Britain’s government advisor on terrorism has warned that attacks on Jews are now one of the country’s most urgent national security concerns. For many British Jews, that warning reflects daily reality.

Synagogues have been attacked, Jewish businesses vandalized, and visibly Jewish people targeted in the streets. A recent survey found that around one in five British Jews has considered leaving the country because of rising antisemitism.

One factor Britain has been reluctant to confront is Islamist antisemitism. Studies have found a link between antisemitic views and sympathy for Islamist extremism among some British Muslims, while government reviews have warned that officials have neglected this threat.

This does not implicate all Muslims. But it does mean Britain cannot honestly fight antisemitism while ignoring the ideologies fueling it.

Too often, institutions appear more afraid of being accused of anti-Muslim prejudice than of failing to protect Jews.

That hesitation is why so many British Jews are asking whether they still have a future in Britain.

Found this video interesting? Follow the HonestReporting page on Facebook to catch more videos, and read articles debunking news bias and smears, as well as others explaining Israel’s history, politics, and international affairs. Click here to learn more!

• Al Jazeera cameraman Ahmad Washah is the latest Gazan journalist killed by Israel who is alleged to have been a terrorist member of Hamas.
• Social media images show him posing with a scoped rifle, associating with known Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, and being mourned as a “mujahid” by a Gaza-based mosque all seem to corroborate the IDF’s allegations that he was a Hamas sniper.
• Despite the allegations and evidence showing Washah’s ties to Hamas, media outlets and NGOs continue to dismiss the IDF’s allegations and treat him as a legitimate journalist who was targeted and killed by Israel.

Another journalist has been killed by Israel in Gaza, adding to the list of Palestinian media workers who have been targeted by the IDF since October 2023.

This is the narrative that is being put forward by mainstream media organizations (including NBC News and The Guardian) and Middle East-focused NGOs about the killing of Al Jazeera’s Ahmad Washah.

However, like many other Gazan “journalists” who have been killed during the Israel-Hamas War, this simplistic narrative is far from the whole truth.

Washah was not just a simple cameraman documenting the trials and tribulations of daily life in the Gaza Strip for Qatari state media. He was also allegedly a terrorist member of Hamas, responsible for planning and executing attacks against Israeli targets.

According to the IDF, Washah was a Hamas sniper who helped coordinate these attacks with his brother Muhammad, a senior member of Hamas’ rocket and missile unit who also masqueraded as an Al Jazeera journalist until he was killed by Israel in April 2026.

AL JAZEERA JOURNALIST EXPOSED: Ahmed Samir Muhammad Washah, who served as an Al Jazeera photojournalist, was simultaneously a Hamas sniper operative and eliminated in a precise strike in central Gaza.

In recent months, he advanced sniper attack plans and worked alongside his…

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 20, 2026

Following the IDF’s assertion that Washah was a terrorist acting as a journalist, analysts have dug up evidence that appears to corroborate the IDF’s allegations.

OSINT investigator Eitan Fischberger uncovered social media images of Washah posing with firearms, including scoped rifles, and independent analyst and HonestReporting board member Salo Aizenberg shared an AI-generated image that was spread by a Gazan mosque, celebrating Washah and two other Hamas-affiliated terrorists as “mujahids.” The Arabic term “mujahid” largely refers to those who engage in the act of jihad, or Islamic holy war. Joe Truzman, an analyst for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, posted on his X page that several of the people in Washah’s social circle (as gleaned from his social media pictures) were known members of Palestinian terror groups, including one Hamas member who was killed while attempting to attack an IDF position.

In addition to these findings, Washah was killed alongside Siba’i Abu Hasna, a member of Hamas’ Shadow Unit, which was responsible for guarding hostages who were kidnapped into Gaza.

According to reports, Abu Hasna was the Hamas terrorist who Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov was cruelly forced to kiss on the forehead before being released in a staged ceremony.

As Truzman points out in his analysis, not one of the above-mentioned pieces of evidence conclusively proves Washah’s terror affiliation.

However, taken as a whole, the fact that he was photographed with a scoped rifle, was mourned as a “mujahid,” was affiliated with several Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists (including his brother), and was killed alongside Hamas terrorists strongly supports the veracity of the IDF’s allegations (which are presumably based on unreleased pieces of intelligence).

The question of the day is whether Al- Jazeera cameraman Ahmed Wishah was a member of Hamas or another terrorist organization.

A review of his online footprint reveals several indicators consistent with the IDF’s claim that he was affiliated with Hamas. While AI-generated images… pic.twitter.com/NKtCxDzN0y

— Joe Truzman (@JoeTruzman) June 21, 2026

Despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to the likelihood that Ahmed Washah was a Hamas terrorist who moonlighted as an Al Jazeera journalist, this has not stopped international NGOs and media organizations from condemning his killing, rather than condemning his cynical exploitation of the journalistic profession for terrorist purposes.

Most notably, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an organization dedicated to defending journalists around the world, expressed it alarm at the killing of Washah.

This is not at all surprising, given the CPJ’s history of sanitizing terrorists and propagandists and treating them as bona fide journalists. Over the past three years, the CPJ has done this for scores of anti-Israel terrorists and propagandists, including Washah’s own Hamas-affiliated brother, who was killed a few month ago.

Once again, @pressfreedom fails journalists in Gaza and around the world.

The CPJ is quick to condemn Israel for killing a supposed journalist.

But when that same person is accused of being a Hamas terrorist who masqueraded as a journalist, endangering the lives of other… https://t.co/XOjY5BqCsY pic.twitter.com/A5iQ3Esgi9

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 21, 2026

When a Gazan journalist with alleged terror ties is killed by the IDF, the first instinct by mainstream media organizations and NGOs should not be to reflexively dismiss the evidence provided by Israel and rally around the journalist.

