these bombs were dropped on a building in Baghdad based on “‘time-sensitive intelligence that some senior Iraqi officials, possibly including Saddam and his two sons, were there.’” During the first Gulf War, the U.S. dropped more than 16,000 2,000-pound bombs on Iraqi targets (John Spencer, @SpencerGuard, May 14, 2024; John Spencer, “Vilifying Israel’s Use of 2,000-Pound Bombs Only Ends Up Costing More Lives | Opinion,” July 19, 2024).

Unlike those targets that were all above ground, Israel must use these bunker-busting munitions to penetrate miles of terror tunnels built by Hamas below civilian infrastructure. Hezbollah, like Hamas, has spent years digging tunnels deeper and deeper to protect what is believed to be an arsenal of over 100,000 rockets, missiles, and drones. Southern Lebanon is called the “Land of Tunnels" due to the miles of deep-buried underground networks. These tunnels serve as weapons caches, bunkers, command centers, and a transportation network for terrorists and weapons. Hence, the tunnels are legitimate military targets.

In violation of international law, Hamas deliberately constructed tunnels beneath densely populated areas to deter their targeting, knowing if they were struck, it would likely cause collateral damage. Hamas was unconcerned that this would include civilian casualties, as that would contribute to its goal of damaging Israel’s international image (“Everything You Need to Know About Hamas’ Underground City of Terror,” Israel Defense Forces, July 31, 2014).

According to Spencer, most bunker-busting munitions penetrate no more than 30-100 feet or 12-20 inches of concrete, depending on the size of the round. A 2,000-lb bomb is believed to be able to penetrate, depending on the kind and whether it must go through concrete, from 16 feet to more than 30 feet. It is well-documented that Hamas dug some very deep tunnels. One discovered by the IDF was 164 feet underground, making it extremely challenging to target even with heavy bombs (“IDF exposes the biggest Hamas tunnel found to date in Gaza,” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, December 17, 2023).

Furthermore, contrary to some selective media reporting about the use of these bombs and claims that their blast radius ensured civilian casualties, their impact depends on a variety of factors, including “the angle and velocity of the bomb’s delivery, the timing of its fuse, the height above (or depth below) ground of the detonation, and the nature of the target,” according to David Adesnik, a senior fellow and director of research at Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery (Ret.). “In fact, the U.S. and Israeli air forces can drop 2,000-pound bombs close to their own troops in battle without hurting them” (David Adesnik and Mark Montgomery, “The Big Lies About Israel’s Big Bombs,” Commentary, April 2024).

Urban warfare is inherently destructive and unlikely to end soon. Attempts to ban bombs and artillery in urban settings can perversely lead to more destruction as fights move into cities from rural areas, resulting in protracted, deadly block-by-block battles. Historical examples, such as the 1945 Battle of Manila and the 1950 Second Battle of Seoul, show that restricting bombing did not prevent mass civilian casualties or widespread destruction. More recent conflicts, like those against ISIS in Mosul and Raqqa, resulted in significant destruction and civilian deaths despite less aerial bombing due to the protracted nature of urban combat. According to Spencer, depriving Israel or any military force of the ability to use powerful bombs in densely populated areas only prolongs the human tragedy by extending the duration and destructiveness of urban warfare.

Despite the challenges, the IDF remains committed to international law and takes all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm. The IDF strategically uses bombs and other weaponry best suited to the mission to avoid non-combatant casualties to the greatest extent possible. This is in the face of Hamas’s deliberate strategy of embedding its tunnels, operatives, and weapons within densely populated neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, and mosques. While the IDF carries the responsibility to minimize collateral damage, it is Hamas that knowingly places civilians in harm’s way and should be held accountable.

MYTH

The ICJ’s ruling proves Israel’s occupation is unlawful.

FACT

On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a nonbinding advisory opinion that criticized Israel’s alleged land expropriation and settlement policies. It declared unlawful Israel’s continued presence in the “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” which it defined as the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza (despite Israel having evacuated the area in 2005). The Court also demanded that Israel immediately cease all new settlement activities, end its presence in these territories as soon as possible, and evacuate Jewish residents (“Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,” International Court of Justice, July 19, 2024; “Israeli officials concerned over diplomatic implications of ICJ ruling,” Ynet, July 20, 2024).

The advisory opinion overlooks Israel’s legal rights and historical ties. It dismisses the Jewish connection to Judaism’s holiest sites and disregards existing peace agreements, such as the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians and the treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which emphasize that conflicts must be resolved through direct negotiations. The opinion undermines UN Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from unspecified territories captured during the Six-Day War but links this to neighboring states ending their belligerence. By insisting on unconditional withdrawal from all the territories, the ICJ’s opinion conflicts with these established frameworks (“Israel’s arguments against The Hague, and the dissenting judges’ opinions: ‘What about the Palestinians’ obligations?’” Ynet, July 20, 2024 [Hebrew]).

By eschewing bilateral negotiations, the Court plays into the hands of extremists. It neglects ongoing Palestinian violations, including incitement to violence, funding of terrorists, and educating its youth to reject coexistence with Israel. The Court’s ruling also ignores Israel’s right to self-defense in light of the October 7 attack and regional threats from Iran and its proxies.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry described the opinion as politically biased, “completely detached” from reality, and inconsistent with the principle that peace must be achieved through “direct negotiations” (Jonathan Lis, “Israel’s foreign ministry rejects ICJ’s ‘fundamentally wrong’ opinion,” Haaretz, July 25, 2024).

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land -– not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, nor in our ancestral heritage of Judea and Samaria.” He added, ”No decision of lies in The Hague will distort this historical truth, and similarly, the legality of Israeli settlements in all parts of our homeland cannot be disputed” (Raffi Berg, “UN top court says Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal,” BBC, July 19, 202

The United States objected to the “breadth of the court’s opinion” and said it “will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict” because it is “inconsistent with the established framework” for negotiations (Kanishka Singh, “US criticizes ICJ opinion on Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories,” Reuters, (July 20, 2024).

The Palestinian Authority brought the matter to the Court as part of its ongoing campaign to demonize Israel in international forums. Israel had negotiated with the PA contingent on refraining from such behavior.

Concerns over the Court’s impartiality further compound criticism of the ICJ’s decision. The president of the Court, Nawaf Salam, has a record of pronounced bias against Israel from his time as Lebanon’s UN ambassador from 2007 to 2017. Salam voted 210 times to condemn Israel and made numerous inflammatory statements accusing it of terrorism and war crimes while failing to address human rights abuses by other regimes, such as Iran and Syria. Salam’s demonstrated disdain for Israel violates the ICJ Charter’s requirement for impartiality and fairness and should have disqualified him from involvement in this case (“Report: Head of World Court Condemned Israel 210 Times as Lebanon’s UN Rep, Sided With Regimes in Iran, Syria, Belarus, Cuba,” UN Watch, July 18, 2024).

Dissenting judges, including Julia Sebutinde (Uganda), Rony Abraham (France), Peter Tomka (Slovakia), and Bogdan Aurescu (Romania) criticized the majority opinion for legal errors and failing to balance the needs and obligations of both parties. Sebutinde opposed the entire opinion, while the ruling that Israel must promptly evacuate the settlements was opposed by Abraham (France), Tomka (Slovakia), and Aurescu (Romania). Sebutinde, Abraham, and Aurescu also rejected the call for countries to avoid assisting in maintaining the current situation in the territories and not recognizing it. The dissenters also highlighted the failure to address Palestinian obligations and the need for the parties to return to immediate negotiations. The decision, they concluded, also fails to recognize that Israel’s obligation to withdraw from the territories is subject to guarantees for its security.

MYTH

Israel is committing the war crime of “domicide.”

FACT

If Israel cannot be proven to commit war crimes, some demonizers would like to invent new ones to accuse Israel of perpetrating, such as “domicide.” Balakrishnan Rajagopal, an MIT law professor and proponent of the idea, concedes that the destruction of homes is not “mentioned in the Geneva Conventions or the definition of crimes against humanity according to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court or in the UN draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity.” He also acknowledges that “the widespread or systematic destruction of homes has long been a feature of modern warfare” (Balakrishnan Rajagopal, “Domicide: The Mass Destruction of Homes Should Be a Crime Against Humanity,” MIT Faculty Newsletter, January-March 2024).

In armed conflict, buildings can become legitimate military targets under specific conditions: if they are used for military purposes, contribute to military action, or are strategically significant. In exceptional cases like large-scale combat or house-to-house fighting, buildings sheltering combatants can also be considered military objectives (Yoram Dinstein, “Legitimate Military Objectives Under The Current Jus In Bello,” International Law Studies, Vol. 78, Undated; Marco Sassòli, “Legitimate Targets Of Attacks Under International Humanitarian Law, International Humanitarian Law Research Institute, January 27-29, 2003).

Places generally protected under international law, such as religious sites, can become legitimate targets if used by combatants. A mosque, for example, can be attacked if a sniper uses the minaret.

Israel’s military actions, including the targeting of buildings, are guided by these principles and are carried out with careful consideration to minimize civilian casualties. Israel often issues warnings and evacuation orders to civilians in targeted areas, demonstrating a commitment to uphold humanitarian standards even in the heat of combat.

Hamas makes it as difficult as possible to protect civilians by sometimes forcing noncombatants to stay in the line of fire (see, for example, “Hamas tells Gaza residents to stay put as Israel ground offensive looms, Reuters, October 13, 2023). It also deliberately uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes, including homes, schools, hospitals, and mosques. Weapons are routinely stored in residential areas, and tunnels are dug beneath civilian buildings. Tunnels and buildings are booby-trapped. We also now know that hostages were, and probably still are, held in abandoned homes and those with terrorists and families.

Major (Ret.) Andrew Fox, a retired British officer, traveled to Rafah with the IDF and reported that troops “enter houses first with drones, then dogs. Only when a house is seemingly clear do they enter, and even then, only in four-man squads to minimize casualties if a bomb goes off.” Fox noted that “Hamas has cameras in each home, with cables running into the tunnels. If they see the IDF have missed an IED [improvised explosive device], they wait for troops to enter, then detonate the device.” Because of the number of IEDs throughout Gaza, the IDF frequently chooses to destroy the buildings rather than risk entry, which is one reason for the amount of destruction (Andrew Fox, “How Israel is clearing Hamas out of Rafah,” The Spectator, August 20, 2024).

It is also sometimes necessary to destroy buildings to kill terrorists inside them and to destroy tunnels beneath them. In one case, the IDF found a tunnel that ran from Shejaia to the border fence. To eliminate this tunnel, the buildings above had to be flattened (Herb Keinon, “From Hamas stronghold to wasteland: What does it mean to defeat the enemy?” Jerusalem Post, July 9, 2024).

Media coverage often focuses on the aftermath of Israeli strikes, selectively portraying destruction without context. For instance, a Wall Street Journal article highlighted Israel’s targeted bombing aimed at the mastermind of the October 7 attack, Mohammed Deif. The title gives the impression Israel must have destroyed an entire city with 2,000-pound bombs; however, the surrounding areas depicted in the accompanying photo remained largely untouched, underscoring Israel’s efforts to minimize collateral damage amidst complex urban environments (Dov Lieber, Fatima AbdulKarim, and Lara Seligman, “To Target a Top Militant, Israel Rained Down Eight Tons of Bombs,” Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2024).

Claims of “domicide” oversimplify the complexities of urban warfare and fail to acknowledge Hamas’s culpability in using civilian areas for military purposes. The IDF’s operations are conducted with the utmost regard for international law, targeting only those structures that pose a legitimate threat to Israeli security and are used by combatants.

“Domicide” not only lacks legal grounding but also misrepresents Israel’s adherence to international humanitarian norms. Israel’s actions are justified responses to imminent threats posed by terrorist groups operating within civilian populations.

MYTH

Israel has killed 186,000 Palestinians in Gaza.

FACT

On July 5, 2024, The Lancet, a respected peer-reviewed medical journal, published a letter suggesting that the situation in Gaza could be considered genocide, with an estimated death toll of 186,000 people. That total is an estimate based on the number of direct fatalities stemming from the armed conflict and indirect deaths “from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases.” These unverifiable claims were subsequently reported as truths by many global news outlets in yet another case of the media spreading unfounded allegations to demonize Israel (Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, Salim Yusuf, “Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential,” Lancet, July 5, 2024).

The correspondence was published without the journal’s standard peer review. By irresponsibly publishing this opinion piece without the scrutiny of experts, The Lancet allowed the authors to promote a political agenda rather than document facts.

The article starts with the claim that over 37,000 people have been killed in Gaza since October 7 - a figure attributed to the Gaza Health Ministry, i.e., Hamas. The authors assert this data is corroborated by Israeli intelligence services and independent analyses, yet they provide little evidence except for unidentified secondary sources to support their claim. They also ignore more credible analyses that have concluded the fatality numbers coming from Hamas “have lost any claim to validity.” It is also important to note that the figure stated does not distinguish between terrorists, who Israel targeted, and uninvolved civilians, who Israel took extensive measures to avoid striking (Rachel O’Donoghue, “186,000 Dead in Gaza”: The Lancet Publishes Most Outrageous Claims About the Israel-Hamas War Yet,” HonestReporting, July 9, 2024; Gabriel Epstein, “Gaza Fatality Data Has Become Completely Unreliable,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, March 26, 2024).

