Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, October 02, 2026

10/02 Links Pt2: Holocaust education is not working in the fight against contemporary antisemitism; Thoughts from Neriyah’s bedside; VDH: The Islamo-left takeover of the Democrats

From Ian:

Holocaust education is not working in the fight against contemporary antisemitism

This universalising impulse turns Jews into symbols, not people. It encourages students to see Jews only as historical victims, stripped of contribution, culture, and survival. It lavishes attention on Auschwitz, Anne Frank and memorial candles while ignoring the lived reality of Jews today, their attachment to Israel and the antisemitism they face.

Jonathan Frisher, a British teenager who persuaded his school to teach about today's antisemitism and is campaigning to make this nationwide, pointed out that the education at his school made no connection between the events of the Second World War and today's antisemitism, thus failing to ensure that young people recognise it.

Maybe I am alone in finding it strange that the annual memorial event in the Foreign Office includes speakers about other genocides and concludes with wine and sandwiches. The Canadian academic, Professor Ruth Wisse, has warned for decades that treating Jews as metaphors rather than neighbours is itself a form of antisemitism. When Holocaust education becomes a generic lesson about tolerance, it erases Jewish particularity and makes it harder to understand why antisemitism persists.

The second failing, which is evident in Holocaust memorials, is placing antisemitism safely in the past: Germany, Nazis, and nothing to do with today. Holocaust education often frames antisemitism as an historical problem located safely in 1930s Germany, an interesting subject for films. Students learn about Hitler, Nuremberg Laws, ghettos and concentration camps, but almost nothing about where antisemitism comes from, how it mutates, or why it remains potent. It teaches them that to upset Jews of today, Nazi symbolism is very effective.

Are young people taught about the elimination of Jews from most Middle Eastern states in the 1940s? The history approach creates a dangerous illusion: antisemitism is something only “the Nazis did,” not something that exists in Britain, Europe, or the wider world today. It places responsibility for Jew-hatred firmly in the past, absolving contemporary societies of any need for understanding.

The result is moralising rather than history. Students are encouraged to “not be bystanders,” “be kind,” or “stand up to hate,” but are not taught what antisemitism actually is: its theological roots, political uses, conspiracy structures, or modern expressions. They are not taught why despising Jews has become normalised again, or why Jews today report rising fear, harassment, and exclusion. The very word “Holocaust” is misused. With survivors dying, the emotional storytelling model is losing its power, and even so their very stories and their age again fixes antisemitism in the past. And because students have not been taught how antisemitism mutates, they are not equipped to recognise or resist contemporary Jew-hatred. They know how Jews died, not how Jews live, or why Jews are still targeted. How many of the young visitors to Auschwitz later defend the existence of Israel?

The third failing is ignoring Israel: the missing piece of contemporary antisemitism.

Perhaps the most striking omission in Holocaust education is Israel. Students are taught little if anything about why Jews need a state, how Zionism emerged, or why today’s antisemitism is overwhelmingly focused on the only Jewish state. This silence is not neutral. It leaves students unable to understand the central driver of modern antisemitism: the political demonisation of Israel and the delegitimisation of Jewish self-determination.

Without explaining Jewish history up to the present, Holocaust education cannot explain why antisemitism today looks different from antisemitism in 1936, yet is rooted in the same ideological patterns. One would not teach people not to discriminate against black people by teaching only about slavery. Yet we teach about antisemitism by teaching and commemorating only the Holocaust and not about the living Jewish world and its state. The UCL Centre for Holocaust Education has reported on the defects of current education courses, but their criticisms have had no impact so far. The UK Jewish leadership and organisations have too much invested in the current model to be open to constructive change.

Dara Horn has put forward a new model of Holocaust education in her most recent book The Final Solution to the Jewish Question: A Love Story for the Living, pointing out that Holocaust education has preserved memory but that alone cannot counter contemporary antisemitism.

I agree with her that we need a new model that teaches:
- Jewish civilisation, not just Jewish destruction
- Jewish survival and contribution, not only Jewish victimhood
- The history and legitimacy of Israel
- The roots of antisemitism, past and present

Horn, Wisse, and Bauer all point toward the same conclusion: education must present living Jews, not only dead ones. It must teach who Jews are, not only what was done to them.

Sir David Bell has been commissioned by the government to report on antisemitism in schools and colleges. His report is imminent and one can only hope that he will understand how Holocaust education has failed and what has to be done to make it relevant today.

Only then will students be equipped to recognise and resist the antisemitism of their own time, not just mourn the antisemitism of the past.

What does the pro-Palestinian movement really reward: Aid or ideological conformity?

That same moral scrutiny becomes even more interesting when following Macklemore beyond the donation itself.

In 2025, when Macklemore performed the halftime show for Qatar’s celebrity-fueled sports event, he was hosted by and performed for Qatar’s International Media Office. The event reached over 25 million viewers across television and social media.

Macklemore’s fee is not public information. The relationship between him and Qatar is.

But Macklemore’s participation in a Qatari state-linked cultural spectacle produced no corresponding international boycott campaign. “Censorship,” his followers cried when venues refused to host him earlier this month.

Yet losing a private booking is not quite the same thing as state censorship. If censorship is the principal issue, why does the principle appear to stop at Qatar’s border in this case?

None of the celebrities that attended the 2025 Qatar-funded event had any issues with the censorship of this terror-funding state, and its human rights violations were of no concern to the audience currently crying over Macklemore.

The same cultural ecosystem willing to treat a warm-up artist’s loss of a private performance as a free-speech crisis seems remarkably comfortable engaging with a state whose laws restrict free speech.

Perhaps Macklemore’s defenders genuinely believe his removal represents censorship. Perhaps they believe cultural boycotts create political pressure.

Perhaps Pink’s critics sincerely believe a decade of humanitarian advocacy should be forfeited over a repost she explicitly clarified was not a statement. And donating money obviously does not buy immunity from criticism. All fair.

But principles must survive consistent application. If humanitarian relief matters, Sheeran’s millions matter. If humanitarian advocacy matters, Pink’s UNICEF work matters. If artistic freedom matters, Qatar’s restrictions on expression matter.

If institutional integrity matters, UNRWA’s documented October 7 employee cases matter. And if institutional association itself morally contaminates an artist, that principle cannot conveniently expire when the stage is in Doha.

After all the petitions, canceled artists, tour withdrawals, boycotts, festival threats, violence, and purity tests, does the cultural machinery being constructed in Palestine’s name actually improve the daily life of a Palestinian?

Perhaps the most revealing thing about the entertainment industry’s Palestine activism isn’t whom it supports. It’s what it rewards.

When the same cultural class can cry censorship in Massachusetts and apparently misplace the principle somewhere over Doha, perhaps the currency was never free expression in the first place.

What is the moral currency of the pro-Palestinian movement: humanitarian assistance or ideological conformity?

And if Palestinian welfare is the objective, perhaps the cultural world should start measuring its activism not by how many artists say the approved words, lose their jobs, abandon stages, or sign petitions, but by what actually reaches Palestinians.