Rather, they should be doing their due diligence by investigating the Israeli allegations and not instinctively defending a terror-affiliated journalist.

However, objective investigation of claims about terrorist affiliation would harm the narrative propagated by these outlets and organizations, in which Israel is the aggressor that is targeting journalists in order to silence them for telling the truth.

In this day and age, it appears that the false narrative is more important for these media outlets and international organizations than uncovering the truth behind what is happening in Gaza.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• Demonization is not criticism. Criticizing AIPAC’s policies, influence, or political positions is part of democratic debate. Describing a prominent Jewish-associated organization as “monstrous” moves beyond criticism and into demonization, portraying an institution as inherently illegitimate rather than merely wrong.
• Jewish approval does not make anti-Jewish rhetoric harmless. The presence of Jewish supporters or political allies does not automatically absolve rhetoric directed at Jewish institutions. History shows that the participation of some Jews has never prevented broader hostility toward Jewish communities or Jewish collective life.
• Words shape the environment in which violence becomes possible. Political violence rarely begins with violence itself. It begins with narratives that portray people and institutions as uniquely evil, dangerous, or undeserving of legitimacy. When Jewish-associated organizations are repeatedly depicted in these terms, the consequences extend far beyond a single political rally.

At a campaign rally days before New York City’s Democratic Congressional primary, Zohran Mamdani led a crowd in denouncing AIPAC. Referring to the pro-Israel lobbying organization, he declared that “AIPAC and all its cronies have to be shown that they are not welcome in our city. They are not welcome in our state. They are not welcome in our country.” He then described the organization as “monsters.”

The crowd cheered.

That reaction is worth dwelling on. Not because political organizations should be immune from criticism. But because there is a meaningful difference between arguing that an organization is mistaken, influential, misguided, or even harmful and describing it as monstrous.

Democracy works because it understands that ideological opponents remain part of the political community. We argue with them, defeat them, criticize them, and sometimes despise them. But they remain participants in public life. They remain people and institutions whose views deserve engagement.

Monsters occupy a different category. They are not people whose arguments deserve rebuttal. They are presented as embodiments of evil. The purpose of describing something as monstrous is not to persuade others that it is wrong. It is to convince them that it is illegitimate.

Defenders of Mamdani will immediately object. They will point out that he did not call for violence. They will note that criticizing AIPAC is not antisemitic. They will argue that describing a lobbying organization in harsh terms is simply part of democratic politics. But if they are honest this is not criticism, it is demonization.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by HonestReporting (@honestreporting)

When Criticism Becomes Demonization

AIPAC is a political organization. Its positions can be challenged. Its policies can be debated. Its influence can be scrutinized. Many Jews themselves disagree with AIPAC on a range of issues. None of that is controversial.

What should concern us is the portrayal of Jewish-associated institutions not merely as political actors but as uniquely sinister forces deserving public contempt. The language varies. The pattern remains remarkably consistent.

AIPAC is not simply another lobbying organization. It is one of the most prominent institutions associated with American Jewish support for Israel. Whether one supports AIPAC’s positions or opposes them, everyone understands what it represents. When politicians speak about AIPAC, they are speaking about an organization that millions of Jews view as connected to Jewish security, Jewish self-determination, and the relationship between the United States and the world’s only Jewish state. That is precisely why language matters.

Jewish institutions are increasingly discussed in terms that would be regarded as unacceptable if directed at almost any other minority community’s collective organizations. We are told that Jewish organizations exercise undue influence. We are told they corrupt political systems. We are told they distort public debate. We are told they operate as obstacles to justice. The language changes. The underlying message remains familiar.

For centuries, anti-Jewish movements portrayed Jewish institutions as uniquely malevolent. Medieval Europe accused Jews of poisoning wells and corrupting society. Modern antisemites spoke of hidden influence, secret networks, and malign power operating behind the scenes. The details changed from one era to another. The structure remained remarkably consistent. Jewish collective life was not merely opposed. It was portrayed as inherently suspect.

Ultimately, Mamdani describing one of the most visible Jewish-associated organizations in America as monstrous contributes to an atmosphere in which Jewish institutions are increasingly viewed not as legitimate participants in democratic life but as uniquely sinister actors.

The Shield of Jewish Approval

Supporters of Mamdani have another defense readily available. Standing alongside him was Bernie Sanders. Mamdani was speaking at a rally supporting Brad Lander. If prominent Jewish politicians support him, surely concerns about anti-Jewish rhetoric must be overblown.

It is an argument that surfaces with remarkable frequency whenever Jews raise concerns about rhetoric directed at Jewish institutions. Some Jews approve, therefore everyone else should stop worrying. It settles nothing.

The existence of Jews willing to legitimize rhetoric directed against Jewish collective institutions does not make that rhetoric harmless. History provides countless examples of Jews participating in movements, ideologies, and political projects that ultimately proved hostile to Jewish interests.

Internalized anti-Jewishness is real. Members of every minority group can absorb narratives about their own community. Jews are not exempt from that reality. Simone de Beauvoir famously observed that “the oppressor would not be so strong if he did not have accomplices among the oppressed.” Whether one agrees entirely with the formulation or not, it captures an uncomfortable truth. Members of minority communities sometimes help legitimize narratives that ultimately harm their own group.

The appeal to Jewish validation is particularly revealing because it avoids the substance of the criticism. Instead of asking whether describing Jewish-associated institutions as “monsters” is responsible, critics are told that concern is unnecessary because some Jews approve.

History offers little reason to find comfort in that argument. The participation of some Jews has never prevented anti-Jewish movements from targeting Jews as a whole. Nor does Jewish participation magically transform rhetoric into something benign.