Based on this figure, the authors then rely on previous studies of recent conflicts, which indicated that three to 15 times as many people died indirectly for every person who had died violently, to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza. Michael Spagat, a professor of economics at Royal Holloway College at the University of London, wrote in an analysis that the letter “lacks a solid foundation and is implausible.” He argued that the authors had compared Gaza with a small and unrepresentative sample of other conflicts and that conditions in Gaza, a small territory under intense international attention, are unique. An essential factor in this context is that in this conflict, Israel provides humanitarian aid to the same area in which the war is being waged against Hamas, with the explicit intent of minimizing civilian casualties. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the figure presented is grossly inflated because it does not consider the unvalidated figures presented by Hamas or the unique features of this conflict compared to others (Matthew Mpoke Bigg, “Fighting Isn’t the Only Killer of Gazans Amid the War, Researchers Say,” New York Times, July 11, 2024).

Finally, it is noteworthy that at least one of the authors, Rasha Khatib, who declared “no competing interests” at the end of the article, is a former researcher at Birzeit University in the West Bank who has a history of defending Palestinian terrorism, having previously justified such barbaric attacks as an “inevitable response to occupation.” It is safe to say that such strong convictions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict constitute interests that could influence this author’s work, and, unfortunately, The Lancet did not indicate this when the article was published.

Similarly, a June 2025 survey led by Prof. Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway, University of London, in collaboration with the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, claims that 75,000 people were killed in Gaza, around 30,000 more than reported by Gaza’s Ministry of Health, suggesting a 40% undercount. However, this conclusion contradicts well-established patterns: families in Gaza have strong incentives to report deaths, including financial compensation and social recognition. The study overlooks this by assuming widespread underreporting despite consistent evidence of systematic overreporting. It also failed to ask whether deaths were reported to health authorities or morgues, did not verify names with existing death lists, and inflated other metrics like births and missing persons far beyond plausible figures. These inconsistencies indicate significant methodological flaws that invalidate the study’s central claim (@GeraldNGOM, June 29, 2025; @Aizenberg55, June 29, 2025).

MYTH

Israel has prevented humanitarian aid from entering Gaza.

FACT

Following the massacre perpetrated by Hamas and other terrorist groups on October 7, the IDF has been actively working to dismantle their capabilities. Throughout this operation, the IDF maintains a clear distinction between terrorist organizations and the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. Israel has also made sure that critical humanitarian aid, including medical supplies, fuel, water, and shelter, has been delivered through multiple entry points.

The Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) unit, responsible for implementing the government’s civilian policy in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, established a coordination mechanism to work with the international community to coordinate and synchronize humanitarian efforts in Gaza.

Most aid is initially routed to Egypt and then forwarded for Israeli security screening at either the Nitzana or Kerem Shalom Crossings. From there, aid organizations are supposed to distribute it inside Gaza. The remaining aid is sent to Gaza via the Rafah crossing in Egypt. After the IDF began its operation in Rafah, Egypt blocked that entrance. Additional aid has been delivered through Jordan via air drops and the pier constructed by U.S. troops. The volume of aid is determined, among other factors, by the capacity of humanitarian organizations to warehouse and distribute it (“Swords of Iron Humanitarian Efforts,” COGAT).

As of October 15, 2024, a total of 1,081,294 tons, equivalent to equivalent to 54,786 trucks of humanitarian supplies, have been successfully delivered to Gaza since October 7:

837,440 tons of food.
51,610 tons of water.
27,327 tons of medical supplies.
78,725 tons of shelter equipment.
23,790 tons of cooking gas.
29,155,044 liters of fuel.

Notably, the U.S. military’s Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) capability facilitated the delivery of 166 trucks of supplies (“Update on the Construction of the Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore Capability in Mediterranean Sea,” USCENTCOM, May 3, 2024).

Furthermore, the IDF has overseen 128 humanitarian airdrops, distributing a total of 9,756 packages. Various countries donated these packages, including Belgium, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, the Netherlands, the UK, UAE, and the USA.

A study by esteemed academics and health officials found that the food supply in Gaza from January to April 2024 was sufficient. The average daily energy availability was 3,163 kcal per person, exceeding the Sphere standard of 2,100 kcals. Moreover, the food supply during this period was significantly higher than before October 7 (Jeremy Sharon, “New study finds food supply to Gaza more than sufficient for population’s needs,” Times of Israel, May 24, 2024).

This study was further supported when the UN’s Famine Review Committee published a report on June 4, 2024. The report revealed a lack of “supporting evidence” to confirm a famine in the northern Gaza Strip definitively. The committee urged all involved parties to facilitate humanitarian access in northern Gaza. Following the report’s release, the IDF declared a daily “tactical pause of military activity,” enabling more humanitarian aid to reach Palestinian civilians (“United Nations committee says not enough evidence to declare famine in Gaza,” Ynet, June 17, 2024).

The same committee, connected to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, issued a second report on June 25 that came to a similar conclusion. It said previous projections regarding the amount of food entering Gaza were wrong and that the supply had increased rather than decreased. “In this context, the available evidence does not indicate that famine is currently occurring,” the report said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “[Israel] will continue to take unprecedented measures to move innocent civilians out of harm’s way and to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those in need in Gaza.” (“Statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” Israel Prime Minister’s Office, May 20, 2024).

A major obstacle to the provision of aid to those who need it has been Hamas, which has looted deliveries and warehouses. Disorganization among the aid agencies has also contributed to the failure to deliver all the supplies Israel has allowed to enter. Desperate Gazans have also mobbed delivery trucks and taken aid before it reaches its intended destination (Seth J. Frantzman, “How to ensure humanitarian aid gets to the right people in Gaza - analysis,” J erusalem Post, May 22, 2024).

MYTH

Israel closed the Rafah crossing to prevent Gazan civilians from escaping.

FACT

On June 15, 2024, the Washington Post reported that Israel closed the Rafah crossing upon initiating its military offensive in the area, “dashing any hope of escape for ill and injured Palestinian civilians” (Miriam Berger, Hajar Harb, “With Rafah crossing closed by Israel, Gazans have no way out,” Washington Post, June 15, 2024). Co-author Harb is a London-based reporter with a documented history of supporting Hamas and its October 7 massacre of Israelis. Given her convictions, it is unsurprising that the article is biased and inaccurate (Washington Post Contributor Celebrated Oct. 7 Massacre, CAMERA, April 1, 2024).

Egypt controls the Rafah passage from the Gaza Strip into its sovereign territory. Egypt informed Israel that it would not reopen the Rafah border crossing while Israeli troops remained on the Gazan side, despite significant pressure on Cairo to do so (Hamza Hendawi, “Egypt refuses to reopen Rafah crossing while Israel controls its Gaza side,” National, June 15, 2024; Natasha Preskey, “Israel and Egypt row over reopening Rafah border crossing,” BBC, May 15, 2024; Egypt rejects Israeli plans for Rafah crossing, sources say,” Reuters, May 16, 2024; “Egypt rejects Israel’s control of Rafah crossing on Gaza side, says it can’t reopen,” New Arab, June 3, 2024). This is not a new policy related to the Israeli operation. From the beginning of the war, Egypt has refused to allow Gazans to seek refuge there, including thousands of people who requested to leave Gaza for medical treatment abroad. Only Gazans who have paid bribes of as much as $15,000 (a fortune few Gazans can afford) have been given sanctuary (“How much do Palestinians pay to get out of Gaza?” The Economist, April 25, 2024).

The entire humanitarian crisis could have been avoided, and thousands of lives saved if Egypt had welcomed the Palestinians for the duration of the war.

MYTH

Israel’s ban on Al Jazeera’s operations is an illegal infringement on free speech.

FACT

On May 5, 2024, Israel’s cabinet unanimously voted to cease the operations of the Qatari news outlet, Al Jazeera, in Israel. This decision came nearly six months after initially declaring their intent to do so, citing security concerns related to the conflict between Israel and Hamas. This included shutting down Al Jazeera broadcasts in Arabic and English, closing Al Jazeera’s offices in Israel, seizing equipment used for its broadcasts, and limiting website access. (Eliav Breuer, “Government votes to shut down Al Jazeera in Israel,” Jerusalem Post, May 5, 2024).

The decision requires recertification every 45 days and must be approved by the prime minister and the security cabinet on the recommendation of at least one security agency and reviewed by a district court judge.

In its decision, the cabinet explained that classified recommendations from the Shin Bet deemed Al Jazeera a national security threat. The IDF and Mossad also provided classified recommendations supporting limiting Al Jazeera’s broadcasts in Israel.

These recommendations were further validated when, on June 13, 2024, the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court approved the Israeli government’s request to renew the ban. The court found a direct and causal connection between individuals who carried out terror attacks inside Israel and the consumption of Al Jazeera content. Furthermore, it determined a close connection between Al Jazeera and Hamas, stating that some Al Jazeera reporters in Gaza had turned themselves into assistants and partners with Hamas and that some had carried out terror attacks. Other classified documents shown to the court established that Hamas sees Al Jazeera as its public diplomacy and intelligence arm (Jeremy Sharon, “Court approves extension of ban on Al Jazeera operations in Israel,” Times of Israel, June 13, 2024).

It was later reported that Abdallah Aljamal, a former columnist and contributor to Al Jazeera in Gaza, was holding three Israeli hostages kidnapped on October 7 in his home with his family before he was killed by Israeli commandos during a rescue operation on June 8, 2024. Notably, Aljamal also worked as a spokesman for the Hamas-run labor ministry. This exemplifies the direct and indirect connection of Al Jazeera-affiliated journalists to Hamas (Ronny Reyes, “Gaza journalist who wrote for Al Jazeera was holding 3 hostages in home with family, Israel says,” New York Post, June 9, 2024).

Al Jazeera was originally created and funded by the emir of Qatar in response to criticism from other media outlets. “He hoped to take away viewership from stations critical of him and of Qatar. There was another service that Al Jazeera provided to Qatari rulers: As a welcome voice viewed by Arabs as reflecting their own aspirations, Al Jazeera helped protect the Qataris from intense criticism for being a pro-American emirate that hosted a base for American airplanes attacking Iraq in the unpopular 2003 Iraq war,” according to University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami. He added that because Qatar’s rulers have poured billions of dollars into the network, it doesn’t need to make a profit (Shibley Telhami, “Al Jazeera: The Most-Feared News Network,” Brookings, June 15, 2013).

Suzan Quitaz, who has worked on projects for Al Jazeera, quoted Iraqi journalist Sufian Al-Samarrai, Chairman of the Baghdad Post, who calls Al Jazeera “nothing more than a platform of armed political Islamist gangs, and their ferocity and terrorism are promoted as a legitimate resistance.” Its goal is “to overthrow the current secular-conservative Arab regimes…paving the way for political Islam, represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, to take over the region” (Suzan Quitaz, “Al Jazeera – Feeding the Muslim Brotherhood’s Political Agenda to the Arab World,” JCPA, (June 18, 2024).

While the rights to free speech, press freedom, and the public’s right to access diverse narratives are crucial for Israel, as they are for any democracy, they are not absolute and carry associated responsibilities. The evidence presented to the court by Israeli authorities showcased that the operations of Al Jazeera and its employees have long breached journalistic integrity and may have security implications.

Israel is not the only country to ban the network. Quitaz noted that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, and Morocco have also done so. The United States has not restricted Al Jazeera but has accused it of incitement.

MYTH

Israel targeted civilians when it bombed a UNRWA school in central Gaza.

FACT

The media widely reported that Israel conducted an airstrike on a school that killed 33 Palestinians on June 5, 2024. As in other such instances, the press parroted the claims of Hamas officials. The facts omitted by most journalists were that the IDF conducted a precision strike on the UNRWA ‘Asmaa’ school in Shati, Gaza, where a container room was used as a Hamas operations cell and meeting point. Those targeted were members of Hamas’s elite Nukhba force and Palestine Islamic Jihad, who directed terror attacks from the school in yet another example of attempting to use a civilian location as a shield. The IDF reported that around 30 terrorists were in the three rooms targeted, some of whom had participated in the October 7 massacre. The IDF confirmed the deaths of nine terrorists in the strike (Emanuel Fabian, “‘Falling for Hamas tactics’: IDF names 9 terrorists killed in school strike, slams media,” Times of Israel, June 7, 2024).

MYTH

Israel bombed Rafah with no regard for civilian lives.

FACT

On May 26, 2024, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) executed a targeted operation against two senior Hamas terrorists at a compound in Rafah. These individuals were involved in planning and carrying out attacks against Israelis, making them legitimate targets under international law (“Full statement by IDF Spokesperson RAdm. Daniel Hagari regarding the recent strike that occurred in Rafah,” Israel Defense Forces, May 28, 2024; “Important details about the IDF’s ongoing after action into the Rafah strike,” Israel Foreign Ministry, May 28, 2024).