And perhaps humanitarian due diligence should include asking exactly which institutions receive the money.

That is where the moral accounting should begin. Because humanitarian assistance is measurable. Ideological conformity merely has better celebrity endorsements.

Robert Kraft’s Wikipedia entry edited to describe pro-Israel media watchdog as ‘genocide’ denier

A Wikipedia editor added a disputed description of the pro-Israel media watchdog Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis to New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s biography days after Kraft barred rapper Macklemore from performing at Gillette Stadium with Ed Sheeran, raising questions about the entry’s neutrality.

Macklemore was removed from Sheeran’s U.S. Loop Tour after saying “free Palestine” during a Sept. 4 performance at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. Kraft, who owns Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass., said Macklemore would not be permitted to perform there because of what he described as the rapper’s “broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery.” Messina Touring Group, the tour’s promoter, subsequently announced that Macklemore would not perform at the remaining dates after multiple venues said they would not host shows with him on the bill.

On Sept. 19, five days after Macklemore’s removal from the tour, a Wikipedia editor added material to Kraft’s entry based on a Sept. 18 article in The Intercept about his philanthropic giving to pro-Israel organizations, including the Kraft Family Foundation’s $63,500 donation to CAMERA.

The Wikipedia entry had described CAMERA as “an organization that has denied Israel’s genocide in Gaza and has organized pressure campaigns against those it considers ‘anti-Israel,’” mirroring language used in The Intercept article. The phrase “denied Israel’s genocide in Gaza” also linked to a Wikipedia page titled “Gaza genocide denial.”

The description, which is not included in CAMERA’s own Wikipedia entry, was removed on Thursday afternoon and replaced with recognition of a 2018 contribution from the foundation “with the memo line ‘fighting antisemitism.’” As of press time, the entry has not been reverted to reflect the anti-Israel language.

10/02 Links Pt1: The Morality of the Gaza War; Oman banned flydubai terrorist due to suspected extremism; Two Iranian men charged with terror plot targeting UK Jews

From Ian:

The Morality of the Gaza War

The most clearly legitimate reason for going to war, one that finds universal acceptance, is self-defense. That is a basic principle – perhaps the basic principle – of international law. Beginning on October 7, Israel fought to defend itself. It had terminated completely its presence in Gaza in 2006, removing its troops, its settlements, and even its graves. Hamas took control there and eleven years later launched its October 7 attack. Without it, there would have been no war. By any reading of international law, Israel had the right to defend itself by force against Hamas.

If Israel’s actions unambiguously conformed to the requirement of jus ad bellum, those of Hamas clearly violated it. The Palestinian group engaged in cross-border aggression, which the Western ethical tradition prohibits. In international legal terms, Hamas did to Israel on October 7, 2023, what Nazi Germany did to Poland on September 1, 1939, and what Vladimir Putin’s Russia did to Ukraine on February 24, 2022: it invaded a neighboring country with the intent to destroy it. That is a war crime, one of which several Nazi officials were found guilty after World War II and for which they were then executed.

Still, even a country engaged in legal and legitimate self-defense, as Israel was, must, according to the traditional ethical rules of war, defend itself in proper ways. Or, more accurately, it must avoid defending itself in improper ways. Here again, in the Gaza war Israel passed the test of jus in bello while Hamas conspicuously and indeed intentionally failed it.

The major rule governing the conduct of war is the avoidance, as far as possible, of civilian casualties. The Gaza war presented Israel with two challenges in abiding by this norm. First, the fighting took place in crowded urban areas. Wherever and whenever such wars have been waged, they have taken a heavy toll in civilian noncombatants. Second, Hamas placed military equipment and fighters in or beneath civilian facilities – houses, schools, mosques, hospitals – in order to maximize the number of civilian deaths and injuries, which counts as another war crime.

Israel took the opposite approach. It adopted measures to minimize harm to non-Hamas Gazans. When about to attack a civilian area in which Hamas military forces were present, the Israeli government warned the people in the area – through tens of millions of emails, leaflets, social media posts, and telephone calls – that an attack was coming. Israel designated safe areas to which civilians could go to avoid forthcoming military operations. The IDF also embedded with its forces legal experts who vetted proposed targets in real time and sometimes called off planned attacks because of the danger they posed to noncombatant Gazans.

By forfeiting the military advantage of surprise through such advance notification, as well as by canceling what would have been militarily effective attacks in order to spare civilians, Israel put its own soldiers at higher risk than they would otherwise have been. History offers few if any other examples of countries at war ready to sacrifice the lives of their own troops in order to comply with international law. The Israeli government also ensured food shipments to Gazans — press reports of famine there were fabricated, although Hamas did steal a good deal of the aid – and even interrupted the war to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of children in Gaza against polio.

Civilians did die in Gaza, but perhaps half of all Arabs killed there were not civilians but rather active Hamas combatants, although they ordinarily did not wear uniforms so as to blend in with the civilian population. Israel was clearly targeting Hamas but was not able, because of the location of the war as well as because of Hamas’s efforts, to avoid all noncombatants. Given this fact, an assessment of Israel’s compliance with the demands of jus in bello depends on the ratio of civilian to military deaths. In Gaza, the best estimates put it at between 1 and 1.5 to 1. In other, comparable conflicts the ratios were far higher. American military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost 4 or 5 civilian deaths for every combatant killed. Other, similar conflicts reached ratios as high as 9 or 10 to 1. According to Major John Spencer, the chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, in Gaza “Israel has implemented more precautions to prevent civilian harm than any military in history – above and beyond what international law requires and more than the United States did in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Hamas, for its part, bears ultimate responsibility for all deaths, civilian and military, on October 7 and thereafter because it began the war. During the fighting, it violated the basic norm of noncombatant immunity that governs the conduct of war in two ways. It murdered Israeli civilians; and it caused the deaths of Gazan non-combatants by making them military targets through its policy of surrounding them with military infrastructure. In addition, Hamas built, at great cost, several hundred miles of underground tunnels in Gaza, beneath hospitals, schools, and residential blocks, which it used to shelter its personnel and its weaponry. Had Gazan civilians been able to take shelter in them, they, too, would have enjoyed some protection from the war; but Hamas prevented Arab noncombatants from doing so. Deliberately causing the death of civilians is a war crime, and Hamas committed this crime on a large scale.

It did so for the purpose of falsely blaming Israel for civilian deaths and thus contributing to the demonization of the Jewish state in the West. In this it has succeeded, the mark of its success being the wide dissemination of the myth that Israeli is responsible for genocide. Those propagating it are, wittingly or not, validating Hamas’s pernicious tactics and thereby acting as its allies and accomplices. This will have consequences. It will encourage Hamas to persist in its campaign to destroy Israel by employing the tactics it used on October 7 and thereafter. It may also encourage other, similar groups to make use of these tactics.

