Myths & Facts: Online Exclusives
by Mitchell G. Bard
(2024 - )
ONLINE EXCLUSIVES (2024-)
(2005-2016 | 2017-2020 | 2021-2023 Archives)
2025 Myths
2024 Myths
2025 Myths
Lebanon’s new president is granting Palestinians basic rights.
The media is concerned with press freedom in the Palestinian Authority.
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?
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).
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.
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.
Jesus was a Palestinian.
FACT
Certain myths are recycled year after year. One such myth propagated by Palestinians is that Jesus was a Palestinian. 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:
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).
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.
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 5th 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. If this is the type of leader Palestinians choose, the PA will remain an obstacle to peace, and Israelis will have little hope for reconciliation.
Israel’s ban on UNRWA undermines its mission.
FACT
Israel’s controversial decision to prohibit the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from operating within Israeli-controlled areas represents a critical moment in the ongoing debate over the agency’s role in Palestinian welfare. The bill targets UNRWA’s operations in East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank, revoking the 1967 arrangement that had allowed the agency to provide services to Palestinian refugees.
UNRWA is unpopular in Israel, but it was seen as “the only game in town,” without which Israel would be forced to take responsibility for providing essential services to refugees in the areas under its control. This explained Israeli longstanding opposition to efforts by the U.S. Congress to cut off funding to the agency. That changed with the October 7 massacre and the revelations that approximately 10% of UNRWA employees in Gaza have ties to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, some participated in the massacre, and many of the organization’s facilities were used to conceal Hamas tunnels and command centers (“Israeli intel shows 10% of UNRWA workers in Gaza have ties to terror groups — report,” Times of Israel, January 29, 2024).
Over its nearly 70-year existence, the agency has perpetuated Palestinian misery; its camps have served as incubators for terrorism, while its welfare programs have perpetuated the delusion that more than five million refugees invented by UNRWA will one day return to their “homes” in Israel.
Originally set up to address the plight of Palestinians and Jews displaced after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, UNRWA was never meant to foster a permanent refugee population. UNRWA’s subsequent failure to secure long-term solutions has left the agency and its beneficiaries entrenched in a cycle of dependency.
UNRWA’s original mission was narrowly defined: to provide for those who fled or were displaced after the creation of Israel in 1948. At the time, no one expected the refugee issue to persist for long. John Blandford Jr., the director of UNRWA, wrote in his report on November 29, 1951, that he expected the Arab governments 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, the Arab states hindered any prospects of resettling refugees. Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon were expected to accept many refugees but proved unwilling. Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and its more than 200,000 inhabitants but refused to allow the Palestinians into Egypt or permit them to move 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 was the only Arab country to grant some Palestinians citizenship (Gazans were excluded). 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).
Today, the Palestinians have control over the 19 camps in the West Bank camps, and yet they have done nothing to dismantle them, move their inhabitants into permanent housing, or take steps to improve their welfare. Hamas received billions of dollars for the economy of Gaza after Israel’s disengagement but spent the money primarily on tunnels and weapons and did not build one house for a single refugee in the eight camps under its jurisdiction.
Critics of UNRWA argue that the agency’s existence perpetuates the conflict. Its schools indoctrinate students using material that is hostile to Israel, ahistorical, and anti-Semitic. In 2021, the head of UNRWA acknowledged that the agency’s textbooks contained “inappropriate” content that promoted terrorism and hatred (Melissa Weiss, “U.N. agency head admits printing ‘inappropriate’ content in Palestinian classroom materials,” Jewish Insider, January 14, 2021).
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.” Most people are unaware 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 increased from 300,000 reported by the UN in September 1948 to 5.9 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.
In light of these concerns, it is clear that UNRWA’s replacement is not only feasible but necessary. Israel’s new legislation banning the agency’s activities signals a shift toward more effective and accountable means of delivering humanitarian aid. In East Jerusalem, aid recipients could receive services directly from the Jerusalem municipality, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Education. Such plans were suggested following the recent legislation to ban UNRWA operations in Israel (“Israel outlaws UNWRA, bucking international pressure,” Jerusalem Post, October 28, 2024).
Numerous UN-affiliated organizations are capable of taking over for UNRWA in the disputed territories. In addition to UNHCR, the agency responsible for all refugees other than Palestinians, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Food Program, UN-Habitat and others could all play critical roles in delivering aid, health services, education, and housing to Palestinians. These agencies have the expertise and the mandate to operate in ways that UNRWA has failed to do—by focusing on real solutions, not political narratives (@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.
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 is particularly concerning, as it allows 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 their 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.
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).
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.
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:
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 because 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.
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, enjoying 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.
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.
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?
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:
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).
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.
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,” Jerusalem 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).
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.
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).
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.”
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:
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.
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 240 hostage. 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).
So what are the facts?
According to data provided by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Office, which is responsible for inspecting and transferring aid, the following assistance has been delivered between October 7, 2023, and March 7, 2024:
- 9,488 trucks transporting 198,300 tons of food.
- 2,347 trucks transporting 33,820 tons of shelter.
- 1,579 trucks transporting 18,740 tons of medical supplies.
- 1,303 trucks transporting 25,980 tons of water.
- 176 tanks of fuel and 326 of cooking gas.
- 1,376 trucks transporting 20,200 tons of other aid (COGAT, March 8, 2024).
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 134 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).
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Download our mobile app for on-the-go access to the Jewish Virtual Library