From Demonization to Violence

The larger issue extends far beyond a single rally or a single politician. Words shape how societies understand the people and institutions around them. Political violence rarely emerges from nowhere. Before violence comes demonization. Before someone becomes a legitimate target, they must first be transformed into something less than fully human. Individuals become symbols. Symbols become caricatures. Caricatures become threats.

The connection between rhetoric and violence is not theoretical. In recent weeks alone, investigators have alleged multiple plots in which perpetrators explicitly identified support for Israel or association with pro-Israel organizations as a justification for violence.

One suspect accused of plotting an attack at a UFC event attended by President Trump at the White House allegedly identified elected officials who had received support from AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby as intended targets. According to investigators, these individuals were not selected because of their personal actions but because they were viewed as representatives of a broader political and ideological enemy.

That logic should sound familiar. It is the same logic that transforms institutions into symbols and symbols into targets.

That is why a recent federal indictment in Florida should concern all of us. Prosecutors allege that a man planned a mass shooting at what he believed was an AIPAC office and intended to target Jewish employees because of their association with the organization. According to investigators, he viewed the employees not as individuals but as representatives of a cause he had come to see as deserving of violence.

It would be foolish to pretend that public rhetoric plays no role in shaping the environment in which such ideas develop.

Most people who hear inflammatory rhetoric will never commit violence. Most will simply absorb the message and move on. Yet societies do not get to choose which individuals internalize the stories they are told. They do not get to choose which people begin to see institutions as evil, which people become consumed by that belief, and which people eventually act upon it.

Nobody wakes up one morning believing that Jewish institutions are evil. Nobody begins by imagining that Jewish organizations are legitimate targets. Those beliefs are cultivated. They are reinforced. They are normalized through years of rhetoric that transforms ordinary institutions into sinister forces and political opponents into moral monsters.

That process is already visible across large parts of Western society. Jewish organizations are routinely portrayed as uniquely corrupt. Jewish concerns are dismissed as bad faith. Jewish attachment to Israel is treated as evidence of divided loyalties or malign influence. Increasingly, Jewish collective life itself is framed as something suspicious that must be exposed, resisted, or defeated.

Zohran Mamdani did not invent that trend. But when the leader of America’s largest city stands before a cheering crowd and describes one of the most prominent Jewish-associated organizations in the country as “monsters,” he is contributing to it, and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• The U.S. Department of Justice Indicted a San Diego resident fundraising for Hamas through Gaza Now, a Gaza-based news outlet operating largely on Telegram and X.
• The family of the founder of Gaza Now has previously been exposed for having connections to terrorist organizations or fundraising for Hamas. One family member was in Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades, while another used an NGO to finance terrorism.
• Gaza Now is one example of how the Gazan media and NGO ecosystem is inextricably tied to Hamas.

Since the outbreak of the war on October 7, 2023, it has been clear that terrorists have embedded themselves in civilian positions.

Terrorists doubling as journalists is perhaps one of the most prominent cover tactics. Not only does a terrorist posing as a journalist serve as a human shield by exploiting civilian positions, but the cover tactic also helps Hamas craft the narrative that Israel is intentionally targeting civilians in Gaza.

The implications of journalistic perfidy extend beyond Gaza. As the battle over the narrative continues, media networks operating in Gaza are pushing anti-Israel propaganda to an international audience to shape public opinion – and some are even facilitating activities that pose broader global security concerns.

Last week, this became all the more apparent when Reda Mazen Rida Sabassi, a San Diego resident, was charged for his role in a Hamas fundraising scheme.

The Justice Department today announced the unsealing of a five-count complaint charging Reda Mazen Rida Sabassi, 38, of San Diego, California, with terrorism, sanctions-evasion, wire fraud, money laundering, and false statement charges in connection with his efforts to divert… pic.twitter.com/LlYEz5ihy0

— National Security Division, U.S. Dept of Justice (@DOJNatSec) June 17, 2026

In working closely with Gaza Now, an outlet that describes itself as the “largest independent media network” in Gaza and that has been previously sanctioned in March 2024 by the U.S Treasury, Sabassi allegedly raised $600,000 through online fundraising, transferring $116,000 of the donations to a Hamas member. He further attempted to convert around $382,000 of the money he raised into cryptocurrency to send to Hamas through Gaza Now.

The news outlet has solicited donations from individuals who were under the impression that their donations would be received by people in need in Gaza, rather than benefit terrorist organizations.

With more than 1 million subscribers to its Arabic Telegram channel and another 184,000 in its English channel, as well as X accounts with large followings in both Arabic and English, Gaza Now has consistently used the face of a news outlet to launder Hamas propaganda to a wide audience.

According to the criminal complaint, Gaza Now’s Telegram channel has shared propaganda videos from Hamas and on one occasion shared a summary of an official Hamas statement before it was posted to Hamas’ official channel. Sabassi had further published compilations of the October 7 massacre on his own channels.

Despite being clearly associated with Hamas, Gaza Now’s accounts still operate freely.

Although the co-conspirator referenced in the complaint remains unnamed, details in the filing closely align with publicly available information regarding Gaza Now’s founder, Mustafa Ayyash, whose family was killed in an airstrike early in the war.

One of the family members listed in Gaza Now’s statement was Mohamed Mouin Ayyash, a photojournalist based in Gaza, who the CPJ also listed as a slain journalist from the same time. Other pro-Palestinian media indicated that Mohamed Mouin Ayyash was the target of the strike that killed the Ayyash family, noting that he had worked with the Hezbollah-affiliated broadcaster Al Mayadeen as well as Gaza Now.

Following Mohamed Mouin Ayyash’s death, a photo of him in military gear emerged, indicating that he served as a member of Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades. The IDF has claimed that the deceased Ayyash was a Hamas squad commander, and that the site was targeted in response to a threat posed to troops.