The operation did not occur within the IDF’s designated humanitarian zone, and surveillance was used to determine whether any civilians were in the area. The precise strike utilized two small explosive munitions (37 lbs each), far smaller than other Western militaries use in comparable situations. Nevertheless, the strikes ignited a fire in a nearby compound. The Hamas-run health ministry said 45 people were killed and dozens more wounded. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a “tragic mistake,” and the government launched an investigation.

The IDF is exploring the possibility that nearby weapons and ammunition contributed to the fire. A rocket launcher used to fire rockets into Israel was located less than 150 feet from the targeted structure, suggesting that additional weapons were likely stored nearby. An intercepted call between two Gazans further suggests that secondary explosions from a Hamas ammunition warehouse, situated more than 300 feet away from the strike site, could have triggered the fire (“The IDF intercepted a call between two Gazans which suggests that secondary explosions from a Hamas ammunition warehouse near the civilian compound and over 100 meters away from the strike site may have caused yesterday’s fire in Rafah,” Israel Foreign Ministry, May 29, 2024).

Despite the IDF’s best efforts to target only legitimate threats and minimize collateral damage, this operation failed to prevent civilian casualties. The IDF is investigating the incident to inform future operational decisions aimed at reducing collateral damage. However, it is essential to note that Hamas bears the responsibility for embedding itself within the civilian population. It will have additional culpability if it is proven that, as in some past cases, the tragedy was due to Hamas storing weapons and ammunition near civilians. Hamas has no regard for Palestinian lives, placing innocents in harm’s way, an ongoing violation of international law. Moreover, not a single Gazan would be in danger if Hamas surrendered and released the more than 100 Israeli hostages it holds.

MYTH

Israel is defying the ICJ’s order concerning Rafah.

FACT

On May 24, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered Israel to cease any military operations against Hamas in Rafah, “which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part.” This order aligns with the court’s previous stance, urging Israel to comply with the Genocide Convention. In response, Israel’s National Security Council and Ministry of Foreign Affairs jointly affirmed that Israel would not conduct actions in Rafah that could lead to the physical destruction of the Palestinian civilian population (“ICJ Order: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel),” United Nations, May 24, 2024; Natasha Hausdorff, “No, the ICJ hasn’t ordered Israel to halt operations,” Telegraph, May 26, 2024; “Joint Statement by the Head of the National Security Council and the Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” Israel Foreign Ministry, May 24, 2024).

The practical implications of the order remain unclear. The entire decision did not specify whether Israel should halt its entire Rafah military operation or if it could continue, provided it does not pose a genocidal risk. However, after the court published its two minority opinions and those of three majority judges, it became evident that four of the five judges who addressed this issue believe that Israel can continue its military action in Rafah, provided it does not put the Palestinian population at risk of annihilation (Yuval Yoaz, “Confused by the ICJ’s decision on Gaza? Blame the judges’ deliberate ambiguity,” Times of Israel, May 25, 2024).

Israeli ad-hoc judge Aharon Barak, in his minority opinion, stated that the measure preserves Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens and to prevent and repel threats and attacks by Hamas. German judge Georg Nolte, who joined the majority judges, wrote that the measure obliging Israel to halt the current military offensive in Rafah is conditioned by the need to prevent conditions that could bring about the physical destruction of the Palestinian group in Gaza. Romanian Judge Bogdan Aurescu and Judge Sebutinde supported this position.

South African ad-hoc judge Dire Tladi was the only judge who expressed a contrary position, stating that the order altogether prohibited any offensive Israeli action in the Rafah area. However, he emphasized that the order forbids only “offensive” actions and that Israel’s defensive actions, which come in response to Hamas’s attacks, are not prohibited.

The other ten judges did not publish interpretations.

Thus, it is evident from the majority of interpretations of the ICJ order that Israel can maintain its defensive military operation in Rafah against Hamas. This continuation is contingent upon Israel avoiding actions that could result in the annihilation of the Palestinian population, a commitment that Israel has consistently affirmed.

MYTH

Israeli leaders have committed war crimes in Gaza.

FACT

On May 20, 2024, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, announced his decision to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for their roles in the Israeli offensive against Hamas that began after the Hamas massacre of Israelis on October 7, 2023. Ignoring Israeli objections, the ICC officially issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant on November 21, 2024. This was the first time the court had taken such action against the leaders of a democratic country, the first charges of the “crime of starvation,” the first allegations of war crimes during a defensive war, and the first prosecution of a non-state party to the ICC based on the request of an entity not universally recognized as a state. The two men could be subject to arrest in more than 120 countries that accept the ICC’s jurisdiction, including most of Europe but not the United States. At the same time, the ICC has ignored living Hamas leaders responsible for crimes against humanity, including holding 101 hostages in inhumane conditions, and instead issued only one arrest warrant against a deceased Hamas leader, Mohammed Deif, while focusing its warrants on Israeli leaders. This selective action is a gross injustice.

Khan alleges that Netanyahu and Gallant are suspected of crimes, including the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, murder, intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population, and extermination (“Situation in the State of Palestine: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I rejects the State of Israel’s challenges to jurisdiction and issues warrants of arrest for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant,” ICC, November 21, 2024). Contrary to these accusations, military experts have indicated that Israel has gone to unprecedented lengths to ensure the safety and welfare of uninvolved civilians in enemy territory during a military campaign. This includes minimizing collateral damage and providing a steady supply of humanitarian aid to conflict-affected areas.

Five prominent British lawyers said the warrant requests were “wrong in principle and not credible, for at least five reasons. First, because after October 7, Israel was entitled to seek to remove the ability of Hamas to murder, rape, and abduct more Israeli citizens (as it has promised to do). Second, because Hamas hides behind the civilian population in Gaza, it is sadly inevitable that any attempt by Israel to defend its people will lead to civilian deaths, for which Hamas is responsible. Third, Israel continues to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, much of it stolen and used by Hamas. Fourth, the application for arrest warrants against Hamas leaders could and should have occurred months ago, and its occurrence now suggests, absurdly, some form of moral equivalence. And fifth, the ICC prosecutor usually declines to act where there is an independent and effective legal system in the state concerned able to address any legal charges. No one could seriously doubt that is so in Israel, which has one of the most independent judiciaries in the world and which has, in the past, sent a prime minister to prison for wrongdoing” (Morning Brief, BICOM, May 22, 2024). Furthermore, the ICC lacks jurisdiction in this case, as Israel is not a state party to its conventions, and the Palestinian Authority, not being a sovereign country, may not be a party to it either.

A team of distinguished legal experts led by professor emeritus at Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz has been assembled to defend Netanyahu and Gallant against the arrest warrants. The group includes former U.S. attorneys general Michael Mukasey and William Barr, former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Canadian attorney general Irwin Cotler, and Andrew Cuomo, the former governor and attorney general of New York. Other prominent figures include Floyd Abrams, Susan Estrich, Nathan Lewin, Benjamin Brafman, Arthur Aidala, Ron Sullivan, Kendall Coffey, Nadine Strossen, Mark Levin, and David Boies. Their collective expertise underscores the seriousness and global scope of this effort. The team argues that the ICC lacks jurisdiction over Israel, a non-member state with a robust and independent judiciary capable of prosecuting its leaders, unlike Hamas, which, as a terrorist organization, has no comparable legal system; that Israel’s military actions in Gaza adhere to international law, with civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios among the lowest in modern conflicts, despite Hamas obstructing humanitarian aid efforts; and that the ICC’s attempt to equate Hamas’s terrorism with Israel’s self-defense perpetuates a double standard, undermining its credibility and the integrity of international law. They also argue for the need for the U.S. to apply sanctions against the court to uphold justice and fairness (Alan M. Dershowitz, I’m Putting Together a Legal Dream Team to Defend Israel, WSJ, November 24, 2024).

Drawing parallels between the leaders of a democratic country defending itself from terror and the leaders of a terror organization that initiated the October 7 massacre is a distortion of justice. This false moral equivalency blurs the lines between perpetrator and victim and may empower militant groups and terror worldwide.

Former British Prime Minister Sunak said, “There is no moral equivalence between a democratic state exercising its lawful right to self-defense and the terrorist group Hamas. It is wrong to conflate and equivocate between those two different entities.” President Joe Biden shared similar sentiments. “There is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas,” he said, adding that the decision by the prosecutor is “outrageous.” After the arrest warrants were made official, Biden doubled down on his statements (Noah Keate, “UK’s Sunak slams ICC arrest warrant for Netanyahu,” Politico, May 21, 2024; Michael Williams, “Biden denounces ICC for ‘outrageous’ implication of equivalence between Israel and Hamas,” CNN, May 20, 2024; “Statement from President Joe Biden on Warrants Issued by the International Criminal Court,” The White House, November 21, 2024).

Secretary of State Antony Blinken added that ICC arrest decisions could jeopardize efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement, secure a hostage deal, and increase humanitarian aid in Gaza (“Blinken says ICC arrest warrants could jeopardize cease-fire, hostage release efforts,” Reuters, May 20, 2024). After the arrest warrants were made official, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby said America “fundamentally rejects” the Court’s decision. “The United States has been clear that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over this matter.” (“US ‘Fundamentally Rejects’ ICC Warrant For Israeli PM,” AFP, November 21, 2024). Other countries, including Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Argentina, stated that the court’s warrants are not legitimate and will therefore not abide by them (“UK indicates it could arrest Netanyahu on ICC warrant, as Hungary invites him to visit,” Times of Israel, November 22, 2024).

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected the allegations by the chief prosecutor. He stated, “Israel is waging a just war against Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that has perpetrated the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Hamas has massacred 1200 Jews, raped Jewish women, burned Jewish babies, and taken hundreds hostage.” Netanyahu added, “Israel will continue to wage this war in full compliance with international law. We will continue to take unprecedented measures to move innocent civilians out of harm’s way and to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those in need in Gaza.” (“Statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,” Israel Prime Minister’s Office, May 20, 2024).

Furthermore, according to Eugene Konorvich, a professor at George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School, the ICC ruling could pose a threat not just to Israel but to other liberal democracies, including the U.S., by discouraging their leaders from taking lawful actions to defend their nations. Democracies, with their transparency and leadership transitions, are uniquely vulnerable to politically motivated indictments, unlike authoritarian regimes. The ICC’s expansion of jurisdiction raises concerns it could target U.S. officials, as seen with its investigations into U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Mosul. By penalizing lawful defense efforts while emboldening bad actors, the ICC risks undermining justice and global security (Eugene Konorvich, “The International Criminal Court’s Folly,” The Atlantic, November 27, 2024).

Khan is currently entangled in a sexual harassment scandal under external investigation, complicating his campaign to issue arrest warrants against Israeli leaders. Furthermore, Khan’s decision to retain the British law firm Bindmans, representing prominent Palestinian organizations lobbying for action against Israel, raises concerns about a significant conflict of interest. This connection has fueled speculation, including theories that Khan’s pursuit of the warrants might serve to divert attention from his scandal. Calls for his suspension have intensified, with questions about his impartiality given Bindmans’ pro-Palestinian stance and their role in supplying evidence supporting his cases against Israeli officials (Itamar Eichner, “The new entanglement of the prosecutor in The Hague,” Ynet, November 11, 2024 [Hebrew]). Referring to the investigation of Khan for sexual harassment, Netanyahu said, “The decision was made by a corrupt chief prosecutor trying to save his skin from serious sexual harassment allegations” (Ron Kampeas, “International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister,” JTA, November 21, 2024).

In 2013, Khan authored an academic essay suggesting that the ICC is fundamentally flawed in its ability to provide due process to defendants. The essay critiques the court’s practices and argues that these systemic issues could render efforts to arrest figures like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unjust. Therefore, Khan’s work exposes the ICC’s incapability to deliver true justice, citing procedural biases and the influence of media and NGOs in shaping public perception against defendants (Benjamin Weinthal, “ICC prosecutor Khan co-authored essay saying defendants can’t get fair shake at world court: report,” Fox News, June 1, 2024).

In 2007, while representing former Liberian President Charles Taylor, who was accused of war crimes in Sierra Leone, Khan was nearly held in contempt by the ICC. The presiding judge reprimanded Khan for attempting to override a court order and directed him to sit down. Instead, Khan walked out of the courtroom with his materials, leading the judge to allow the prosecution to continue. Taylor was ultimately convicted by the ICC in 2012. This incident questions Khan’s credibility in ensuring due process within the ICC.

The ICC has overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, despite Israel not being a member of the court. These warrants are a direct assault on Israel’s right to self-defense and undermine its efforts to protect its citizens. By targeting Israel, the ICC is effectively rewarding groups that flagrantly violate international law while penalizing a nation that adheres to it. These actions hinder Israel’s efforts to secure the release of 101 hostages held by Hamas and protect its communities from further attacks.

Despite loudly accusing Israel and the IDF of war crimes in Gaza since October 7, a group of 20 countries including the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, Finland and others quietly sent senior military representatives to Israel for a five-day program to study its battlefield lessons from a two-year multi-front war, covering topics like AI-enabled warfare, drone and artillery coordination, and battlefield medicine. The apparent hypocrisy of states that have publicly condemned Israel, imposed or considered arms restrictions, or criticized its operations, yet still chose to learn from its military, suggests that their actions undermine their own rhetoric and raise doubts about how genuinely they believe their accusations (@AmitSegal, November 21, 2025).