Albert Camus, the French Nobel laureate in literature, once said: “False ideas always end in bloodshed, but it is always other people’s blood. That is why some of our intellectuals feel free to say just about anything.” Substitute for intellectuals (in French philosophes) the Westerners who propagate the charge of genocide against Israel and his words apply to the present case. The false charge – or, to call it by its proper name, the lie – that Israel committed crimes in Gaza, including the worst crime of all, genocide, supports the perpetuation of the criminal project that Hamas exists to carry out: the slaughter of innocent Jews and Arabs.

JPost Editorial: Governments cannot stay silent on the threat against Israel after flydubai hijacking

How will the world respond to the flydubai hijacking attempt?

India responded by honoring Capt. Smit Machchhar, the injured Indian pilot. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Droupadi Murmu praised his courage. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong thanked those who intervened and wished the injured a full recovery.

US President Donald Trump, who discussed the incident after speaking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, acknowledged that the full account had not been established. The United Nations said it was following developments and was thankful that a major tragedy had been averted.

Beyond that, the reaction was thin. The UAE opened a formal investigation, but Saudi Arabia had issued no substantive statement about its investigation by Thursday morning, Reuters reported. Oman had not commented on the Israeli report that the suspect was an Omani national. By early Thursday afternoon, no public condemnation had come from the European Union’s leadership or most major Western governments.

What more is required before they speak? Condemning the confirmed violence would not require endorsing every Israeli account. It would not require calling the incident terrorism, assigning a motive, or accusing another country of involvement. It only would require saying that violence in the cockpit of a passenger aircraft is intolerable and demands a thorough, transparent investigation.

The absence of a death toll should be a source of relief, not an excuse for indifference. An act does not become less worthy of condemnation because the people caught up in it prevented its worst possible consequences.

Passenger aircraft are not battlefields. The International Civil Aviation Organization requires states to report unlawful or attempted seizures and other acts of unlawful interference, because a breach aboard one aircraft can expose vulnerabilities affecting travelers everywhere.

Passengers also cannot be treated as extensions of the government at their destination. People do not lose their claim to international concern when they board a flight to Tel Aviv.

Flight FZ1073 connected two countries that established relations under the 2020 Abraham Accords. Flydubai inaugurated scheduled commercial service between Dubai and Tel Aviv that November, making direct aviation one of the agreement’s most visible results. The people placed at risk on Wednesday included an Indian captain and passengers of several nationalities aboard an Emirati aircraft bound for Israel.

The heroes aboard FZ1073 did not have the luxury of waiting for perfect information. They saw a cockpit in chaos and acted. Governments have official confirmation of violence aboard a civilian aircraft and the safety of solid ground. As such, they should be able to manage a sentence.

Simchat Torah in the newspapers, 100 years ago

From The Burlington Free Press, Fri, Oct 01, 1926, Page 7

British MP Ayoub Khan thinks there is something suspicious about the attempted destruction of the Flydubai flight to Israel this week.

Khan isn't some random X account. He is the independent MP for Birmingham Perry Barr and a barrister. He was elected in 2024 as one of a group of explicitly pro-Gaza independents after leaving the Liberal Democrats, saying he had been pressured to remain silent about Gaza. He subsequently joined the parliamentary alliance with Jeremy Corbyn and other pro-Gaza MPs.

After reports emerged that the co-pilot of Flydubai Flight 1073 had attacked the captain and apparently tried to crash the Tel Aviv-bound aircraft, Khan tweeted:

“I am genuinely shocked as to the speed of this enquiry by the Israeli spokespeople!!! Normally it takes them months if not years. I think i smell a rat!”

He followed that up by boasting:

“And that’s why I believe the most powerful MP in parliament is not the PM but the one that can speak without fear or favour!!!!!!!”

So I asked the fearless MP a pretty simple question: if he “smells a rat,” what exactly does he think happened?

To Khan's credit, he answered me directly:

“Since you have asked in a non-disparaging manner I will answer your question.
The answer is: I don’t know.
Any reasonable person would wait for the black box recording; testimony of those in the cockpit! not going to simply accept what the lying Bibi butcher of Gaza says.”

But that isn't really an answer. “I don't know” is perfectly reasonable when the evidence is genuinely ambiguous. It is not what Khan originally said. “I smell a rat” means that the story we are being told is suspicious. It implies that something does not add up.

So what doesn't add up?

There is already substantial evidence about the basic events aboard that airplane, and most of it has nothing to do with accepting Benjamin Netanyahu's word.

The aircraft's flight data showed an extraordinary plunge. According to the Associated Press, the plane descended from roughly 34,000 feet to 16,600 feet and transmitted both the standard 7700 general emergency code and then the 7500 code indicating unlawful interference or hijacking. Multiple passengers described a violent struggle in the cockpit. The injured captain himself has now publicly described what happened, saying that after being attacked he managed to open the cockpit door so passengers and crew could subdue the co-pilot. Reuters reports that the captain remains hospitalized after being stabbed.

Of course there are still questions. Investigators need to establish motive, determine what happened immediately before the attack, how a weapon could get onto the plane, reconstruct precisely what happened inside the cockpit and find out whether anyone else was involved. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel are investigating, and Flydubai has quite reasonably warned against reaching premature conclusions about motive.

But that is completely different from pretending that we know nothing until somebody downloads the black box.

Nobody applies that standard to aviation disasters or other catastrophes. Newspapers immediately analyze radar data, eyewitness testimony, photographs, videos, communications and whatever other evidence is available. Officials issue preliminary assessments. Experts discuss likely explanations. Those assessments are explicitly preliminary and can change when additional evidence appears.

That is normal investigation.

Khan instead takes the existence of unanswered questions and uses them to cast suspicion on the evidence that already exists.

And once you do that, the obvious question is: what would have to be false for Khan's “rat” to exist?

Are all the passengers lying about what happened in the cockpit and colluding to say the same story? Is the wounded captain lying? Were the flight-tracking records somehow manipulated? Were the emergency codes fabricated? Was the airplane's enormous plunge coincidentally unrelated to the reported cockpit struggle?

If Khan has an alternative hypothesis that explains those facts better, he should tell us what it is. That would at least be an argument.

But “I smell a rat” followed by “I don't know” isn't an alternative hypothesis. It is a conspiracy insinuation carefully constructed so that the person making it never has to specify the conspiracy.

This is the methodology of 9/11 "truthers" and Holocaust deniers. It is not one an elected official should publicly boast.

Ayoub Khan is a barrister. He presumably understands the difference between evidence and insinuation. He is also a Member of Parliament who built much of his political profile around Gaza and Israel. If this had been virtually any other aviation emergency, would he insist that no one draw even preliminary conclusions from flight data, emergency signals, videos and multiple eyewitnesses until the black box had been analyzed, weeks later?

Or does this extraordinary standard of skepticism suddenly appear because the people reporting what happened are Israelis and the Israeli prime minister repeated the preliminary findings?

Khan says the most powerful MP is the one who can speak “without fear or favour.”

Fine. Then tell us all, exactly, what exactly is rat he smelling?