Another brother of Mustafa, Ibrahim Ayyash, runs the NGO Ibrahim for Gaza, which holds fundraising campaigns, and has worked with Gaza Now on multiple of these initiatives, including one campaign which the U.S. blocked on suspicion of financing terrorism.

The Ayyash family’s overlapping involvement in media, fundraising, and alleged terrorist activity illustrates the extent to which journalism, activism, and support networks can intersect within Gaza’s information ecosystem.

But this is only symbolic of a much larger problem.

There is no free press, nor freedom of expression in Gaza. Both news outlets and non-profits alike operate in an environment entirely controlled by Hamas. The media and NGOs that operate there do so under the dark shadow of Hamas’ rule, meaning that institutions are expected to advance the terrorist organization’s interests.

This intricate network of terrorism merging with the media and NGOs evidently has global consequences. Terrorist networks can operate relatively under cover, cultivating international sympathy and soliciting donations from otherwise well-meaning individuals.

As long as media like Gaza Now continue to operate under the guise of journalism while laundering funds and propaganda for Hamas, the international community’s ability to distinguish between journalism, propaganda, and material support for terrorism will continue to erode.

Gaza Now is only a reminder of the dangers of a society with no freedom of the press. When journalism in Gaza operates entirely within Hamas’ shadow, the outlets that emerge from it cannot be trusted to report the news but rather to serve the interests of those who control it.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• Foreign influence operations are real. Russia, Qatar, Iran, and other authoritarian states routinely invest enormous resources in shaping opinion within democratic societies.
• Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish narratives are particularly useful because they tap into longstanding conspiratorial frameworks that already exist within Western culture.
• The question is not simply whether commentators profit from outrage. It is whether they are helping advance the interests of actors who deliberately seek to manipulate democratic societies.

Who Benefits?

Whenever Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens say something particularly outrageous about Israel, Jews, or the Middle East, somebody inevitably asks whether they are being paid. The question is usually dismissed as conspiratorial. Yet it is worth remembering that governments, political movements, and wealthy interests have spent centuries paying people to shape public opinion. Russia did not invent influence operations. Qatar did not invent influence operations. Nor did Iran. States have always understood that ideas matter. They have funded newspapers, academics, activists, lobbyists, media organizations, and political movements because shaping how people think is often cheaper and more effective than coercing them directly. The belief that modern influence operations somehow stop at the doors of social media personalities would be remarkably naïve.

That reality matters because authoritarian regimes have become extraordinarily sophisticated at exploiting open societies. Russia has spent decades developing influence networks throughout Europe and North America. Qatar has invested billions of dollars cultivating influence through media organizations, universities, think tanks, lobbying efforts, and political relationships. Iran funds an extensive ecosystem of propaganda outlets, advocacy organizations, and proxy groups designed to advance its interests and weaken those of its adversaries. These investments are not acts of philanthropy. States do not spend vast sums of money without expecting a return. Influence is the return. Access is the return. Shaping how political leaders, journalists, academics, and voters understand the world is the return. And why should that be any different today? 

Why Jews Are Always Useful

There is also a reason that Jews and Israel so frequently find themselves at the center of these conversations. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is undoubtedly one of the most emotionally charged issues in international politics, but that alone does not explain the obsession. Plenty of conflicts involve suffering, displacement, and violence. Relatively few become all-consuming subjects for commentators who claim to be exposing hidden truths about the world. What makes Israel different is that criticism of the Jewish state can easily intersect with some of the oldest anti-Jewish ideas in history. For centuries, Jews were portrayed as a hidden force operating behind political, economic, and social developments. They were accused of manipulating governments, controlling financial systems, directing wars, influencing media, and exercising power in ways ordinary people could not see. Modern conspiracy culture has largely abandoned the language but often retained the structure. References to Jewish control become references to networks. References to Jewish conspiracies become references to elites. References to secret Jewish influence become references to hidden systems of power. The vocabulary evolves. The underlying story remains strikingly familiar.

Candace Owens provides perhaps the clearest contemporary example. In recent years, she has evolved into an almost obsessive focus on Jews, Zionists, Jewish influence, and alleged efforts to suppress dissent. While Owens routinely insists that she is criticizing institutions rather than Jews, the distinction becomes increasingly difficult to maintain when Jewish individuals, Jewish organizations, Jewish history, Jewish concerns, and the Jewish state repeatedly become the central focus of the narrative. What emerges is not merely criticism but a worldview in which Jews appear as recurring protagonists in almost every major controversy.

This is one reason anti-Jewish narratives have proven so durable throughout history. They are infinitely adaptable. They can be attached to the political right or the political left. They can be dressed in religious language, nationalist language, anti-capitalist language, anti-colonial language, or populist language. Their details change according to the needs of the moment, but their central claim remains remarkably consistent: that visible events are not what they seem and that Jews are somehow involved in the hidden story beneath the surface. For conspiracy culture, this framework is extraordinarily useful. For governments and movements seeking to weaken trust in democratic societies, it can be useful too.

What Changed on Iran?

Tucker Carlson presents a somewhat different case, but one that is no less striking. In 2012 he described the Iranian regime as “evil” and its leaders as “lunatics.” The description was accurate then and remains accurate today. Iran is still a revolutionary theocracy that represses its own people, sponsors terrorism, funds proxies across the Middle East, threatens regional stability, and openly calls for the destruction of Israel. It remains one of the world’s leading state sponsors of terrorism. It continues to arm and finance groups responsible for the deaths of civilians across the region. None of this has changed in any meaningful way.

What has changed is Carlson. Increasingly, his criticism appears directed less toward the regime itself than toward those confronting it. One need not support every aspect of American or Israeli foreign policy to find that transformation remarkable. The Iranian regime did not become more moderate. It did not abandon terrorism. It did not stop funding proxies. It did not cease threatening its neighbors. It did not suddenly embrace liberal democracy. The regime remained largely the same. Carlson did not. That does not automatically tell us why his position changed, but it does make explanations that focus on changes in Iran rather difficult to sustain.