MYTH

Hamas accepted Israel’s hostage proposal on May 6, 2024.

FACT

On May 6, 2024, after months of negotiations during which it continued to attack Israel, Hamas announced that it had accepted a ceasefire proposal. The proposal was presented to Hamas by mediators from Egypt and Qatar. The terrorist group seemed to be reacting to the beginning of Israel’s long-planned offensive in Rafah to destroy the group’s remaining battalions and kill its leadership.

Israeli officials stated that the Hamas announcement caught the government off guard and that Israel didn’t receive the text of the terror group’s response from the mediators until an hour after Hamas released its statement (Barak Ravid, “Israelis frustrated with U.S. handling of hostage talks,” Axios, May 6, 2024).

Upon reviewing Hamas’s response, Israel realized that it contained new elements not present in the previous proposal that Israel had agreed upon. The U.S., Egypt, and Qatar presented this previous proposal to Hamas ten days prior.

Referring to the original proposal, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken remarked that “Israel has made very important compromises...demonstrating its desire and willingness to reach this agreement” and that “Hamas has to decide whether it will take the deal and advance the situation for the people that it purports to care about in Gaza” (Press Releases, “Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Press Availability, The White House, May 1, 2024).

Hamas did not simply “accept” a ceasefire deal; rather, it countered with an offer that Israel found unacceptable (Peter Baker, “Inside the White House Scramble to Broker a Deal in Gaza,” New York Times, May 6, 2024).

Reports suggested that Hamas’s counterproposal included only freeing 18 hostages unless Israel agreed to end the war. Moreover, Hamas refused to release only live hostages in the first phase of the deal, insisting that if 33 hostages were to be freed, they would include some who were dead. Hamas also insisted that Israel refrain from opposing the release of any prisoner from its jails (Einav Halabi, Lior Ben Ari, Itamar Eichner, “Hamas agrees to free just 18 hostages unless Israel ends the war, report,” Ynet, May 7, 2024).

Of the 132 hostages still held in Hamas captivity, the IDF confirmed the deaths of 36, citing intelligence and findings obtained by troops operating in Gaza. One more person has been listed as missing since October 7, and their fate is still unknown (“Presumed hostage Lior Rudaeff confirmed killed on October 7; body was taken to Gaza,” Times of Israel, May 8, 2024).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly rejected Hamas’s proposal, stating, “The Hamas proposal is very far from meeting Israel’s necessary requirements,” and that ”Israel cannot accept a proposal that endangers the security of our citizens and the future of our country.” Nevertheless, Israel agreed to remain engaged in the negotiations and sent a delegation to continue talks in Cairo (Tovah Lazaroff, “Hamas hostage deal ‘far from meeting our requirements’ - Netanyahu says,” Jerusalem Post, May 7, 2024).

MYTH

Hamas leaders are brave fighters prepared for martyrdom.

FACT

Islamists like to talk tough and extol the virtue of killing Jews to achieve martyrdom and entering paradise where they will find 70 virgins waiting for them. This vision does not entice the leaders; however, they are happy to send others to die.

If you look at the list of suicide bombers through the years, you will not find the names of any of the leaders of Hamas or Palestine Islamic Jihad. They are cowards who hide under hospitals and other civilian locations and use Palestinian civilians as shields. Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is not taking on IDF troops. The only sign of him since the war in Gaza began was a video showing him scurrying through a tunnel with his family.

The same cowardice is true for Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, who boasts that he is ready for war with Israel. Like Hamas’s chieftains, he has no interest in fighting and is believed to hide underground (Shachar Kleiman, “30 years of Nasrallah: Iran, internal strife, and Israel,” Israel Hayom, February 15, 2022). During the last Lebanon war, he reportedly hunkered down in the Iranian embassy in Beirut (“Hezbollah leader said to be hiding in Iranian Embassy,” Washington Times, July 28, 2006). His followers also embed themselves in the civilian population and have not been deterred from provoking a war by seeing the devastation Hamas brought to Gaza.

The leaders also don’t believe the cause and martyrdom are worth the lives of their children. For example, when the suicide bombing recruiter phoned the wife of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi to ask if her son was available for an operation, she turned him down (Israel Radio, August 1, 2002).

MYTH

Journalists were not present during the October 7 massacre.

FACT

The presence of journalists during the massacre on October 7, 2023, is well documented in photographs and videos. The pictures that appeared in most media outlets came from these individuals.

The only questions are whether they were tipped off that Hamas was going to attack, if their employers knew about the plan in advance, and why the photographers didn’t intervene to help the victims.

We don’t have a definitive answer to the first question, just the suspicion that it is otherwise hard to explain why several photographers happened to be at the border at 6:30 a.m. when the attack began and then accompanied the terrorists while they engaged in a massacre.

Hassan Eslaiah and Yahya Sinwar
@HonestReporting (Nov. 8, 2023)

Media watchdog Honest Reporting found troubling evidence about several photographers, all freelancers rather than staff photographers. For example, a photo of Hassan Eslaiah, whose work was used by AP and CNN, showed him being kissed by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. On October 7, photos he took were published of a burning Israeli tank, Palestinian civilians with bicycles entering Kibbutz Kfar Azza, and a house on fire in the kibbutz. A photo was also taken that appeared to show Eslaiah on a motorcycle carrying a hand grenade. Without admitting any concerns, both AP and CNN cut ties with Eslaiah after Honest Reporting released its findings.

Ali Mahmud’s photo of “Palestinian militants” driving to Gaza with the body of an Israeli soldier was published by AP. Another AP photo taken by Hatem Ali showed another Israeli taken hostage. Mohammed Fayq Abu Mostafa provided Reuters with a picture of a Palestinian mob abusing the body of a soldier dragged from a tank (“Broken Borders: AP & Reuters Pictures of Hamas Atrocities Raise Ethical Questions,” Honest Reporting, November 8, 2023).

The Journalists Association in Jerusalem issued a statement, saying: “If indeed representatives of news agencies and major networks knew in advance about the planned massacre, this raises a prima facie concern of complicity in a crime or failure to prevent murder. The investigation raises serious ethical questions, not only about the conduct of field personnel, but also about the management of networks and news agencies, and the question is whether they knew about Hamas’s intention, and yet lent it a hand” (Editorial, “Journalists embedded with Hamas on Oct. 7 violated all media redlines,” Jerusalem Post, November 10, 2023).

News agencies denied having any advance knowledge of the Hamas plan. That did not answer the question of whether they gave any thought to using material from men who were not regular employees who happened upon a massacre. AP answered that “AP uses images taken by freelancers around the world, including in Gaza” (“Watchdog accepts news orgs weren’t tipped off about Oct. 7: We just ‘raised questions,’” Times of Israel, November 11, 2023).

As to what the photographers should have done, Likud MK Danny Danon wrote, “While Hamas savages murdered, raped, tortured and brutally abused our people, the vile photographers did not stop, turn away or leave the scene. Instead they filmed and participated in the crimes” (Times of Israel, November 11, 2023).

Photographers are often placed in difficult positions where they must decide whether to intervene to help or use their cameras to document what they see. Media researcher Roger Simpson observed, “There are times when journalists must engage with the stories they cover, for the good of their craft, themselves, and the subjects of their stories. But there are also times when they must step back, allow events to unfold, and do their jobs” (Patrick L. Plaisance, “When Should Journalists Put Down the Mic and Lend Aid?” Psychology Today, (September 7, 2017). War photographers typically choose the latter.

Simpson assumes that journalists are objective. If those who witnessed the attack on Israelis knew about the plan or were Hamas sympathizers, they were aiding and abetting the terrorists and contributing to their propaganda campaign.

MYTH

Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

FACT

The spiritual leader of the Palestinians during the mandate period, the Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a Nazi collaborator who famously met with Adolf Hitler in hopes of convincing the Führer to direct his extermination campaign toward the Jews in Palestine. It is unsurprising that the Mufti’s political acolytes today would invert the Palestinians’ long history of seeking the Jews’ destruction, demonstrated most recently by the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023, to blame Israelis for “genocide” in Gaza. To do so, detractors among college faculty and students and politicians like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have adopted Hitler’s use of the “big lie.”

Generally misattributed to Joseph Goebbels, the OSS psychological profile of Hitler described his use of the big lie: “never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

Many of Israel’s critics have adopted Hitler’s playbook.

Detractors have turned the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was a reaction to the Nazi crimes against the Jews, on its head to blame the victims. The Convention defines genocide as an “intention to destroy, wholly or partially, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group per se.”

Israel has never had any interest in the destruction of the Palestinian people. If you have any doubts, consider that during the British Mandate, there were 1.3 million Arabs. According to CIA estimates, the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza today is roughly 4.6 million (The World Factbook, CIA).

Then, of course, the accusers have the impossible task of explaining Israel’s genocidal intent, given that the population of Israeli Arabs has grown from 156,000 in 1948 to more than two million today – one-fifth of the population.

If Israel were engaged in genocide, it has been a dismal failure.

Furthermore, if Israelis wanted to eradicate the Palestinians, why did they agree to coexist beside a Palestinian entity on at least nine different occasions from 1937 until 2020? Opportunities the Palestinians rejected. Just look at any Palestinian map or the logos of the political organizations, and you can see that it is the Palestinians who wish to erase the Jews’ presence.

But what about Israel’s campaign in Gaza? Thousands of Palestinians have been killed. Isn’t that evidence of “genocide”? Not at all.

If Hamas, whose charter calls for genocide of the Jews, had not committed a massacre on October 7, 2023, not a single noncombatant would have lost their life in the last six months. If Hamas surrendered and released all the hostages it is holding today, no more civilians would be in danger. It is the genocidaire who starts the war, not the victim, who is responsible for the casualties.

Today, Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas, not to annihilate the Palestinian people. Palestinians are suffering as all civilians do during a war, including the tens of thousands of Israelis displaced from their homes and killed or wounded by the terror attacks from Gaza and Lebanon. Whether you believe Israel’s provision of aid to Gaza is sufficient or not, the fact that it is assisting at all while its citizens are denied any humanitarian aid (which doesn’t concern anti-Israel protestors) is further evidence Israel’s intent is not malevolent.

Consider that terrorists who survived the massacre they perpetrated were treated in Israeli hospitals alongside Israeli victims. In the past, Israel has provided life-saving care to the families of the same Hamas leaders whose minions are sexually abusing and torturing their Jewish captives. For example, Ismail Haniyeh, one of those responsible for the 10/7 massacre, approved of his daughter, granddaughters, brother-in-law, and mother-in-law receiving treatment in Israel (“Hamas leader’s daughter received medical treatment in Israel: sources,” Reuters, October 19, 2014; Nati Gabbay, “Senior Hamas official Marzouk’s sister hospitalized in Israel,” Jerusalem Post, November 3, 2014; Nidal al-Mughrabi, “With healthcare faltering in Gaza, care in Israel is sought after,” Reuters, April 6, 2017).

Alice Wairimu Nderitu, the former UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, was dismissed by the UN on November 27, 2024, reportedly due to her refusal to label Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide. A respected mediator and expert in violence prevention, Nderitu emphasized the correct legal use of the term “genocide,” arguing it requires intent to eliminate an ethnic group, which she does not see in Israel’s actions against Hamas. Critics claim her dismissal, seen as politically motivated, undermines the integrity of the UN and the term “genocide” itself (“The U.N’s Anti-Israel ‘Genocide’ Purge,” WSJ, November 25, 2024).

On December 5, 2024, Amnesty International issued a report accusing Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza. The inaccuracy and bias are evident in the first sentence: “On 7 October 2023, Israel embarked on a military offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip (Gaza) of unprecedented magnitude, scale and duration.” The rest of the paragraph is a summary of alleged Israeli transgressions (“Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza,” Amnesty International, December 5, 2024).

Only in the next paragraph does Amnesty acknowledge that Israel did not begin a military offensive but launched a retaliatory attack after Hamas’s unprovoked invasion and massacre of some 1,200 people and took 223 civilians and 27 soldiers hostage (the correct total is 251). The report inaccurately refers to Gaza as “occupied” despite Israel having withdrawn every citizen and soldier in 2005. Amnesty acknowledges Hamas committed war crimes but refuses to call the perpetrators terrorists. Instead, it uses euphemisms like “fighters” and “armed groups.” The only references to terrorists are in quotations from Israeli officials.

The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Amnesty offers no evidence of such intent, instead inventing a “holistic approach” to redefine genocide that diverges from the established legal standards, effectively redefining genocide to fit its narrative (Arsen Ostrovsky, John Spencer, How Amnesty International Became a Joke | Opinion,” NewsWeek, December 5, 2024; “American Jewish Committee Decries Amnesty International’s Report on False Genocide Charge,” AJC, December 5, 2024).