10/01 Links Pt2: IDF: 170 Hamas, PIJ terrorists killed in Gaza were misrepresented as 'innocent journalists'; IDF rejects ‘NAZA’ claims of deliberate targeting of Gaza civilians

From Ian:

Andrew Fox: Why does the BBC refer to dead terrorists as ‘journalists’?

By its dodgy reporting, the BBC implicitly bolsters one of the most pernicious myths about Israel: that it deliberately kills journalists to silence their reporting. But the fact that a fighter has a camera does not erase his military role, and nor does a journalist’s death alongside a military target establish that his journalism made him a target. By presenting men engaged in war as independent witnesses, the BBC has helped turn their deaths into evidence for an accusation that those deaths cannot, by themselves, sustain. Hamas could hardly ask for a more useful service than what the BBC provides for it.

The overlap extends beyond proven combat roles. A December 2025 study by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre identified terrorist affiliations in 157 of 266 reported journalist and media-worker deaths, roughly 59 per cent. Its definition included employment by factional media, so not all 157 were fighters, but this should have given editors ample reason to investigate whose version of the Gaza war they were publishing.

Hamas has a vested interest in demonising the Jewish State, yet the BBC consistently treats the word of this proscribed terrorist organisation as the truth. The BBC owes viewers an explanation of how it checked its contributors and what relevant affiliations it failed to disclose. Any competent editor should examine their source’s independence, particularly in a conflict as polarising as this one. Instead, the BBC has allowed Hamas propaganda to be smuggled into Western homes with the stamp of a trusted broadcaster.

Since 7 October 2023, the BBC has happily shown footage of a devastated Gaza Strip – but there has been comparatively less interest in explaining the broader security threat that Hamas poses to Israel, or any of the measures taken by the Jewish State to minimise civilian casualties.

The BBC’s record on the Gaza war makes a mockery of its claims to accuracy and impartiality. The BBC documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, used a child narrator whose father was a deputy agriculture minister in the Hamas-run administration. Ofcom found that omitting this fact materially misled audiences. The BBC later claimed that it wasn’t aware of the connection. But, as with the dead ‘journalists’, this isn’t good enough. The BBC broadcast an emotive and highly biased piece of propaganda without knowing the full picture.

Earlier failures were just as grotesque. After the October 2023 Al-Ahli hospital explosion, Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s international editor, claimed an Israeli airstrike was responsible. In fact, it was a misfired rocket from Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The following month, the BBC was forced to apologise for falsely claiming that Israeli troops were ‘targeting’ medical teams at Al-Shifa Hospital.

The BBC’s repeated professions of editorial rigour are contemptible when set against that record. A broadcaster that lectures the public about misinformation has repeatedly failed the elementary checks its own authority depends on.

Senior editors must now account publicly for the sources they trusted and the reports that need correcting, across BBC Arabic and English-language output. Failures this serious should cost careers. Licence-fee payers deserve a broadcaster that is capable of questioning Hamas’s propaganda. The public should not have to investigate the BBC itself to discover what it left out.

More Than Half the Names on Committee to Protect Journalists List of Slain Gaza Journalists Are Still Linked to Terror Outfits Despite Group’s Self-Policing ‘Audit’

More than half the names on the embattled Committee to Protect Journalists' revised list of "journalists" slain in Gaza "have connections to terrorist groups," even after the New York-based advocacy organization conducted a months-long review meant to identify and remove confirmed combatants from its widely cited database, according to a leading media watchdog.

CPJ first announced in June that it was undertaking a wholesale review of its list of "Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza War" following a series of Washington Free Beacon reports questioning the integrity of its influential list and revealing that numerous confirmed terrorists were included in the death toll. CPJ has been in turmoil for months—driven by infighting and the public defenestration of a pharmaceutical heiress—over allegations of myopic anti-Israel bias that's clouded its historic mission of protecting journalists worldwide.

While CPJ initially said its internal review would be completed in July, the organization did not publicly disclose its findings until late last week. CPJ ultimately removed 19 terrorists and 3 other fake journalists from the list, but reinstated 4 others who had previously been nixed for engaging in terrorism against Israel. That leaves a total of 191 supposed Gazan journalists on the CPJ's rejiggered database—102 of whom still have demonstrable "connections to terrorist groups," according to an independent review of the CPJ audit performed by the Israeli media watchdog group HonestReporting.

"Although the CPJ review removed almost two dozen individuals who participated in combat during the war that began on October 7, 2023, 53 percent of those still listed have terrorist ties, with CPJ failing to remove identified terrorists and even reinstating some to the database," HonestReporting concluded in a comprehensive 138-page review. "CPJ continues to include members of the non-military wings of terrorist groups on its list, and has failed to issue an apology for spreading disinformation."

Thursday afternoon, the CPJ doubled down, making the claim on X that "Israel has been targeting and killing journalists in connection with their reporting for decades, and this deadly pattern must end," something the Israelis strongly dispute, presenting, case by case, documentary proof such as "martyr posters," photos, and Hamas payroll and membership records.

The CPJ was first thrust into the spotlight in May, when it served as a critical source for an outlandish column by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof alleging that Israeli soldiers raped two Palestinian "journalists" with a carrot and a dog.

Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups operating in Gaza have a well-documented practice of installing their operatives as journalists—often as cameramen in TV crews—so they can take advantage of longstanding conventions to avoid killing journalists during war. When Israel identifies and targets these militants, it faces international opprobrium, especially if CPJ claims there were indeed journalists.

HonestReporting further determined that CPJ's updated list fails to meet the organization's own "criteria for inclusion as a journalist, while broader methodological issues remain." CPJ's board voted 17-1 in July to affirm that "organizations affiliated with militant groups" meet the criteria of a legitimate journalistic outlet "provided they are not engaging in combat or inciting violence in a manner likely to have imminent effect." That contentious definition, opposed only by the Fox News board representative, essentially allowed CPJ to continue considering known terrorists for inclusion on its list.

10/01 Links Pt1: Melanie Phillips: Those amazing and heroic Israelis; How Fiction Will Remember October 7 - with Lior Raz and Avi Issacharoff; Does U.N. stand for "unknown"?

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Those amazing and heroic Israelis

The British government is blind to the risks posed by the Palestinian Arabs because, to the morally bankrupt left, the Palestinian cause is synonymous with morality.

The spittle-flecked fanaticism of Miliband’s speech to this week’s Labour Party conference took many people aback.

Having paid lip service to standing against antisemitism and for Israel’s right to defend itself, this scion of a Jewish family decimated by the Holocaust denounced Netanyahu’s responsibility for Palestinian “suffering” in Gaza and the West Bank as a “stain on the conscience of the world.”

Having falsely accused Israel of “ethnic cleansing” by the “settler terrorists of the West Bank,” “war crimes in Gaza” and the “illegal occupation of Palestine,” Miliband declared: “To the millions in Britain and elsewhere who have been moved and outraged by the plight of the Palestinian people, we hear you. You were right.”