Part of the answer may lie in a broader trend that has emerged across sections of the online right. Distrust of institutions, some of it justified, has gradually evolved into a reflexive assumption that establishment positions must be false simply because they are establishment positions. If Western governments identify a threat, suspicion falls first on the governments. If intelligence agencies issue warnings, the warnings themselves become suspect. If journalists document atrocities committed by terrorist organizations, attention shifts toward discrediting the journalists. Skepticism, which can be healthy, gradually mutates into contrarianism, where the truth is assumed to lie wherever official narratives do not. The inevitable consequence is that authoritarian regimes increasingly benefit from a collapse of trust occurring inside democratic societies. Whether intentionally or not, some commentators have become remarkably effective at directing suspicion toward democracies while extending extraordinary benefit of the doubt to regimes that openly oppose them.

The Influence Industry

This is where discussions about grift often become too simplistic. Many observers assume there are only two possibilities. Either commentators genuinely believe what they are saying or they are secretly being paid to say it. Reality is often more complicated. Governments seeking influence rarely operate like villains in a spy novel. They do not need to hand envelopes full of cash to every useful voice. Sometimes they fund institutions. Sometimes they create media ecosystems. Sometimes they cultivate relationships. Sometimes they provide access. Sometimes they offer platforms. Sometimes they simply amplify narratives that already exist. The most effective influence operations often involve identifying people who already hold useful views and helping those views reach larger audiences.

At the same time, it would be naïve to imagine that foreign money never enters the picture. Russia, Qatar, Iran, and other authoritarian states have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to spend enormous sums shaping political conversations in democratic societies. They do not make these investments out of charity. They do so because ideas have consequences and because influencing public opinion is often cheaper than changing realities on the ground. Anyone examining modern media should therefore be willing to ask difficult questions. Who benefits from particular narratives? Who amplifies them? Which institutions consistently provide platforms for them? Which governments gain when those narratives spread? These are not conspiratorial questions. They are the kinds of questions serious observers should be asking.

We do not need access to bank records to recognize a pattern. Authoritarian regimes invest heavily in influence operations. Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish narratives have become increasingly common within parts of the online ecosystem. Some of the most influential voices promoting those narratives consistently direct suspicion toward democratic societies while showing remarkable indulgence toward regimes that actively undermine them. Whether that alignment is ideological, financial, or simply opportunistic matters less than many people assume. The effect is the same.

The result is not merely a distorted conversation about Israel or Iran. It is a political culture in which anti-Jewish conspiracy theories are normalized, authoritarian regimes are treated with increasing sympathy, and public trust becomes progressively harder to sustain. That may benefit Moscow. It may benefit Doha. It may benefit Tehran. It certainly does not benefit the democratic societies being encouraged to doubt themselves.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

Image Credits: Flickr, Wikimedia Commons

Key Takeaways:

• In 1948, Iraq had 150,000 Jews. Today it has three. Libya had 38,000. Today it has zero. Approximately 850,000 Jews were displaced from the Arab world in 30 years, and yet almost no one knows the story.
• Dr. Henry Green’s Sephardi Voices project went looking for their testimonies in Spielberg’s archive of 52,000 Holocaust interviews and found fewer than 100. He spent the next 15 years recording hundreds himself — and the archive is now at the National Library of Israel, free and open.
• Dr. Green has taken his case to Congress and the United Nations to argue that the refugee crisis of 1948 needs to be a two-part story: that of Palestinians, and the Jews of the Middle East and North Africa.

In 2009, Dr. Henry Green was between projects. He had stepped away from directing Jewish studies at the University of Miami and was casting around for what came next. He knew he was interested in Sephardic Jews — the Jews of the Arab world — but hadn’t landed on a focus. So he did what any researcher would do: he went looking for what already existed.

He found almost nothing.

The USC Shoah Foundation, where Steven Spielberg had deposited 52,000 Holocaust testimonies, contained fewer than 100 interviews with Jews from the Arab world. A civilization that had produced the Talmud in Babylon and the Zohar in Moorish Spain had fewer than 100 recorded testimonies in the largest oral history collection in the world.

So he made a decision borrowed from Pirkei Avot: if not now, when. He started recording.

The Civilization Nobody is Taught About

The Jews of the Arab world were not a marginal community; they were indigenous. In some cases, they were among the oldest continuously functioning Jewish civilizations in human history. The Jewish community in Baghdad traced its roots to the Babylonian exile, 2,500 years ago. Those Jews didn’t call themselves Iraqis, they called themselves Babylonians.

By the 1920s, Jews made up roughly 35 to 40 percent of Baghdad’s population and played pivotal roles in society. The Zilkha family established banking in Iraq and spread it across the Middle East. Jewish musicians fused Arab music with Western music. The city’s cultural, economic, and political life ran in significant part through Jewish hands. In the 1920s, the finance minister of Iraq was a Sephardic Jew.

The same was true across North Africa and the Levant. In Cairo, Jews were among the pioneers of the cinema industry. In Casablanca and Marrakesh, educated Jewish families were at the center of cosmopolitan life. The community shared traditions, names, and family ties stretching from Morocco all the way to Baghdad — a unified civilization that happened to be scattered across a dozen countries.

One man who appears in the Sephardi Voices archive captured it simply. Asked, after 60 years in England, how he identified himself, he gave two answers. He said he was British — he had lived there for six decades. Then he said he couldn’t deny that he was Iraqi — his family had been there for 3,000 years.

Three Things That Broke It

For centuries, the relationship between Jewish communities and the Islamic world was not the same as the relationship between Jews and Christian Europe. There was no Inquisition, no theological doctrine that Jews had killed Jesus Christ. Jews were considered dhimmi — protected, though second-class, citizens — which meant real constraints and periodic hardship, but also genuine coexistence.