Amnesty’s calumny is easily disproven by the facts on the ground. If Israel intended to wipe out the Palestinian people, they would all be dead now, and it would not have waited for the attack on October 7. To make its case, Amnesty relies on unverified casualty figures provided by Hamas, which do not distinguish between civilians and terrorists. Amnesty’s reliance on unverified casualty figures provided by Hamas further undermines its credibility. Israel estimates that approximately 18,000 of the casualties were Hamas combatants, leaving a civilian death toll of about 22,000—a tragic but proportionate outcome given the scale of Hamas’s embedded operations in civilian areas. This civilian-to-combatant ratio compares favorably with other modern conflicts. Moreover, the civilian toll is roughly 1% of the population of Gaza. Even counting terrorists, the casualty rate amounts to only 2% of the population. That is genocide?

Amnesty’s framing ignores the broader context: every Palestinian casualty stems from a war initiated by Hamas’s attack on October 7. Hamas’s deliberate embedding of its military infrastructure within civilian areas—including schools, hospitals, and mosques—directly contravenes international law and makes them legitimate targets. Amnesty had access to evidence of these tactics, including photographs and videos showing tunnel entrances and weapons in residences. Firefights were reported at hospitals. Tunnels and command centers were found inside and under UNRWA facilities. Not every civilian death can be justified or explained, but that is the cost of war and not an indication of genocide.

Adding to the absurdity of the allegation is the unprecedented measures Israel has taken to protect civilians, including issuing warnings, coordinating temporary evacuations, and pausing combat operations. As British Colonel (ret.) Richard Kemp once commented on the BBC, “I don’t think there’s ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza.”

Moreover, no genocidal regime has ever provided humanitarian assistance to its alleged victims as Israel has done. Since the conflict began, Israel has opened new aid crossing points and constructed roads within Gaza to ensure humanitarian supplies reach those in need. As of December 3, 2024, 1,168,357 tons, equivalent to 58,959 trucks of humanitarian supplies, have been successfully delivered since the beginning of the war. The supplies included food, water, medical stockpiles, shelter equipment, cooking gas, and fuel. While debates over the adequacy of assistance are valid, the provision of any aid at all contradicts the accusation of genocide

Even Amnesty’s Israeli branch rejected the report, criticizing its lack of evidence for genocidal intent and flawed methodology. Anger over the biased report led to the resignation of one of Amnesty Israel’s board members (Jeremy Sharon, Jacob Magid, “‘Predetermined conclusions’: Amnesty Israel workers slam parent group’s ‘genocide’ charge,” Times of Israel, December 5, 2024).

The United States rejected the report’s assertion. “Our position on this has not changed, and we continue to believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded,” a State Department spokesperson said (Missy Ryan, “Amnesty says Israel committing acts of genocide in Gaza. Here’s to know,” Washington Post, December 4, 2024).

Similarly, German foreign ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer stated: “The question of genocide presupposes a clear intention to eradicate an ethnic group. I still do not recognize any such clear intention, and therefore, I cannot share the conclusions of the report.” He added, “It is still our opinion that Israel is acting in defense against Hamas, which sparked this conflict with its terror attacks” (Germany joins US in rejecting Amnesty’s ‘genocide’ accusation against Israel,” Times of Israel, December 6, 2024).

Further underscoring this point, on September 1, 2025, the British government—long a sharp critic of Israel’s conduct in Gaza—explicitly stated for the first time that it does not believe Israel is committing genocide. In a letter to Parliament, then–Foreign Secretary David Lammy acknowledged the terrible civilian toll of the war but emphasized that under the Genocide Convention, genocide requires intent to destroy a people, and “the government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent.” Until that moment, London had deferred to the judiciary on such determinations, but this official conclusion aligns with the positions of the United States, Germany, and other governments (Mike Wagenheim, “Israel not committing genocide in Gaza, UK says for first time,” JNS, September 9, 2025).

Examples of Recognized Genocides History (Source: Gil Troy, The Essential Guide to October 7th and Its Aftermath: Facts, Figures, History, p. 52)

On December 19, 2024, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report titled “Extermination and Acts of Genocide: Israel Deliberately Depriving Palestinians in Gaza of Water.” The report accuses Israel of committing genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention, claiming Israeli authorities intentionally created conditions in Gaza aimed at its physical destruction, including depriving Palestinians of necessities like water. It focuses on the damage to water infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment plants and reservoirs, and the obstruction of repairs and humanitarian aid. This report is both factually inaccurate and legally flawed, continuing HRW’s troubling pattern of misrepresenting Israel’s actions and distorting international law to vilify the Jewish state (Extermination and Acts of Genocide, Human Rights Watch, December 19, 2024).

Contrary to HRW’s claims, Israel has consistently facilitated the supply of water and humanitarian aid to Gaza, even in the face of ongoing attacks by Hamas. As of December 19, 2024, Israel delivered 1,215,919 tons of aid to Gaza since the beginning of the war, including 151,496,364 liters of water (COGAT, December 19, 2024). Israel has maintained critical infrastructure, including four water pipelines and desalination facilities, all remaining operational. Despite these efforts, HRW ignores the fact that Hamas has actively targeted water infrastructure, turning pipelines into rockets and using desalination plants as cover for military operations. This deliberate interference by Hamas, which also loots and destroys aid supplies, has hindered the effective delivery of necessities, including water, to Gaza’s civilian population (@OrenMarmorstein, December 19, 2024).

Furthermore, Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) accusation that Israel is committing genocide by depriving Palestinians of water is a serious misrepresentation of international law (@CotlerWunsh, December 19, 2024). The term “genocide” is defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Israel’s actions in Gaza, which include ensuring the continuous flow of water and maintaining essential infrastructure, do not align with this definition. Instead of addressing the real issues on the ground, such as Hamas’s role in obstructing aid and worsening the crisis, HRW has chosen to create a narrative that unjustly criminalizes Israel’s legitimate self-defense and its efforts to provide humanitarian assistance.

Furthermore, HRW’s bias against Israel is not a new development. In 2009, HRW’s founder, Bob Bernstein, publicly criticized the organization for losing its perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in light of Hamas’s use of human shields and its attacks on Israeli civilians. In the 15 years since, HRW has only deepened its bias, continuing to ignore the actions of Hamas while unjustly blaming Israel for the suffering in Gaza. This latest report is a continuation of HRW’s refusal to acknowledge the reality of Hamas’s crimes and their impact on Gaza’s civilian population (@The International Legal Forum, December 19, 2024).

HRW’s accusations of genocide are not only factually baseless, but they also serve to further an anti-Israel agenda that distorts the reality of the situation. By ignoring the role of Hamas in exacerbating Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, HRW continues to undermine its credibility and legitimacy. Rather than acting as a neutral advocate for human rights, HRW has effectively become a mouthpiece for terrorist propaganda, and its reports should be viewed with the same level of skepticism as other biased and discredited organizations.

Even Hamas itself undermines the genocide accusation. In a March 2025 interview, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri downplayed the significance of Gaza casualties, stating that “our women's wombs will produce many more babies” and that “at least 50,000 babies were born in Gaza during the war,” effectively matching the number of those killed. By boasting of a population rebound in real time, Hamas admits that Israel is not engaged in a campaign to eliminate the Palestinian people (“Senior Hamas Official Sami Abu Zuhri Plays Down Significance Of Gaza Casualties: Our Women’s Wombs Will Produce Many More Babies - 50,000 Were Born In Gaza During The War, Just Like The Number Of Casualties; Thanks To The War, Westerners Convert To Islam, U.S. Students Support Palestine Liberation ‘From The River To The Sea,’” MEMRI, March 30, 2025). Genocide, by definition, requires intent to destroy a group “in whole or in part”, yet here, Hamas leaders themselves acknowledge the opposite trend: rapid population growth amid war. Their rhetoric, celebrating this demographic recovery, refutes the core premise of those alleging genocide.

A September 2025 300-page study by Israeli military historians, legal experts, and quantitative analysts further dismantles the genocide accusation by exposing methodological flaws in the data used against Israel. The authors show that UN agencies miscalculated pre-war aid deliveries by comparing working-day truck averages to post-war calendar-day averages, inflating the impression of deliberate starvation. They also highlight Hamas’s diversion of supplies and unprecedented use of civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, mosques, and UNRWA facilities—for military purposes, creating destruction that stemmed from genuine military constraints rather than genocidal intent. The report stresses Israel’s facilitation of aid, repeated warnings to civilians, and frequent aborted strikes as evidence of efforts to minimize casualties. It warns that labeling urban warfare as “genocide” without proof of intent erodes the legal and moral weight of the term, ultimately endangering populations facing real extermination threats (Jeremy Sharon, “Gaza genocide claims are based on skewed facts, sometimes deliberately, says study author,” Times of Israel, September 22, 2025).

Tragically, many innocent lives have been lost in Gaza because of Hamas’s intent to destroy Israel and the Jewish people. Those concerned with Israel’s behavior should check their facts and place their outrage where it belongs – on the jihadists who would pursue their genocidal agenda if given a chance against many of the people (e.g., Christians, Queers for Gaza, and peace advocates) now praising them.

MYTH

Israeli soldiers raped a woman at the Shifa Hospital.

FACT

The United Nations, no friend of Israel, issued a report on March 4, 2024, documenting the sexual abuse of Israelis by Hamas terrorists. Without going into the horrific details here, let us quote the report’s finding that during the October 7, 2023, attack, Israelis were victims of sexual violence, “including rape and gang rape.”

Victims have understandably been reluctant to speak publicly about the abuse they suffered. One former hostage, Amit Soussana, came forward shortly after the UN released its report. She told the New York Times about being tortured and forced to have sex with her captor as he held a gun to her head (Patrick Kingsley and Ronen Bergman, “Israeli Hostage Says She Was Sexually Assaulted and Tortured in Gaza,” New York Times, March 26, 2024).

To distract the world and turn victims into perpetrators, Palestinians have fabricated reports about sexual abuse by Israelis. Not surprisingly, Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the Hamas-supporting Qatari government, aired an interview with a woman who claimed she witnessed Israeli forces raping a Palestinian woman during the raid on the Shifa Hospital. Like other spurious claims, this one quickly spread through social media to provoke rage against Israel and tar the moral image of its military.

The story was quickly discovered to be a lie, and the video was deleted. The network did not apologize or explain. The next day it posted a graphic on its Instagram account concerning the use of rape as a weapon of war. It cited alleged rapes by Israeli soldiers and by those of other countries but said nothing about the abuse of Israeli women (Nagham Zbeedat, “Al Jazeera Deletes Video Claiming Woman Was Raped by Israeli Forces in Gaza Al-Shifa Raid,” Haaretz, March 25, 2024).

When it comes to information from Gaza, whether it be accusations of Israeli misconduct or civilian casualties, consumers of news should remember the maxim attributed to Aeschylus, “In war, truth is the first casualty.”

MYTH

Israel must pause its military campaign for Ramadan.

FACT

President Joe Biden hoped for and incorrectly predicted a deal for the release of Israeli hostages and a ceasefire before Ramadan (Alexandra Sharp, “Biden Predicts Israel-Hamas Truce as Early as Next Week,” Foreign Policy, February 27, 2024). His fear, and that of others, was that the continuation of fighting during the holy month would spark violence beyond Gaza. This concern morphed into the mistaken idea that Muslims do not believe war is allowed during religious holidays.

Muslims do not consider religious holidays, including Ramadan, sacrosanct. The Gaza war started with the Hamas massacre on Shabbat, which was also the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah. The 1973 War began with the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on Yom Kippur. Arabs and Muslims call it the Ramadan War because it occurred during the holy month. Going back to early Muslim history, “some of the greatest victories in Islam occurred during Ramadan” (Adnan Khan, “Battle of Badr happened in Ramadan,” Arab News, July 18, 2014).

As the Washington Institute’s Patrick Clawson noted, ignorant Westerners believe Ramadan is a peaceful month. “Ramadan has been more a month of war than of peace,” he observed. “It is not one of the four months during which Islam forbids warfare.”

“Modern proposals for Ramadan ceasefires by secular governments,” Clawson added, “were uniformly rejected by the Islamist side, which usually intensified fighting during Ramadan” (Patrick Clawson, “A Ramadan Offensive in Iraq,” Washington Institute, October 4, 2004).

Robert Satloff, Executive Director of the Institute, pointed out that:

For Hamas and their fellow travelers, waging war during Ramadan — including sacrificing fellow Muslims as pawns in the fight against Israel, inciting tensions at Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa mosque to trigger violence at that holy site and launching terrorist attacks against civilians — are all acceptable military tactics, as valid during Ramadan as they are the other months of the year (Robert Satloff, “There’s no such thing as a ‘Ramadan truce,’” The Hill, March 12, 2024).

Palestinian terrorists made no secret of their desire to use Ramadan as a pretext for setting the region on fire. Provoking a religious war was part of Hamas’s strategy from the outset. It called its massacre “Operation al-Aqsa Flood” and justified it as a defense of the mosque, which remained undisturbed 50 miles away.

For Hamas, Ramadan is a time for jihad, not peaceful introspection and worship.

“We call upon our people in Jerusalem, the West Bank, the interior, and the occupied lands to mobilize and confront the occupation’s schemes against the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque,” Hamas said in a statement. “Protecting Jerusalem is among the utmost duties, especially as we are in the month of jihad and victories” (Jared Malsin and Fatima AbdulKarim, “Crowds at Al Aqsa Mosque Pray in Peace Despite Hamas’s Rallying Cry,” Wall Street Journal, March 15, 2024).