Precisely what does Miliband think those people were “right” about? Their claim that Israel is committing “genocide”? That Palestine must be Arab “from the river to the sea”? Their demand to “globalize the intifada”?

Miliband, who came across as an unhinged demagogue, is a stain on the memory of his slaughtered family.

The suicidal imbecility of Britain’s hostility to Israel was demonstrated by the incident at RAF Fairford, the base in southwest England from where U.S. bombers have taken off for Iran.

Last Sunday, five men were arrested on suspicion of being about to attack the base. Although much about this incident remains murky, Britain’s Prime Minister Andy Burnham has now said there are “strong indications” that Iran was involved.

But as Netanyahu has revealed, it was Israel that gave the Brits the intelligence warning of such an Iranian attack—and pretty much the next day, he said, the United Kingdom announced sanctions against the Israeli “settlements.”

Where Britain leads, the rest of the West follows. There is acute concern that these sanctions are intended to broaden out into a global financial strangulation of Israel, especially if the Democrats win the post-Trump presidency.

There’s anxiety that American support for Israel is crumbling. Some reports suggest that, apart from CENTCOM, even the U.S. defense establishment has become hostile to the Jewish state.

This is fundamentally because the West is undergoing a rapidly progressive erosion of its core values, including the destruction of morality, truth and reason itself.

Even today, diminished as it is, the United Kingdom sets the Western cultural pace. That’s why the British government’s defamation and delegitimization of Israel are so important.

Britain is leading the West into the heart of darkness—the abandonment of civilization for the embrace of barbarism. And the people upon whose backs Miliband et al have accordingly stuck a bullseye are the Jews.

But another narrative is emerging to counter this obscenity. Flydubai is a United Arab Emirates airline. The terrorist co-pilot was Omani. Oman is an ally of Iran. The UAE has become a close ally of Israel fighting Iran. The Emirati crew helped Israelis on the plane to avert catastrophe. And the plane was allowed to land in Saudi Arabia.

A new order is being born in which Arabs and Jews are fighting together against the forces of barbarism in the Islamic world.

On their way home to Israel, survivors of the hijacking sang the words written by the 18th- century Chassidic rabbi Nachman of Breslov: “The whole entire world is a very narrow bridge, and the main thing is to have no fear at all.”

Britain and much of Europe—and even America if it allows the Democratic Party to gain power—are now hurtling downward towards a catastrophic crash. But Israel will live because it has seized the cockpit controls.

JPost Editorial: The flydubai passengers have returned home safely, and that is all that matters for now

Serious questions will have to be answered about how the terrorist came to be piloting an Israel-bound aircraft and whether every security requirement governing flights to Israel was properly followed. Those questions are legitimate, and they should be investigated thoroughly.

But this incident is not an indictment of the UAE.

One terrorist does not represent a country. The UAE has maintained its relationship with Israel through years of regional upheaval, including war, and Wednesday’s attack should not be allowed to undermine a relationship that has become an important part of the region since the Abraham Accords.

Another country also deserves Israel’s gratitude: Saudi Arabia.

Israel and Saudi Arabia still do not have formal diplomatic relations. Yet when an aircraft carrying 166 Israelis needed somewhere to land after a terror attack in the cockpit, Saudi Arabia opened its doors.

The Saudis did more than provide a runway.

Passengers received food and medical care after landing in Tabuk; the wounded were treated, and frightened children and families were looked after. One Israeli passenger described the Saudi treatment as “very nice” and “very understanding.”

At a moment of extraordinary fear, Saudi authorities responded with humanity and professionalism. Israelis should recognize that and say thank you.

There will, of course, be time for questions, and there should be.

The investigation must determine exactly how this attack was possible, whether security procedures failed, whether warning signs were missed, and what changes are needed to ensure nothing like it happens again.

A political argument is already developing around the attack.

Netanyahu warned on Tuesday that Israel’s enemies could try to attack ahead of the election. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, who received a security briefing from Netanyahu that evening, said afterward that nothing resembling the flydubai incident had been presented to him and accused government figures of trying to use the attack for political purposes.

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) responded that Netanyahu had been briefed about a significant increase in terrorist activity around the world.

Those competing accounts will need to be examined. Israelis deserve to know what intelligence existed, what the government knew, and whether the statements now being made accurately reflect the information available beforehand.

But that reckoning does not have to overshadow what happened on Wednesday.

For now, think of the passengers who ran toward danger. Think of the pilots who regained control of a plunging aircraft. Think of the dentist who treated a wounded pilot in midair. Think of the Saudis who received Israelis in Tabuk and cared for them.

And think of 174 families who could so easily have received a very different call.

A terrorist tried to hijack an aircraft carrying 166 Israelis.

He failed.

They are alive and safe.

For now, that is more than enough.

Khaled Abu Toameh: 'October 7 Will Return': Hamas, Like Iran, Will Not Voluntarily Give Up the Fight

The chants matter because they reveal what speeches about peace and reconstruction conceal.

These slogans raise a fundamental question for anyone discussing the future of the Gaza Strip: What exactly has changed?

The answer is particularly important because the international framework for the Gaza Strip explicitly calls for something very different.

US President Donald J. Trump's 20-point peace plan states that Gaza is to become a "deradicalized terror-free zone" that poses no threat to its neighbors. The plan calls for the decommissioning of weapons, demilitarization and the establishment of an International Stabilization Force. It also envisages a process intended to change Gazan mindsets and narratives by emphasizing tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

On paper, the objective is peaceful coexistence. Public gatherings are proclaiming that Gaza belongs to Hamas and rejecting international forces.

This is the main problem facing any attempt to transform the Gaza Strip.

Reconstruction can rebuild buildings. It cannot dismantle an ideology.

The answer will determine whether Gaza's reconstruction becomes part of a genuine transition toward stability, or whether reconstruction takes place alongside the reorganization of the same forces that brought the Hamas terrorists to power in the Gaza Strip and the region into war.

Has the ideological and military foundation for another October 7 massacre actually been removed?

On the eve of the October 7 anniversary, the world should pay close attention when people in the Gaza Strip say they want the October 7 massacre to happen again.

It is crucial to remember what senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad said shortly after the October 7 massacre: "The Al-Aqsa Flood [what Hamas calls the October 7 massacre] is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth, because we have the determination, the resolve, and the capabilities to fight."

TIL That Taking Unprecedented Measures To Protect Noncombatants Is The Same As Genocide (PreOccupied Territory)

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook and Substack pages.

TIL That Taking Unprecedented Measures To Protect Noncombatants Is The Same As Genocide

By Jessica Montross, Student, International Law

New York, October 1 - Are you telling me... are you telling me that everything I'd always thought I'd known about the Laws of Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law, all of that, is incorrect, and that moving civilians out of harm's way, as required by those laws, in fact violates those laws in the most egregious possible way?

Well, you live and learn, I guess.

Okay, it is not quite that simple: for most militaries, in most armed conflict situations, my original understanding holds. Where it differs: when Israel is involved. Then, according to experts in International Law, we must invoke whatever principle makes Israel look the worst.