When the Spanish Inquisition came in 1492, the majority of expelled Jews did not go to Catholic Italy. They went to the Muslim Ottoman Empire and North Africa. “You don’t go to an Islamic state for safety, unless you have good reason to believe you’ll be safer there,” Green argues.

“There were bad times and good times. In the good times, you’re the merchants. You can be an advisor. Bad times were different, but it wasn’t ever a policy that said Jews were bad.”

What dismantled that world came in three waves.

The first was the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the artificial drawing of borders by Britain and France after World War I. The Sykes-Picot Agreement promised the same territories to different parties. The Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish homeland in Mandatory Palestine one year after promising those same lands to Arab tribes who had helped the British fight the Ottomans. The resulting nation states — handed to single families who often had no organic connection to the populations they now governed — were inherently unstable.

The second was Zionism itself, or rather the way it was perceived. As Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine accelerated after World War I and especially after World War II, Jewish communities across the Arab world found themselves recast. They had not been Zionists; they had been Baghdadis and Cairenes and Casablancans. But the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 made that distinction politically irrelevant in the countries where they lived.

The third was European colonialism’s specific legacy in the region. As France controlled Algeria and Morocco and Italy controlled Libya, the Jews — more urban, more educated, more connected to European languages and institutions — positioned themselves to take advantage of the colonial framework. When independence movements rose, that positioning became a liability. In Algeria, the question put to Jewish families was blunt: are you with us or against us? Since Algerian Jews had French citizenship and wanted to keep it, the answer was effectively against. They became a fifth column in the eyes of the revolution.

What Happened on the Ground

Green is careful not to paint the expulsions with a single brush. What happened in Iraq was not what happened in Morocco. What happened in Libya was not what happened in Lebanon. The timeline spans from the early 1950s to the 1980s, and the texture of each country’s expulsion was different.

What was consistent was the mechanism: denationalization, asset seizure, synagogues taken, cemeteries converted into parking lots, community centers dissolved. Jews were stripped of citizenship, of property, of any legal standing.

In Iraq, the crisis came quickly. After Israel’s founding in 1948, Iraq joined the Arab coalition and immediately recast its Jewish population as an internal enemy. Operation Ezra and Nehemiah, a Mossad operation that flew roughly 135,000 Iraqi Jews to Cyprus and then to Israel, took place in the early 1950s. Jews were told to list their assets on a form before departure, and the Iraqi government promised to hold those assets in trust until they returned. When they left, the assets were confiscated. They never returned.

Those who stayed longer faced choices that are almost impossible to imagine from the outside. One woman in the Sephardi Voices archive, a university student in Baghdad in 1967, found herself stranded on campus when the Six-Day War broke out. Her phone lines were cut. She couldn’t reach her family. She dressed as a Muslim woman, made her way north to the Kurdish region, and escaped to Iran.

The departures were not always orderly. One woman’s family left Libya with almost nothing — no suitcases, no belongings. Her father managed to hide the family’s jewelry inside an oil can, covered in grease so no one would touch it. That oily can was the only thing they carried out.

The Silence Inside the Community

Among 52,000 Holocaust testimonies, there are fewer than 100 from Jews of the Arab world. In Jewish schools across America, almost none of the curriculum teaches of the Sephardi experience. In Diaspora communities, a holiday called Yom HaPlitim, Refugee Day, passed by the Israeli Knesset in 2014 to mark the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, is almost entirely uncelebrated outside Israel.

Green has a term for it: Ashkenormativity. The Jewish diaspora in America is roughly 90 percent Ashkenazi and 10 percent Sephardic. The educational infrastructure, the cultural institutions, and the organizational leadership were built by and for the Ashkenazi community. The story of Jews in Eastern Europe, under the czars, or in Germany, is the story Jewish communities know how to tell. The Sephardi are always a minority within a minority.

“Why are our communities not having it? And my view on this is, gee, how hard is this? You bring a Holocaust survivor to class for a Holocaust day. Why can’t you bring a person who survived and became a member of your community. And the child or the grandchild will take such pride in hearing their parents or grandparents speak. You can show some video and then have this event to honor the people who left the Arab world.”

Israel’s own role in the silence is more complicated. In 1948, the new state was overwhelmed. It needed to house a massive influx of immigrants while simultaneously fighting a war. The policy response was to build new cities in the periphery — Dimona in the south, Kiryat Shmona in the north — and send the new arrivals there. But there were no schools, no teachers, no infrastructure. When employers came to the camps looking for workers, they spoke to the Ashkenazi immigrants who spoke Yiddish. The Sephardi immigrants spoke Arabic, Ladino, or other languages. The average Ashkenazi immigrant spent six months in a camp. The average Sephardi spent 18 months.

The policy response to that discrimination — an attempt to forge a unified Israeli identity — overcorrected. The answer to discrimination was assimilation: everyone would be the new Israeli. The Sephardi history was not suppressed so much as simply not taught, not passed down, not celebrated. Children born in Israel in the 1970s asked their parents who they were and got the answer: Israeli. The grandparents had to fill in the rest.

A second and third generation changed this. Intermarriage between Ashkenazi and Sephardi families in Israel created children who wanted to hear both stories. The Oslo Accords opened a political space in which a larger history felt possible to address. And scholars like Green started recording interviews before the last witnesses were gone.

Taking the Case to Washington and Geneva

In 2007, Green testified before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, organized by the advocacy group JJAC — Justice for Jews from Arab Countries. The goal was to get the American government to formally recognize the expulsion and to prevent thousands of documents recovered during the Iraq War from being returned to Baghdad. Those documents — including Torah scrolls found in an intelligence building — had been brought to the United States and represented some of the last physical remnants of Iraqi Jewish life. Green and his colleagues wanted them to stay stateside.