Likewise, its terrorist twin, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, called for Ramadan to be a “month of terror” (Seth J. Frantzman, “Palestinian Islamic Jihad calls for Ramadan to be ‘month of terror,’” Jerusalem Post, March 3, 2024).

The good news is that Palestinians and other Muslims unallied with Iran ignored the calls for a holy war against the Jews. As in every past year, tens of thousands of Muslims prayed peacefully on the Temple Mount (Haram esh-Sharif in Arabic), enjoying the freedom of religion offered by Israel to Muslims that is denied to other faiths throughout much of the Islamic world.

MYTH

Israel is starving the people of Gaza.

FACT

The plight of civilians in Gaza is unfortunate. Not a single Gazan would have died or suffered had Hamas not attacked Israel, massacred 1,200 people, and taken some 250 hostages. No Palestinians would be suffering today if Egypt opened the gates of Rafah to allow them to leave and if the Biden administration did not force them to remain in Gaza. They could receive all the required humanitarian aid if allowed into Sinai or if any government was willing to take them in. Alas, not a single country has offered them refuge despite the international expressions of sympathy.

No doubt, given the wartime conditions, many Gazans are suffering. Still, it is essential to recognize that much of the reporting about their plight comes from unreliable sources.

Information is supplied by the Hamas-run Health Ministry, which is a propaganda arm of Hamas and has yet to acknowledge that a single terrorist has been killed, telling the world and the gullible media that only civilians have died. The objective is to attract sympathy and create international pressure on Israel to end the war. Promoting the narrative of Gazans starving has a similar purpose, so Hamas has no interest in allowing aid to reach the people.

Reports also come from “journalists.” The major news companies do not have reporters inside Gaza. Instead, they are relying on Arab sources, many of which are associated with terrorist organizations or know that they will be expelled or killed by Hamas if they do not disseminate disinformation (David Collier, “Special Report: The ‘Journalists’ Of Gaza,” January 2024).

A third source is the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, which have two incentives to exaggerate or lie about conditions in Gaza. First, claiming the situation is dire justifies fundraising appeals. Second, Hamas will not allow them to report the truth, and none want to jeopardize access to the Strip by reporting anything that might offend the terrorists, who can threaten their lives or prevent them from doing their jobs. In UNRWA’s case, telling horror stories is meant to justify its continued existence which is now under threat because members of its staff participated in the 10/7 massacre, thousands of others are associated with Hamas, and its facilities were used to store weapons and conceal tunnels (See, for example, “Group of 3,000 UNRWA teachers celebrates Hamas massacre and rape,” UN Watch, January 10, 2024; The Editorial Board, “Hamas Was Right Under Unrwa’s Nose,” Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2024; Andrew Bernard, “Gallant: 30 UNRWA employees participated in Oct. 7 massacre,” JNS, February 16, 2024; “Eight UNRWA employees arrested by Israel over Hamas ties,” Maariv, February 22, 2024).

The media also quotes Gazans. Although some have become bolder as Hamas is weakened and spoken the truth, most still are fearful of retribution if they criticize the terrorists. They have instructions from the interior ministry for how to deal with the press that says, for example, “Anyone killed or martyred is to be called a civilian” (“Hamas Interior Ministry to Social Media Activists: Always Call the Dead ‘Innocent Civilians’; Don’t Post Photos of Rockets Being Fired from Civilian Population Centers,” MEMRI, July 17, 2014).

In 2024, despite widespread media claims and U.S. government assertions that Gaza was experiencing a famine during the Israel-Hamas war, no official famine was ever declared by the authoritative Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) system. USAID director Samantha Power cited an IPC-affiliated report to declare famine, but it was based on projections, not confirmed data. A subsequent USAID analysis was rejected by the IPC’s Famine Review Committee (FRC), which found significant errors, such as omitting large quantities of food aid and private deliveries, leading to grossly inflated claims of food scarcity. Independent monitors later found Gaza had significantly more food than USAID claimed, and famine was averted. However, misleading headlines and statements by some UN officials and media outlets continued to portray famine as fact, distorting public perception. Experts like Nicholas Haan, who helped design the IPC, warned that politicizing the term “famine” undermines its meaning and the integrity of humanitarian efforts (Michael Ames, The Gaza Famine Myth, Free Press, May 6, 2025).

So what are the facts?

According to updated data from the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), which is responsible for inspecting and transferring humanitarian assistance, the following aid has been delivered to Gaza between October 7, 2023, and October 10, 2025:

110,815 trucks carrying 2,156,783 tons of aid via land crossings.
Approximately 1,732,000 tons of food, reflecting 79.68% of total aid delivered.
About 190,000 tons of shelter equipment, based on COGAT’s updated breakdown.
Roughly 105,000 tons of mixed and other humanitarian supplies.
An estimated 61,000 tons of water is delivered through tankers and pipelines.
32,000 tons of cooking gas, in addition to other fuel deliveries tracked separately.
A further 7,996 tons of aid were delivered by air via 13,209 pallets (COGAT, October 10, 2025).

These statistics contradict the claim that Israel is impeding the supply of aid and causing a famine. As aid arrives, Hamas stops convoys and steals the food, some to keep for themselves and some to sell on the black market. Gazans who can’t afford to buy food from Hamas may have to go without eating, though most are able to have at least one meal a day (Zvika Klein, “Editor’s Notes: ‘There is no famine in Gaza’ – comment,” Jerusalem Post, March 8, 2024).

Further evidence that Palestinians are not starving comes from celebrity chef José Andrés, whose World Central Kitchen has served more than 32 million meals in Gaza, about 350,000 daily. The organization has set up 65 kitchens in Gaza and plans to add at least 35 more with the hope of providing more than a million meals per day after the United States builds a floating pier to bring more aid into Gaza (Christina Morales and Monika Pronczuk, “Aid From José Andrés’s World Central Kitchen Could Depart for Gaza on Friday, Officials Say,” New York Times, March 7, 2024).

Meanwhile, many Israelis are understandably angry that aid is being provided to Gazans and Hamas. At the same time, the international community has shown no interest in pressuring Hamas to give aid to the 58 remaining Israeli hostages. Hamas agreed as part of the last ceasefire deal to allow medical supplies to be delivered to them; however, not only is there no evidence any of it was given to the hostages, but Israel found unopened boxes of medical supplies with hostages’ names on them when it raided the Nasser Hospital (“Unopened medicine boxes bearing names of Israeli hostages found in hospital raid,” i24 News, February 18, 2024). Hostages released months ago revealed that they received little food, so it is more likely that the Israelis held captive for more than five months are the ones starving (Rachel Clarke, “Little food, a beating and lice: What freed Israeli hostages are saying about being held by Hamas,” CNN, December 20, 2023).

In February 2025, an Israeli study conducted by experts in public health, nutrition, pediatrics, and emergency medicine at the Health Ministry, Sheba Medical Center, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, the University of Haifa, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev found that from January to July 2024, food shipments into Gaza met international humanitarian standards in six of the seven months, providing an average of 3,004 calories per person daily, except in February when supplies dropped during intense fighting. Researchers analyzed data from COGAT, the United Nations, and aid groups, confirming that sufficient food—including grains, vegetables, and proteins—was imported. Still, distribution within Gaza was severely disrupted by looting, lack of governance, and logistical failures (Ido Efrati, “Study: Amount of Food Entering Gaza Met International Aid Standards for at Least Six Months in 2024,” Haaretz, February 15, 2025).

Three months later, the IPC issued stark warnings about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, projecting that 2.1 million people face acute food insecurity, with one in five at risk of starvation between May and September 2025. Their analysis also predicts that 70,500 children under five will suffer from acute malnutrition over the next year, including 14,100 severe cases. In light of these findings, the IPC has called for an immediate end to hostilities, sustained humanitarian access, and increased protection for civilians and aid workers (@theipcinfo; @theipcinfo; @theipcinfo, May 12, 2025).

According to COGAT, the IPC’s claims that Gaza is “facing famine” and that millions risk starvation are based on speculative projections that have consistently failed to materialize and rely on flawed, alarmist assumptions. The IPC does not collect data independently and depends heavily on UN sources, which during the ceasefire accounted for only a fraction of the aid that entered Gaza. It also ignores the massive volumes of food aid delivered during humanitarian pauses. Without transparency, reliable methodology, or accountability, the IPC’s reporting cannot be trusted to accurately reflect conditions on the ground (@cogatonline, May 13, 2025).

Even the most alarming reports cited by international media have frequently collapsed under scrutiny. One infamous example came in May 2025, when various outlets claimed that 14,000 babies could die in Gaza within 48 hours due to a lack of aid. This assertion, attributed to a UN official and based on IPC projections, was later “clarified” to mean that 14,000 young children could face severe acute malnutrition over an entire year and only under sustained worst-case conditions. These repeated exaggerations prompted the Israeli government to reject the IPC’s analyses as speculative and reliant on flawed data that undercounts aid deliveries, especially during humanitarian pauses. Over 25,000 trucks entered Gaza during the January-March ceasefire period alone, yet this influx was almost ignored in IPC models. While no one denies the hardship many Palestinians face, these repeated misrepresentations reflect a persistent bias that prioritizes sensationalism over accuracy, casting doubt on the motives of these media outlets (Noah Rothman, “Yet Another Gaza Famine That Wasn’t,” National Review, May 21, 2025).

Although famine in Gaza was widely declared and reported, subsequent data, behavior patterns, and on-the-ground conditions do not align with what an actual famine would look like. Famine is a technical classification requiring clear evidence, such as high mortality, acute malnutrition, and social breakdown, which has not materialized in independent reporting since the Gaza ceasefire took place in October 2025. Looting of aid convoys, once rampant, rapidly declined, and videos now show calm streets and functioning markets, raising questions about the motives of the IPC and other bodies that declared the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip as such (Ken Isaacs, “If Gaza’s famine was real, how come it went away so fast?” Fox News, November 14, 2025).

In December 2025, Footage shared by Palestinian-American activist Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib showed what he says is a clandestine Hamas-run warehouse in Gaza filled with piles of baby formula, powdered milk, and children’s nutritional shakes, which he claims were deliberately hidden during the worst months of the hunger crisis to exacerbate shortages and strengthen the terror group’s famine narrative. Alkhatib argues that the newly documented disposal of these supplies, now surfacing after a surge of humanitarian aid, demonstrates that Hamas had hoarded the products for months while publicly blaming Israel for starvation in the Strip (@afalkhatib, December 8, 2025).

Crucially, the IPC’s December 2025 report explicitly acknowledges that no famine exists in Gaza, even as it continues to warn of acute food insecurity under worst-case scenarios, while COGAT documents that during the ceasefire alone 600–800 trucks entered Gaza daily, roughly 70% carrying food, totaling nearly 30,000 food trucks and over 500,000 tons of food, volumes that exceed internationally accepted nutritional requirements. The December exchange underscores a recurring pattern: alarmist projections based on partial or selective data, followed by quiet admissions that famine thresholds were not met, alongside verified evidence of large-scale aid inflows whose impact is undermined primarily by internal distribution failures, Hamas diversion and hoarding, market collapse, and the absence of effective civilian governance inside Gaza. A fact-based assessment, therefore, recognizes genuine civilian suffering while rejecting the narrative of a deliberate starvation policy, a conclusion now affirmed by both the IPC’s own findings and the documented aid data presented in response to its report (“COGAT’s Response to the IPC Report,” COGAT, December 19, 2025).

MYTH

The Biden administration’s position on settlements continues longstanding U.S. policy.

FACT

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and White House spokesman John Kirby’s statements regarding Israeli settlements have raised concerns about the Biden administration’s stance on this longstanding issue. Besides being wrong on the law, the administration’s position is at odds with historical precedent.

Blinken’s declaration that Israeli settlements are “inconsistent with international law” was not a statement by a legal authority. It was a politician having the equivalent of a diplomatic tantrum over Israel’s announced intention to build new homes in three settlements and a transparent effort to appease critics of President Joe Biden. The Biden campaign is worried that the president’s reelection is endangered by his support for Israel (Sabrina Siddiqui, Annie Linskey, and Vivian Salama, “Biden Aides Fret That Support for Israel Will Hurt Re-Election Prospects,” Wall Street Journal, January 26, 20244).

White House spokesman John Kirby elaborated on the new policy and claimed, “This is a position that has been consistent over a range of Republican and Democratic administrations” (John Hudson and Karen DeYoung, “White House reverses West Bank policy, calling Israeli settlements illegal,” Washington Post, February 24, 2024). However, the United States has historically not regarded Israeli settlements as illegal.

The oft-cited exception is the opinion of State Department legal adviser Herbert Hansell in the Carter administration. In a letter to two members of the House International Relations Committee in 1978, Hansell argued that establishing settlements in the “occupied territories,” which include the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights, is “inconsistent with international law.” This conformed to the views of President Jimmy Carter, who vehemently opposed Israeli settlement policy.