Thus, in the example we mentioned at the outset, whereas evacuation of noncombatants from a combat zone forms an unremarkable step we expect any military to take before initiating hostilities in that area, once we discover that the party conducting or encouraging those evacuations is the IDF, that evacuation, even its merest attempt, constitutes genocidal ethnic cleansing.

I have been taking notes. The notes are embarrassing, because they look like the syllabus.

Warning before an attack: normally a precaution. Article 57. Feasible advance warning. I highlighted it in green. Green meant “this is how you stay inside the law.” When the warning is an Israeli phone call, a leaflet, a roof-knock, the highlight changes color. The warning becomes proof that the civilian population was identified as a population and then operated upon. Identification, which I had understood as the beginning of distinction, is refiled as the beginning of intent, a key element of determining that genocide has occurred.

"Distinction" itself changes. Elsewhere, a combatant embedded in a school is a problem the defender created and the attacker must still try to solve. The involvement if Jews somehow converts every nearby civilian into evidence against the attacker. The attacker’s effort to separate them is not credited as separation. It is credited as "sorting."

But again, only if we're talking about Israel.

Proportionality works the same way. I was taught to weigh concrete and direct military advantage against expected incidental harm. Tedious work. Lawyers pretend it is math so they can sleep. When the actor is not Israel, a bad ratio is a tragedy, a scandal, maybe, in rare cases, a war crime. When the actor is Israel, the ratio is not weighed. The existence of the civilian is the whole case. The military object is treated as a story the perpetrator tells in order to stand near the civilian.

I used to think “as such” in the Genocide Convention did some work. National, ethnical, racial or religious group as such. The phrase was there to stop people from renaming every ugly war. I wrote a whole outline on specific intent. I can still recite it. Recitation is now a form of denial. Intent, in the special file, is inferred from the fact that Israel knew there were Palestinians in Gaza and fought a war there anyway. Knowledge of geography becomes mens rea. And Israel has maps! Maps are inculpatory.

Aid is also reversible. A state that facilitates food, medicine, vaccination, and fuel is, in ordinary doctrine, not inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. When it comes to Israel, facilitation is calibration: you keep enough people alive to prove you had them in your power. Restriction is the same crime at a different setting. There is no compliant setting.

I asked a professor whether the rule was simply lex specialis Israel. She said of course not, and then walked me through a chain of inferences that only fires when the defendant is the Jewish state. Siege law for everyone else. Collective punishment if the name on the brief is Israel. Human shields as a legal problem if the defender is a state we recognize as a state; human shields as a moral reproach to the attacker if the defender is Hamas.

I wrote “see also: whatever principle” in the margin. It is not a term of art yet. It will be.

09/30 Links Pt2: 85 years later: Babyn Yar and the fight against deliberate erasure; Jeremy Boreing: They're Trying To Eradicate the Jews; Melanie Phillips on how Britain sides with Islamist evil

From Ian:

85 years later: Babyn Yar and the fight against deliberate erasure

In 1961, Yevgeny Yevtushenko wrote about the absence of a monument at Babyn Yar. His poem became a protest against the silencing of memory and against antisemitism.

In 1991, a menorah-shaped memorial to the Jewish victims was erected at the site, but the road to establishing a comprehensive memorial center was long. Memorials now stand there, yet the war has halted the momentum of construction and development.

Research continues, even under fire.

In September 2025, the center reported that 1,031 previously unidentified victims’ names had been added to its database since the outbreak of the war. Birth certificates, adoption applications, and court testimony are restoring identities once thought lost.

In the face of erasure, each name restores a person to memory.

A line connects Soviet erasure to Russian propaganda today. Once again, history is subordinated to the needs of the state.

The Kremlin justifies its invasion of Ukraine with the false claim that the country must be “denazified,” exploiting the memory of the victory over Nazism.

A study by Ruslan Kavatsiuk, Oleksiy Makukhin, and Violetta Seleznova, published this month in Eastern European Holocaust Studies, analyzes 4,263 Russian television broadcasts from 2012 to 2024.

The researchers show how “Nazism” became a label used to delegitimize Ukraine and justify military action against it. This, too, is a form of erasure: blurring the historical meaning of Nazism, pushing its victims to the margins, and replacing their story with a narrative that serves the state.

Then, the victims’ Jewish identity was suppressed; today, the memory of their murderers is exploited to justify aggression.

Through my work in Holocaust education and remembrance with March of the Living, I have learned the power of encountering the places themselves. Visiting a town, a synagogue, or a killing site connects historical knowledge to human lives.

To understand what was lost, we must know what existed: families, culture, spiritual life, and daily routines. This is how we counter erasure beyond commemorative ceremonies: by learning about communities, reading testimonies, and remembering names.

Babyn Yar should be a gateway to understanding Eastern European Jewry and its world, while also bearing witness to its destruction.

Ukraine’s efforts to confront this chapter of its past deserve recognition, as does its perseverance in the work of remembrance after more than four years of a devastating war.

On the 85th anniversary of the massacre, our responsibility is to protect memory against erasure, distortion, and manipulation.

That means returning to the facts, supporting research, opening archives, and making their findings accessible; teaching the Holocaust by bullets and learning about the communities that lived before they were murdered.

Behind the name Babyn Yar are tens of thousands of human beings, and beyond it are millions whose stories were buried in the soil of Eastern Europe.

Our duty is to remember their names, their lives, and their Jewish identity, and to ensure that no regime succeeds in bending their story to its own purposes.

The Palestinian Inquisition

Hasan Piker interviews politicians and other public figures and helps establish which answers are acceptable. Having likened liberal Zionists to 'liberal Nazis', he plays at being the grand inquisitor, the arbiter of correct beliefs. If any attachment to Israel puts you in the heretical category, what room is left for disagreement?

You don’t even have to be Jewish to find yourself before this tribunal. Ask Ed Sheeran. His crisis began when Macklemore was removed from Sheeran’s tour following pressure from venue owners over the rapper’s anti-Israel statements and history of anti-Semitic imagery.

Soon Sheeran’s own beliefs were on trial. A picture of him meeting a former Israeli hostage was enough to ‘prove’ he was irredeemable. And when he condemned the October 7 terrorist attacks while also calling the situation in Gaza catastrophic, this too was evidence against him. For some critics, acknowledging suffering on both sides was offensive. British MP Zarah Sultana accused him of ‘both-sidesing genocide’. Apparently, the problem with his compassion was extending it to all humans.

Saturday Night Live UK then turned his reluctance to take sides into a recurring joke. In one sketch, a fictional Sheeran remained unwilling to choose even during a conflict between humans and robots. The joke depended on the audience accepting that his neutrality was cowardice. When comedy writers can’t conceive of there legitimately being two sides to a two-sided conflict, that’s troublesome.