That effort found support particularly from Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, then chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, who as a Cuban refugee understood firsthand what it meant to be displaced by a hostile state. But it did not produce federal action.

In September 2025, Green returned to the international stage, this time at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. The argument he brought was one he has been making for years: you cannot talk about the Palestinian refugee story of 1948 without telling the Jewish refugee story of the same period. Not to erase one, but to require both.

His forthcoming book puts a forensic dollar figure on what was lost across all ten countries: assets, properties, synagogues, businesses, cemeteries. The sum is approximately $250 to $260 billion. That figure is intended as the evidentiary foundation for any future discussion of reparations. His framework, borrowed from his mentor Irwin Cotler, is truth and justice: first acknowledgment, then process, with reparations ultimately running in both directions.

Planting Seeds Before the Witnesses are Gone

Green is not optimistic about the United Nations in the short term. Arab countries make up roughly a quarter of the member states, and the political winds don’t favor his argument there yet. But he is not discouraged.

He points to the arc of Holocaust remembrance: Elie Wiesel published Night in 1960, fifteen years after the war ended. Schindler’s List came in 1993. Fifty thousand oral testimonies followed from that single film. It took two generations for Holocaust memory to reach its current institutional depth. The Sephardi story is still at the first stage.

His archive is at the National Library of Israel, free to access. It contains hundreds of interviews, portraits, and documents. He finishes with an anecdote of a former student, the president of her campus Hillel, who was scrolling through the site while killing time before an event and found a photograph of her great-aunt. Then her grandparents. She had never seen their faces. She started to cry.

Green called it the kesher, the connection. He said her tears were the seeds that needed to be replanted.

Dr. Henry Green is the founder of Sephardi Voices and a professor at the University of Miami. His archive is free and open at the National Library of Israel. This interview was conducted by Ben Chertoff for The Honest Take, available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and all major podcast streaming platforms. [https://thehonesttake.transistor.fm/episodes/exodus-erased-850-000-jews-were-erased-from-the-arab-world-heres-what-really-happened-dr-henry-green]

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

Coverage of Israel’s operations in Lebanon often frames the conflict as a stand-alone confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. That framing misses the bigger picture.

For decades, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has armed, funded, and trained Hezbollah, transforming it into Tehran’s most powerful proxy and turning Lebanese territory into another front in its campaign against Israel. Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal, cross-border attack tunnels, drone capabilities, and underground military infrastructure did not appear in a vacuum. They are part of Iran’s long-term regional strategy.

So when Hezbollah launches explosive drones at Israeli troops or fires rockets toward civilians in northern Israel, this is not merely a border dispute. It is Iran’s proxy war playing out from Lebanese soil.

Israel is working to dismantle that terrorist infrastructure while also pursuing direct peace talks with Lebanon. Those two facts can both be true. Israel’s fight is not with the Lebanese people. It is with the Iranian-backed terror army embedded inside their country.

The same Iranian escalation is being felt far beyond Beirut. Recent attacks on U.S. forces and assets in the Gulf show that Iran’s campaign is regional, not local.

But too often, media coverage treats Israel’s response as the central problem while the IRGC fades into the background.

Peace is not possible while Iran continues using proxies to attack Israel and destabilize the region.

Found this video interesting? Follow the HonestReporting page on Facebook to catch more videos, and read articles debunking news bias and smears, as well as others explaining Israel’s history, politics, and international affairs. Click here to learn more!

A claim that “14,000 babies” in Gaza would die within 48 hours spread rapidly after being repeated by UN official Tom Fletcher and amplified by major media outlets.

The Guardian reported that the UN warned 14,000 babies could die in Gaza in the next 48 hours without aid. The Independent went further, tying the claim directly to Israel’s siege. Other outlets repeated the figure, turning it into an indictment before most readers had any chance to understand where the number came from.

But the original data said something very different.

The figure came from the IPC, the UN-backed famine monitoring system. Its report did not say 14,000 babies would die within 48 hours. It projected that around 14,100 children aged 6 to 59 months could suffer severe acute malnutrition over a longer projection period.

Not babies. Not confirmed deaths. Not within 48 hours.

A conditional risk assessment was transformed into an imminent mass-death claim. Some outlets later amended their coverage, and Fletcher himself acknowledged that the wording was a mistake. But by then, the damage was done.

The phrase was perfectly engineered for outrage: specific, emotional, and backed by the UN. Once it spread, questioning it was treated as cruelty.

This is how misinformation hardens into narrative. When Israel is accused, basic standards of proof too often disappear.

Found this video interesting? Follow the HonestReporting page on Facebook to catch more videos, and read articles debunking news bias and smears, as well as others explaining Israel’s history, politics, and international affairs. Click here to learn more!

• Sixteen years after HonestReporting documented the use of World Cup imagery to promote anti-Israel narratives, similar patterns have reappeared during the opening week of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
• Despite failing to qualify for the tournament, Israel featured prominently in activist campaigns, media coverage, and political demonstrations linked to the World Cup.
• Associated Press, Al Jazeera, AJ+, activists, and social media influencers all used soccer-related coverage to foreground political narratives centered on Israel and the Palestinians.

As the 2026 FIFA World Cup got underway across the United States, Mexico, and Canada, Israel was entirely absent from the list of participating nations. Yet within days of the opening matches, Israel appeared repeatedly across activist campaigns, media features, protest actions, social media imagery, and calls for FIFA sanctions.

AJ+ promoted efforts to suspend Israel from international soccer. Al Jazeera amplified demonstrations aimed at keeping Palestine in the spotlight during the tournament. Associated Press published a World Cup-timed feature focused on Palestinian soccer players in the West Bank. Social media accounts merged World Cup symbolism with images from Gaza. Sixteen years after HonestReporting first examined how the 2010 World Cup was used as a vehicle for anti-Israel imagery and messaging, many of the same patterns have returned.