Legal scholars have critiqued Hansell’s interpretation of international law, highlighting its reliance on a flawed reading of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Eugene Kontorovich noted Hansell based his conclusion on the reference that an “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Hansell erroneously inferred that Jews moving to Judea and Samaria were “deported or transferred” there by the government. “Under international law, occupation occurs when a country takes over the sovereign territory of another country. But the West Bank was never part of Jordan, which seized it in 1949,” Kontorovich explained. “Moreover, a country cannot occupy territory to which it has sovereign title, and Israel has the strongest claim to the land.” Furthermore, Hansell said the state of occupation would end if the war ended between Israel and its neighbors, which it did when Israel entered into a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994 (Eugene Kontorovich, “Pompeo Busts the ‘Occupation’ Myth,” Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2019).

Contrary to the claim that both parties have shared Biden’s position, President Ronald Reagan explicitly rejected Hansell’s opinion. On February 3, 1981, he said, “I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as illegal; they’re not illegal” (“Excerpts From Interview With President Reagan Conducted By Five Reporters,” New York Times, February 3, 1981).

When Secretary of State James Baker was asked if the George H.W. Bush administration regarded the settlements as illegal, his answer was, “this is not our policy” (Paul Claussen and Evan M. Duncan, Eds., American Foreign Policy Current Documents, NY: William S. Hein & Co., 2008, p. 570.

George W. Bush implicitly acknowledged the legality of settlements in his 2004 letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. While he welcomed the plan to evacuate some settlements as part of the disengagement plan, he also recognized others would remain part of Israel. “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers,” Bush wrote, “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

President Bill Clinton’s support for the Oslo Accords acknowledged the legitimacy of certain Israeli settlements pending final status negotiations (Liel Leibovitz, “Forty Years?” Tablet, November 21, 2019). Furthermore, Secretary of State John Kerry, under another Democratic President, Barack Obama, refrained from labeling settlements as illegal, instead using the term “illegitimate” (“Kerry: Israeli settlements are illegitimate,” Al Jazeera, November 6, 2013). His only statement regarding “illegality” was a reference in his final speech to “settler outposts that are illegal under Israel’s own laws.”

In addition, Obama abstained rather than veto the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 labeling settlements illegal. Nevertheless, the decision was interpreted as endorsing that position but did not change U.S. policy (Somini Sengupta and Rick Gladstone, “Rebuffing Israel, U.S. Allows Censure Over Settlements,” New York Times, December 23, 2016).

On November 18, 2019, Secretary of State Michael Pompeo expressed the Trump administration’s position that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” The media inaccurately referred to this as a reversal of longstanding American policy (See, for example, Jennifer Hansler, Nicole Gaouette, and Jeremy Diamond, “Pompeo announces reversal of longstanding US policy on Israeli settlements,” CNN, November 18, 2019).

So, it is Biden who has deviated from U.S. policy.

The administration’s position is ironic, given its insistence on promoting a two-state solution to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Blinken knows that past proposals recognized that the large settlement blocs would be annexed to Israel. The Israeli announcement that provoked Blinken’s reaction did not refer to the creation of any new settlements; it applied only to the construction of houses (which will take months or years) in Ma’aleh Adumim (2,350), Keidar (300), and Efrat (694), all communities in the “consensus” blocs (Hagar Shezaf and Ben Samuels, “Israel Planning 3,000 New Settlement Homes in Response to Fatal Terror Attack,” Haaretz, February 23, 2024).

Rather than aligning with longstanding U.S. policy, the administration’s position departs from past precedents and diverges from the nuanced approach adopted by previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

MYTH

Israel must agree to a ceasefire to save Palestinian lives.

FACT

Outside the Middle East, memories are short. Israelis, however, remember that a ceasefire existed on October 6, 2023, and not a single civilian in Gaza was in any danger. It was Hamas that provoked a war by sending some 3,000 terrorists to massacre 1,200 Israelis and take 240 hostages the next day. From that point on, Hamas was responsible for the death and destruction in Gaza that followed.

Hamas’s leaders knew what the response of Israel would be and yet did nothing to warn or prepare the civilian population. They stole millions of dollars in foreign aid earmarked for public welfare to build their network of tunnels to provide the means to murder Israelis and escape from retribution. Not a dime was spent to build shelters for civilians.

Hamas purposely stashed weapons, built tunnel entrances, and fired rockets from apartments, hospitals, mosques, refugee camps, and schools, unconcerned that by doing so, they made each a legitimate military target. Furthermore, they did everything possible to prevent civilians from leaving. They knew Israel was put in an impossible position: if the military did not attack those positions, the terrorists would be safe and could continue their attacks, and if the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) acted, the civilians they used as shields would die, and the press and the international community would pillory Israel. From Hamas’s perspective, it is a win-win scenario.

The urgent calls for a ceasefire have intensified following Israel’s preparations to launch an offensive in Rafah, the last stronghold of the terrorists. With more than one million civilians seeking refuge in the area, there are grim predictions of potential casualties. In one apocalyptic report, the New York Times said 85,000 Palestinians could die from injuries and disease over the next six months (Stephanie Nolen, “War and Illness Could Kill 85,000 Gazans in 6 Months,” New York Times, February 21, 2024).

A ceasefire could potentially save lives, not only of civilians but also of the terrorists responsible for the violence. It would enable them to utilize their tunnels for escaping, regrouping, fortifying defenses, and planning future attacks. Hamas’s leaders have made no secret of their intentions if they survive. Ghazi Hamad, for example, said, “Israel is a country that has no place on our land….We must remove that country.” If that wasn’t clear enough, he added, “We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again and again. The Al-Aqsa Flood [the name Hamas gave to its massacre plan] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth. Because we have the determination...to fight.”

But what about the civilians in Gaza?

Hamad said, “We are called a nation of martyrs and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs” (“‘We will repeat October 7 again and again’ - Hamas official,” Jerusalem Post, November 1, 2023).

Leaders like Hamad like to extol martyrdom – for others. He is not fighting the IDF. The leader of Hamas in Gaza and planner of the 10/7 massacre, Yahya Sinwar, was seen in a video fleeing with his family in a tunnel. Other Hamas cowards are living in luxury in Qatar and elsewhere, having accumulated fortunes, while Gazans live in misery.

Another reason Israel has resisted the unilateral ceasefire that critics demand is that nothing is required of Hamas. It still holds 136 hostages; as many as 50 may be dead, and the only way to secure their release is for Israel to keep up the pressure by killing as many terrorists as possible and destroying their weapons and infrastructure (Summer Said, Nancy A. Youssef, and Jared Malsin, “Israel Privately Estimates as Many as 50 Hostages Could Be Dead,” Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2024). If Israel were to stop its campaign without a deal to free the hostages, Hamas would have the opportunity to kill or move them to new locations.

So, how can the civilians in Rafah be protected?

For years, anti-Israel propagandists have called Gaza an “open-air prison.” That was not true before, but it is today. The jailers are U.S. President Joe Biden and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, not Israel. Early in the war, long before the situation in Gaza became the crisis it is today, Biden and El-Sisi agreed to ensure that “Palestinians in Gaza are not displaced to Egypt or any other nation” (@POTUS, October 29, 2023).

They needn’t have worried since not a single nation, including their Arab and Muslim brethren, has offered to accept any Gazans. This is perhaps the best indication of how much the world cares about the Palestinians.

Instead of placing the responsibility on Israel to alleviate the crisis by allowing more humanitarian aid into Gaza, much of which is stolen by Hamas and, increasingly, desperate civilians, the Palestinians could move temporarily into the Sinai, where they could receive all the humanitarian aid they need with no interference from Israel (Patrick Kingsley, “Amid Food Shortages, People in Gaza Are Ambushing Aid Convoys,” New York Times, February 21, 2024). None would be in danger.

The Egyptians control the Rafah crossing and have prevented most Gazans from leaving, except those willing to pay thousands of dollars in bribes (Ali Younes, “Palestinians paying thousands of dollars in bribes to leave Gaza,” Al Jazeera, (December 23, 2023). To ensure they don’t try to escape from the anticipated Israeli offensive, Egypt is building a wall with a miles-wide buffer zone to prevent anyone from leaving Rafah (Paul P. Murphy, “Egypt is building a new walled buffer zone more than 2 miles wide on Gaza border, satellite images show,” CNN, February 15, 2024). The administration has not protested Egypt’s actions to protect it from refugees but has objected to Israel’s intention to create a buffer zone after the war to protect it from a repeat of 10/7 (“U.S. would object to ‘buffer zone’ inside Gaza strip, State Department says,” Reuters, December 6, 2023).

The Egyptian position is understandable given their contempt for the Palestinians and fear of infiltration by Hamas, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, the terrorist organization that has sought to overthrow the government in Cairo for nearly a century.

The policy of the Biden administration is more difficult to justify. Unlike elsewhere, it demands that individuals caught amidst conflict remain in harm’s way. Ukrainians are not instructed to stay in the path of Russian attacks, nor is Poland prevented from offering them refuge. Similarly, Palestinians and Syrians are not expected to endure violence from Bashar Assad’s regime, and Jordan faces no pressure to block those refugees from seeking safety within its borders.

The main excuse offered by the administration and the Palestinians is the fear that those who leave will not be allowed to return. Since Egypt controls the border crossing and would want to expel the Palestinians as soon as possible, and the Israeli government has not said it would interfere with their reentry, the argument is spurious.

The best way to ensure the safety of Gazans is for Hamas to surrender and release all the hostages.

MYTH

“Extremist settler” attacks against Palestinians have increased.

FACT

On February 11, 2024, President Joe Biden issued an executive order allowing him to sanction “extremist” settlers who engage in violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. The order says the “forced displacement of people and villages, and property destruction — has reached intolerable levels.”

Some settlers indeed engage in illegal, violent activities against Palestinians. But the data indicate the number fell in the month following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre from 184 offenses in the same period in 2022 to 97. Those characterized as “serious” dropped from three to zero (Ariel Kahana, “Violence against Judea and Samaria Arabs drops significantly,” JNS, November 12, 2023).

An even better indication of the scale of the problem is provided by the Biden administration’s decision to apply sanctions to just four people (Simon Lewis, Susan Heavey, and Daphne Psaledakis, “Biden imposes sanctions on Israeli settlers accused of West Bank violence,” Reuters, February 1, 2024). That represents only .001% of the 500,000 Jews living in the West Bank, which gives a better indication than media reports of the true extent of the problem. More names may be added, but they will still represent a tiny fraction of the people his administration has demonized.

Settlers who do engage in violence have not always been caught and punished. After the United States announced on December 5, 2023, that it would ban violent settlers from obtaining visas (Simon Lewis and Daphne Psaledakis, “US announces visa bans after warning Israel over West Bank violence,” Reuters, December 5, 2023), Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant signed an order the next day to detain without trial for four months any Israeli settler suspected of attacking Palestinians. “In a state of law, and Israel is a state of law,” he said, “the right to use violence belongs only to those who are certified to do so by the government” (Mike Brest, “Israeli leaders split over settler violence in West Bank,” Washington Examiner, December 6, 2023).

Even before the visa ban, Gallant had begun to crack down on settlers. Six months earlier, he had ordered administrative detention for several extremists who had engaged in violent acts (Carrie Keller-Lynn, “Gallant orders four Israelis to be held without charge over West Bank riots,” Times of Israel, June 28, 2023). Similar orders were issued in subsequent months.

MYTH

Benjamin Netanyahu strengthened Hamas to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state.

FACT

This has become a popular theme of critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who blame him for the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023. As the country’s leader, Netanyahu must accept responsibility for Israel being surprised on that day; however, it is a misrepresentation of the facts to suggest he had a grander strategy to support Hamas to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Netanyahu has made no secret of his opposition to a Palestinian state today (Lazar Berman, “Netanyahu: No full Palestinian state, no ‘surrender’ in exchange for Gaza hostages,” Times of Israel, January 21, 2024). Still, he said he would accept one with conditions in 2009 and again as recently as 2015 (Isabel Kershner, “Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats,” New York Times, June 14, 2009; “PM Netanyahu addresses the Herzliya Conference,” Embassy of Israel in Sweden, June 9, 2015). He does indeed see Palestinian division as an impediment to their independence, but he is not responsible for their schism and took steps to bolster the Palestinian Authority (PA) even while allowing funding to flow to Hamas.

Hamas and Fatah have been at odds for decades. In 2006, Hamas won the legislative election for the PA. President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to hold another vote for fear of another defeat, and his four-year term has now lasted 18 years.

The following year, without any help from Israel, Hamas overthrew the Fatah-run government, arresting, expelling, and executing its officials. Fatah has murdered its share of Hamas members since then. Periodically, reconciliation talks are held but have never succeeded in reaching a lasting agreement. Hence, Netanyahu did not have to do anything to create or sustain the disagreements among Palestinians.

Moreover, Netanyahu certainly was not strengthening Hamas when he ordered operations Pillar of Defense, Protective Edge, and Guardian of the Walls to prevent the group from terrorizing Israelis.