Sometimes you don’t even have to give any answer to become a victim of the inquisition. You just have to sit next to someone who gave the ‘wrong’ one. Pop singer Pink faced an immense backlash after criticising Macklemore’s concert remarks. Then Elizabeth Banks and Amy Adams were photographed sitting with her at the US Open. People began questioning them, too. In a Reddit discussion of the photographs, commenters condemned their friendliness toward Pink and flooded their Instagram accounts with hateful comments. Watching tennis with someone deemed ‘impure’ was enough to start the examination. The warning extends beyond what you’re allowed to say to who you’re allowed to be seen with.

You don’t even have to help anyone to pass the test. A person can donate to Palestinians privately and still fail if they don’t use the required language. Another person can make the proper declaration and be celebrated without being asked to do anything more. The words become the whole point.

The celebrity inquisition doesn’t need everyone to believe what they say. It only needs everyone to know what happens if they don’t say the right words.

‘Put me down for not getting burnt at the stake.’

Adam Brody blasted as ‘ignorant Jew’ over Palestine stance by former ‘Nobody Wants This’ Rabbi consultant

Adam Brody has been lambasted by former “Nobody Wants This” technical consultant, Rabbi Steve Leder, who called the actor an “ignorant Jew” over his comments on Palestine.

“Hi Adam, you might not remember me. My name is Rabbi Steve Leder, and I was the technical advisor for Season 1 of ‘Nobody Wants This,’” he began in a social media video, responding to Brody’s recently published comments to GQ — in which he referred to Israel’s attack on Gaza as a genocide.

“My job was to make sure that your character was authentic and that everything in Season 1 about Judaism was authentic,” he went on.

“Your pronouncement the other day about a genocide in Gaza was truly shocking, not only because of your misuse and mischaracterization of the word ‘genocide.’ There is no genocide in Gaza. There are genocides in other countries happening, but you failed to mention any of them.”

“You, by your own admission, are a relatively ignorant Jew, and your ignorance really showed the other day,” Leder said.

“If you’re gonna use a word like ‘genocide,’ you oughta know what it means, he continued, calling the way Brody referred to the term as “so flippant” and “disgusting,” while likening it to “asking for a table for two at Craig’s.”

“Here’s some more technical advice: If you know nothing about something, you should say nothing about it.”

Brody previously told GQ when asked about his stance on the Isreal-Gaza conflict, “Put me down as thinking it’s a genocide. Put me down as wanting a free Palestine.”

He added that he’s “hopeful that another administration can really do some good and correct some of these policies that are helping that situation be as awful as it is.”

In Netflix’s hit series, Brody plays Rabbi Noah Roklov, who begins an unlikely romance with a non-Jewish podcaster Joanne Williams, who is played by Kristen Bell.

09/30 Links Pt1: Heroic Israelis avert a tragedy in the sky; A Nation Like a Lion’—Israeli Airline Passenger Heroics Avert Jihadist Terrorist Attack

From Ian:

‘A Nation Like a Lion’—Israeli Airline Passenger Heroics Avert Jihadist Terrorist Attack

In early 2024 the band Hatikva 6 released a song that captured the spirit of Israel as it responded to the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack. "Everyone looks so ordinary but … We're a nation of superheroes. In each and every one hides a soldier ready to save the world," it says.

The Hebrew version on YouTube has 15 million views; a version with English subtitles, which I recommend you take a break and watch now, has fewer views.

Just in time for the third anniversary of the October 7 attack—and just past the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America—came an episode whose details reminded me of the song.

As Israeli government officials and flight passengers recounted it, a Boeing 737 FlyDubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv with about 174 people aboard started rapidly losing altitude, and lights suddenly went out inside the cabin. Flight data indicate the plane plunged about 14,000 feet in about 30 seconds.

"It became drastic," one passenger on the flight, Adam Polo, told Fox News. "After a couple of seconds, people started to shout, people that were sitting in the first couple of rows and in the business class that were close to the pilots' room … that there was a stabbing, and that there was blood everywhere, and then they asked that everyone who can help, please join and come immediately. And then we were really really really lucky that I think like 10 guys just jumped to help. Three or four of them actually entered into the pilots' room and succeeded, after a couple of minutes, succeeded to control the situation."

"I ran toward the cockpit," a passenger on the plane, Yaniv Hayun, told The Free Press. "We physically fought with the co-pilot; he was going wild. I put him in a choke hold, took control of him, and dragged him out of the cockpit. … Then I called for other Israelis to help restrain him." They did so using headphone cords and zip ties, according to the Free Press account.

One passenger, Itzhak Liber, was pictured on video saying in Hebrew, "there was an attacker with a knife who stabbed one of the pilots. We simply jumped and removed him from the cockpit."

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces an election on October 27, 2026, that polls indicate is close, met with Hayun at Ben Gurion International Airport, where the passengers eventually arrived after a stop in Saudi Arabia. Netanyahu released video clips and images of his meeting with Hayun, whose shirt and socks were soaked with blood. Hayun, as his wife and two daughters looked on, explained to Netanyahu how he subdued the terrorist copilot. Hayun then recounted how he had pulled back on the yoke of the aircraft based on what he'd seen watching a television show, Air Crash Investigation, also known as Mayday.

Israel's defense minister, Israel Katz, was quoted by the Times of Israel that the event "was a jihadist terrorist attack attempt, which was thwarted only thanks to the bravery of several Israeli passengers who broke into the cockpit, overpowered the terrorist and, with their own hands, restored control of the plane to another flight crew who was present there."

Netanyahu also credited "Indian pilot Captain Smit Machchhar for his extraordinary bravery. Despite being stabbed and seriously injured, he fought back, resisted, opened the cockpit door, and enabled passengers and crew to overpower the attacker — preventing a catastrophic mid-air disaster."

The mid-air heroics by passengers are reminiscent of those aboard the planes that were hijacked as part of the September 11 terrorist attack. Daniel Lewin, a passenger aboard a plane from Boston that was eventually flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, appears to have battled the terrorists, according to his family members and accounts by others aboard the plane who got word out before it crashed. And Todd Beamer was heard saying "let's roll" as he led the effort that apparently caused United Flight 93 to crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, rather than the terrorist target in Washington.

President Trump called it "the most amazing story" and said the key Israeli passenger was a professional plumber. "A plumber. Never flew a plane. Strong guy," the president said.

Dr Brian L Cox: World Central Kitchen convoy attack is a tragedy, not a crime

There is no doubt that the attack on the World Central Kitchen convoy in Gaza last April was a tragedy. The question that has been circulating in the court of public opinion since then is whether it was also a crime.

According to a recent statement published by Israel’s Military Advocate General’s Corps, the answer is no. The decision not to initiate criminal prosecution was later denounced in a joint statement from the governments of Australia, Canada, and the UK as “shameful.”

The World Central Kitchen attack,” laments the statement, “is one of countless incidents in Gaza where there has been no accountability.”

In reality, it is the double standard expected of Israel created by narratives such as that reflected in this joint statement that is “shameful.”

Rhetoric demanding accountability based on the perceived outcome of attacks during the conduct of armed hostilities has become standard practice for human rights NGOs and other advocates with no responsibility for implementing in practice international law as it exists in doctrine. After all, many NGOs and similar special interests “typically exist for purely humanitarian purposes,” which means their perspective on the application of international law “is far from neutral.”