In hindsight, Netanyahu’s willingness to allow Qatar to provide Hamas with tens of millions of dollars may be seen as a catastrophic error that allowed the terrorists to grow stronger and prepare for the attack on Israel. Netanyahu mistakenly believed that allowing money into Gaza and Gazans to work in Israel would improve the economy and create an incentive for Hamas to keep the peace so as not to risk the welfare of the public. October 7 proved Hamas has no concern for the people of Gaza.

Simultaneously, Netanyahu pursued a similar approach in the PA with greater success as violence from the West Bank has been more limited. More than 100,000 West Bankers received permits to work in Israel. It is the Hamas massacre that threatened their livelihoods. In addition to promoting economic development, Netanyahu strengthened the PA, albeit out of concern for Israel’s security, by doing everything possible to prevent Hamas from undermining its stability.

The Palestinians don’t have a state for one simple reason: they have rejected every opportunity to have one because they insist on replacing Israel. Hamas wants to destroy Israel, not live beside it, and Fatah wants to “liberate” Palestine in stages.

MYTH

Hamas adopted a new charter repudiating its goal to destroy Israel.

FACT

Hamas announced on May 1, 2017, that it was adopting a new political policy document. Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said the group had to move beyond its original charter to achieve its goals. “The document gives us a chance to connect with the outside world,” he said. “To the world, our message is: Hamas is not radical. We are a pragmatic and civilized movement. We do not hate the Jews. We only fight who occupies our lands and kills our people” (Ian Fisher, “In Palestinian Power Struggle, Hamas Moderates Talk on Israel,” New York Times, May 1, 2017).

This new document, however, neither replaced the charter nor abrogated the group’s founding document calling for Israel’s destruction, according to senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar. This is clear from the supposedly significant reference to the idea of accepting the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Jerusalem based on the 1949 armistice line. The statement reiterates several times, however, that Hamas does not seek to liberate the West Bank but all of Palestine from the River to the Sea (Points 2 and 20).

“When people say that Hamas has accepted the 1967 borders, like others, it is an offense to us,” Zahar said. “We have reaffirmed the unchanging, constant principles that we do not recognize Israel; we do not recognize the land occupied in 1948 as belonging to Israel; and we do not recognize that the people who came here [Jews] own this land.” Zahar said the reference to the 1967 borders “is a tactical step that does not harm the right of the Palestinians to all of the land of Palestine” (“Official Denies Hamas Has Softened Stance Toward Israel,” Reuters, May 10, 2017; Amad, March 28, 2017, translated by Palestinian Media Watch, April 21, 2017).

The statement also rejects any peace agreement with Israel and calls for ceasing the beneficial cooperative activities between Israelis and Palestinians made possible by the Oslo Accords (Point 21).

The document repeatedly claims that “Palestine,” which includes Israel, has a special status as “an Arab Islamic land.” “Palestine,” however, has no special status in Islam or connection to Arabs living outside the area (Points 3, 7 and 10).

Though acknowledging the area as the birthplace of Jesus Christ, the statement makes no mention anywhere of a Jewish connection to the Land of Israel. Hamas also claims Jerusalem as the capital of “Palestine.” A state of Palestine has never existed, and Jerusalem has never been the capital of any state other than Israel or the ancient Jewish kingdoms. The city has no special status for the Arabs, and only the religious shrines are of significance to Muslims (Point 7).

The demand that Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to the land that is now Israel is a nonstarter for negotiations. Even Palestinian negotiators have acknowledged this is an unreasonable demand (Points 12, 13, and 20).

To avoid being accused of anti-Semitism, the statement replaces many of the blatantly anti-Semitic references in the charter with euphemistic references to “Zionists” and specifically says it has no conflict with Jews. Hamas is aware, however, that most Zionists are Jews. Hamas also insists that only Palestinians have a right to self-determination. Denying the same rights to the Jewish people is anti-Semitic (Points 14, 16, and 18).

The “moderation” of the new statement does not include a repudiation; on the contrary, Hamas doubles down by suggesting it has a divine right to engage in terrorism and that the entire Arab/Islamic world must engage in a jihad against Israel (Points 15, 23, 25 and 26).

The statement’s references to tolerance and upholding human rights are risible, given the group’s persecution of Christians, gays, and other Palestinians who do not accept its radical Islamic ideology (Points 8 and 17).

Hamas also rewrites history throughout the document, as when it suggests anti-Semitism was purely a European phenomenon (Point 17). While their experience in Europe was different and, in many cases, more severe, Jews in Arab and Muslim lands were frequently persecuted. Muslims created a special category of second-class treatment for Jews and Christians known as dhimmitude.

The notion that Hamas moderated its positions was belied by the appointment of Yahya Sinwar as its leader. Long before the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre of Israelis, Kobi Michael, a former head of the Palestinian desk at Israel’s Ministry for Strategic Affairs, said he “represents the most radical and extreme line of Hamas” (Isabel Kershner, “Hamas Appoints Hard-Line Militant as Gaza Leader,” New York Times, February 13, 2017).

Even Fatah dismissed the new charter as “nothing new” (“Hamas’ political document has nothing new, says Fatah,” WAFA, May 2, 2017).

Presaging the 10/7 massacre, Hamas Deputy Political Chief Saleh el-Arouri traveled to Iran after the charter was “revised” and declared that Hamas would never agree to lay down arms, recognize the Zionist regime of Israel, or sever its ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran (“Hamas Never to Recognize Israel: Official,” Tasnim News Agency, October 24, 2017). This was also when Iran reconciled with Hamas after a period of estrangement and became the group’s principal financial backer.

If it was unclear to anyone that Hamas had not changed its agenda with the new charter, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal left no doubt in January 2024 when he said:

In order to establish a common ground and a joint Palestinian plan with the other Palestinian with the other Palestinian forces, and in line with the other Arab position. Hamas agreed to a completely independent [Palestinian] state, with the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital, with the right of Return included – without recognizing the legitimacy of the Zionist entity.

This position was meant to facilitate Palestinian and Arab agreement at this stage, but without relinquishing any of our rights or any part of our land and without recognizing Israel. Our vision remains unchanged.

I believe that October 7 has enhanced this conviction, has narrowed the disagreements, and has turned the idea of liberating Palestine from the River to the Sea into a realistic idea that has already begun. It is not something [merely] to be expected or hoped for. It is part of the plan, part of the agenda, and we are standing on its threshold, Allah willing (“Hamas Leader Abroad Khaled Mashal: ‘We Reject The Two-State Solution; October 7 Proved That Liberating Palestine From The River To The Sea Is Realistic And Has Already Begun,’” MEMRI, January 22, 2024).

MYTH

Israel is targeting journalists in Gaza.

FACT

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 79 journalists and media workers have been killed since Israel’s war with Hamas began on October 7, 2023. Reports by CPJ and others have suggested Israel is targeting journalists (“Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war,” Committee to Protect Journalists, January 11, 2024). This is not true. Israel does not target journalists. Furthermore, less than half a dozen were killed while covering the story; most were killed inadvertently in their homes by airstrikes targeting terrorists, and many of the people listed as “journalists” were associated with terrorist propaganda outlets.

International news organizations have little access to Gaza and have relied primarily on Arabs associated with Middle Eastern media outlets whose objectivity is dubious given their employers and Hamas’s influence over what information may be disseminated.

So, who are the “journalists” who have been killed?

Four were Israelis murdered by Hamas on 10/7. Two (Ayelet Arnin and Shai Regev) were killed at the Nova music festival; Yaniv Zohar was working when he was killed (his wife and two daughters were also slain), and Roee Idan was with his family, a wife and two daughters, who were all murdered at Kibbutz Kfar Aza.

More than half – at least 47 – were killed not because they were journalists but because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, most dying in Israeli airstrikes targeting terrorists. Two were killed in a car with a terrorist operating a drone (Emanuel Fabian, “IDF: Al Jazeera journalists were killed in car with drone-operating terror operative,” Times of Israel, January 8, 2024).

According to the CPJ data, at least 14 were terrorists affiliated with Hamas television or radio stations. Three others were affiliated with Hezbollah.

David Collier took a closer look at the CPJ list, including their social media accounts (David Collier, “Special Report: The ‘Journalists’ Of Gaza,” January 2024). Some 19 people of the first 70 journalists CPJ reported dead, Collier says, were not journalists. Of the 47 accounts he could access, he documented that 31 belonged to “journalists” who “promoted and celebrated terrorism and the death of innocent civilians.”

He found that half of those on the list worked for Hamas or Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) channels, thereby violating its guidelines to exclude people employed by terrorist groups. Most were not working at the time of their deaths: 45 of the 70 died at home, as did 30 of the 35 “journalists” who worked for terrorist media. In one case, an employee of a PIJ outlet was killed when he was at the home of his father, who was targeted because he was a PIJ commander.

“There is no way CPJ can say journalism had anything to do with their death,” Collier concluded.

MYTH

Israel is spreading infectious diseases to kill children in Gaza.

FACT

Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was the master of the “big lie” tactic in which a lie, no matter how outrageous, is repeated often enough that it will eventually be accepted as truth. It is a propaganda tool the Palestinians have repeatedly used to tar Israel. Past examples have included specious claims that Israel “massacred” 500 people at Jenin (“Israeli minister denies Palestinian massacre,” CNN, April 17, 2002), infected Palestinians with the AIDS virus (“Israel Blasts Palestinian Charge That It Infected Children with HIV,” JTA, March 19, 1997), dropped poison candy for children in Gaza from airplanes (“Official Palestine News Agency: Israel poisons Palestinian candies,” Center for Near East Policy Research, May 24, 2001), made bombs and mines designed as toys for Palestinian children to play with, (PA TV, March 3, 2003, translated by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “PA mayor: Israeli army shapes explosives like toys to target Palestinian children,” Palestinian Media Watch, January 8, 2013), and spread drugs among young Palestinians to distract them from fighting Israel (PA TV, March 8, 2014, translated by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik, “PA official repeats libel: ‘Zionist policy’ is to cause drug addiction among Palestinian youth,” Palestinian Media Watch, October 15, 2014).

The latest calumny from the Palestinians is that “Israel is using a new silent weapon, through a systematic and deliberate policy of creating a hothouse for the spread of lethal epidemics and infectious diseases among children in the centers of uprooted people in the Gaza Strip, to kill as many civilians as possible, and particularly children” (Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 29, 2023, translated by Nan Jacques Zilberdik. “PA lies and libels: “Israel deliberately… spread(s) lethal epidemics and infectious diseases among children in Gaza,” Palestinian Media Watch, January 4, 2024).

Since the allegation is coming from the official Palestinian media, it represents yet another violation of the PA’s commitment to end incitement against Israel. It is a reminder of the anti-Semitism and hostility of the people some would like to put in charge of Gaza after the war with Hamas.

MYTH

The Associated Press considers the murder of Israelis as terrorism.

FACT

An Associated Press (AP) story (Julia Frankel, “Israel’s military campaign in Gaza seen as among the most destructive in recent history, experts say,” AP, December 22, 2023) recognized that the war in Gaza began with a Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. It describes the event as a “cross-border rampage” rather than a massacre and says it was perpetrated by a “militant group,” not terrorists.

How the AP covers the news has great influence as its stories are reprinted in publications worldwide. The organization has a checkered history, having collaborated with the Nazis (Philip Oltermann, “Revealed: how Associated Press cooperated with the Nazis,” The Guardian, March 30, 2016) and repeatedly published biased and inaccurate stories regarding Israel (see, for example, Matti Friedman, “An Insider’s Guide to the Most Important Story on Earth,” Tablet, August 26, 2014 and Michael J. Jordan, “Photo caption reinforces belief in anti-Israel bias,” JTA, October 5, 2000).

The AP admits the U.S. State Department, the European Union, and other Western countries consider Hamas a terrorist organization. Still, in its latest Stylebook, AP says it will not use the term “terrorist” or “terrorism” to describe Hamas (or Hezbollah). It chooses to use the term “militant(s)” (also acceptable: “fighters,” “attackers,” or “combatants”) based on the Webster definition: “aggressively active (as in a cause)” (“Israel-Hamas Topical Guide,” AP Stylebook). This makes Hamas sound little different than a hyperactive child who wants a toy.

The AP acknowledges that Hamas “has carried out suicide bombings” and “fired tens of thousands of increasingly powerful rockets from Gaza into Israel,” and used “other violence against ordinary citizens.” Nevertheless, it selectively chose what to use from Webster, refusing to use its definition of “terrorism” – “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion” – and “terror,” which is “violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands” (“terrorism” and “terror,” Merriam-Webster).

The AP has its own definition of “terrorism”: “the calculated use of violence, especially against civilians, to create terror to disrupt and demoralize societies for political ends” but subjectively decided the term does not apply to Hamas because “the terms terrorism and terrorist have become politicized, and often are applied inconsistently” and “because they can be used to label such a wide range of actions and events, and because the debate around them is so intense” (emphasis in the original).

This is nonsense since the AP has no trouble using the words in the context of attacks against Americans.

Why is a plane hitting the World Trade Center an act of terrorism, but rockets hitting Israeli cities are not? Why is the organization that attacked the United States on 9/11 a terrorist group, but those who butchered Israelis on 10/7 are not?

Consistency is not required for AP journalists, at least not when it comes to the murder of Israelis.

Myths & Facts: Online Exclusives