The popular effects-based approach to applying the law of armed conflict often adopted by humanitarian activists is misguided because it doesn’t align with how foundational rules such as distinction and proportionality function in practice. For governments to espouse this approach in public messaging is absolutely inexcusable.

Yet, this is precisely what the joint statement from Australia, Canada, and the UK does.

The message claims, “Israel must comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law,” yet it fails to explain how these governments believe Israel failed to do so. Although the joint statement correctly notes that an inquiry by Israel characterised the “incident as a serious mistake and failure,” the “serious failure” occurred “due to a mistaken identification, errors in decision-making, and an attack contrary to the Standard Operating Procedures.”

Failures involving compliance with relevant use of force policy do not necessarily involve violations of international law, nor are they inherently criminal.

Indeed, the Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism carried out by the Israel Defense Force considered the “totality of the operational circumstances” and determined that “notwithstanding serious failures in the process that led to the assessment that Hamas operatives were travelling in the vehicles, the decisions of the commanders did not raise reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct.”

This conclusion was reached by evaluating the process that led to the attack, rather than the perceived outcome based on information that came to light after the incident.

That is how the law of armed conflict is actually applied in practice.

The joint statement, by contrast, declares that the “victims of this incident and their families deserve justice and accountability.” This represents a demand to hold personnel accountable —by initiating criminal prosecution for an incident that does not constitute a crime — based on the effects of the attack.

By this logic, it was shameful for the United States not to prosecute anyone responsible for the 2015 attack on the Médecins Sans Frontières trauma centre in Kunduz, Afghanistan, even though the official inquiry determined, correctly, that the incident was not criminal in nature despite the “human error” that contributed to the incident. The same can be said for the decision by the German government not to pursue criminal prosecution following a separate 2009 civilian casualty incident in Kunduz, or by the Netherlands following the tragic 2015 airstrike in Hawija, Iraq.

According to the precedent set by the Australia/Canada/UK joint statement, it is now shameful for any government not to prosecute troops responsible for civilian casualty incidents when human error is involved, including the governments responsible for this statement, even if an official inquiry determines relevant personnel did not violate applicable law.

Foreign minister Penny Wong went a step further by declaring “Australia is outraged by the Israeli Government’s decision to not pursue any criminal proceedings against those responsible for” the attack.

Yet despite all the indignant geopolitical rhetoric, none of the governments behind the joint statement have explained what provision of the law, whether international or domestic, they believe was violated.

This effects-based construct completely contradicts how international law actually functions in practice.

Israelis rescued from northern Ethiopia after days trapped by rebel advance

Some 20 Israeli citizens who were stuck in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region amid a rebel advance in the area have been rescued after three days of “intensive efforts,” the Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday.

The ministry said it worked in coordination with the Israeli embassy in Addis Ababa and other relevant authorities to extract the stranded Israelis from the area.

“The group of Israelis who had become stranded in Lalibela in northern Ethiopia amid the security escalation in the area were evacuated yesterday and today by helicopter,” the ministry said in a statement.

“Helicopters transported the group to a safe area, from which they will continue on to Addis Ababa,” the ministry continued.

It said representatives would continue to accompany and assist the group until they arrive safely in Addis Ababa.

The Israelis became trapped in the Tigray region as a result of heavy clashes that erupted last week between the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the federal government.

The fighting has raised fears of a return to the full-blown civil war of 2020-2022, in which an estimated 600,000 people died. People walk in Mekelle, the capital of Ethiopia’s Tigray region, as fighting escalates with the central government, September 24, 2026. (AP Photo)

The Israelis were stuck in the city of Lalibela, where airports are reportedly closed and road travel is dangerous.

The stranded Israelis wrote to the Foreign Ministry to request help, the Ynet news site reported earlier this week.

The letter reportedly informed the ministry that “flights have been canceled indefinitely, and this is no longer just a delay of a few days” and that “the city’s fuel, food and cash stocks are extremely limited.”

Dozens of civilians, including children, have been killed in the renewed fighting as Ethiopian government forces bombard towns in Tigray and push north towards the rebel-held capital, health workers and locals told AFP on Tuesday.

Fighting is ongoing along several fronts, but government forces appear to be pushing north into Tigray, towards the regional capital of Mekelle.

I have been writing about how the current epistemic environment has been twisting facts into anti-Zionism. The Democratic candidate for the senate in Maine just illustrated it as perfectly as possible, and extended it to classic antisemitism as well.

Maine Democratic Senate candidate Troy Jackson , while discussing Jewish Mainers who reject the claim that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, said said it was “unfortunate” that there are people in Maine who do not like to use that term “only because they’re Jewish and what that means to them, with the Holocaust.” He then reaffirmed his own conclusion: what Israel is doing “fits that description” and “is a genocide.”

Notice the evidence he brings for "genocide." He doesn't. He takes a word that has been misused and extended beyond its own legal definition and treats it as undeniable.

Therefore, the Jews who disagree (again, because he doesn't know what genocide is) cannot possibly legitimate reasons for their position. No, it must be because they are unfortunately Jewish.

Their Jewish identity is the problem, not their logic.

He doesn't consider that perhaps they disagree on the definition of the term. They cannot possibly believe the evidence does not establish specific genocidal intent, think competing explanations fit the evidence better, or simply remain uncertain. A normal epistemic process leaves those possibilities open and engages the arguments themselves.

Jackson instead attributes their disagreement to their identity.

They reject his conclusion “only because they’re Jewish” and because of what the Holocaust means to them. Their objection therefore ceases to function as possible counterevidence and becomes evidence of their supposed bias. The conclusion remains fixed; the only question becomes why Jews cannot see what Jackson regards as obvious.

That is exactly how a self-protecting epistemic environment works. Once “Israel is committing genocide” has become background knowledge rather than a proposition still requiring demonstration, dissent no longer has to be answered on its merits. The dissenter can instead be psychologically or socially explained: Jewish, Zionist, emotionally invested, unable to see clearly because of historical trauma. Evidence turns into armchair psychology.

This is antisemitism. Jackson doesn't consider Jews who disagree with the genocide conclusion as having a valid point that must be answered. Their Jewishness is itself the only evidence he needs to discount their opinions.

Jewish testimony about an accusation against the Jewish state receives a credibility discount because the speakers are Jewish.

There is also a striking asymmetry in Jackson’s explanation. He assumes that Jewish identity explains why Jews might reject the genocide label, but does not ask whether political identity might help explain why he accepts it to begin with. It sure isn't evidence-based.

Jackson presumably meant to explain Jewish sensitivity to the word “genocide.” What he ended up illustrating is something more revealing: once the conclusion is treated as settled, identity can be used to explain away the people who refuse to accept it.

And while he was at it he also demonstrated that for many on the progressive Left, there is no line between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

What a perfect candidate to replace the guy with the Nazi tattoo.