The Playbook Hasn’t Changed

In December 2010, HonestReporting published “Shattered Lens: Part 2 – Abusing Sport for Propaganda,” an investigation examining how international wire-service photographers repeatedly used the South Africa World Cup as a visual hook for stories centered on Israel and the Palestinians.

The study found that soccer imagery was frequently employed as a mechanism for drawing international attention toward political grievances unrelated to the tournament itself. Photographs of Palestinians playing soccer were staged beside the security fence. Goalposts appeared at demonstrations. Editorialized captions linked World Cup enthusiasm to restrictions, barriers, and conflict.

The central finding was straightforward: the tournament provided global visibility while political messaging supplied the underlying purpose.

Sixteen years later, the same formula remains remarkably familiar.

Opening Week Activism

During the opening days of the 2026 World Cup, AJ+ published a series of posts demanding soccer’s international governing body, FIFA, takes action against Israel.

One post highlighted the detention of two Palestinian women’s national team players and featured a protest sign reading “Kick Israel Out of FIFA.” Another promoted claims by the Palestine Football Association alleging a pattern of targeting Palestinian athletes while calling on FIFA to intervene.

The campaign coincided with the opening week of the tournament, placing Israel-related political demands directly into the wider World Cup conversation.

The effort extended beyond social media.

On June 11, Al Jazeera English highlighted a demonstration in Mexico City staged alongside World Cup opening events. Participants formed a giant human Palestinian flag while organizers openly stated that the purpose was to keep the Palestinian issue in the spotlight during one of the world’s most-watched sporting events.

The tournament’s audience was the attraction.

Gaza and the World Cup

Al Jazeera also produced a feature from Gaza under the banner: “World Cup Excitement Returns to War-Scarred Gaza.”

Reporter Hani Mahmoud opened the segment by telling viewers that Gaza is typically associated with “conflict, destruction and crisis” before introducing scenes of people gathering to watch soccer.

The report included interviews with local residents discussing friendship, recreation, competition, and the importance of preserving ordinary social activities despite the realities of war.

The editorial framing is what makes the piece noteworthy.

Throughout the segment, soccer fields were shown against heavily damaged buildings. Rubble dominated the background. Mahmoud delivered portions of the report surrounded by visible destruction while discussing World Cup excitement and community gatherings.

The spoken story centered on soccer.

The visual story remained firmly anchored in war.

The AP Case Study

Associated Press provided perhaps the clearest example of how the World Cup can function as an editorial gateway.

Published as the tournament began, AP’s feature by veteran photographer Leo Correa appeared under the headline: “Soccer offers West Bank Palestinians an escape as the World Cup kicks off.”

Readers arriving through World Cup coverage were not introduced to participating teams, tournament venues, host nations, or competition storylines. Instead, they encountered a localized West Bank narrative involving Palestinian youth soccer, nearby Israeli residents, fencing, access disputes, and allegations that soccer balls kicked beyond a fence were not always returned.

The reporting focused on a local issue.

What makes the package significant is the editorial decision to frame that issue through the opening of the World Cup itself.

A global sporting event attracting billions of viewers became the entry point into a story centered on Israel and the Palestinians. The mechanism bears a striking resemblance to the pattern documented by HonestReporting during the 2010 tournament, when soccer imagery repeatedly directed international audiences toward political narratives far removed from the matches taking place on the field.

Different Standards

The opening week also produced an illuminating comparison.

On June 9, media outlets including The Telegraph and Daily Mail reported that Iran’s national team arrived at Tijuana International Airport wearing “#168” lapel pins commemorating victims of a missile strike inside Iran. Coverage also highlighted statements attributed to an Iranian regime commander who described the World Cup as a “battlefield” against the United States.

Iran was one of the participating nations.

Yet explicit political messaging attached to an actual World Cup delegation was largely treated as a news curiosity, while sustained activist and media attention continued to focus on Israel, a country not participating in the tournament.

The Image Factory Expands

The World Cup has also become a canvas for visual activism beyond traditional news organizations.

One widely circulated image published by digital artist Ugur Gallenkuş combined the FIFA World Cup trophy with a scene of destruction in Gaza. Gallenkuş credited the underlying conflict photograph to Saher Alghorra, the controversial Gaza-based Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer whose work has featured in previous HonestReporting investigations.

The original image dated from September 2025.

Yet during the opening week of the 2026 World Cup, it was reintroduced through a digital collage distributed with hashtags including #worldcup and #collageart.

The significance lies in both the timing and construction. An archived conflict photograph was merged with one of the most recognizable symbols in international sport and then recirculated precisely as the tournament began dominating global attention.

The World Cup was not being documented.

Its symbolism was being repurposed.

The Other Story

Amid calls for boycotts, suspensions, and exclusion, a different narrative received far less attention.

Pro-Israel organizations highlighted the fact that although Israel failed to qualify for the tournament, Israeli technology remains embedded within parts of FIFA’s operational infrastructure. Israeli companies contribute to ticketing systems, broadcast automation, sports data processing, and other technological functions used throughout the competition.

The campaign served as a data-driven response to a media environment dominated by exclusionary narratives, drawing attention to the extent of Israel’s ongoing contribution behind the scenes.

Sixteen Years Later

For longtime HonestReporting readers, the parallels are difficult to ignore.

In 2010, Shattered Lens documented how soccer imagery was repeatedly used to draw attention to Israel’s security fence and other political themes during the South Africa World Cup. Goalposts, soccer balls, and tournament symbolism became recurring devices through which political messages were delivered to international audiences.

The visual vocabulary has evolved.

The distribution channels have expanded.

Social media now amplifies content at a scale unimaginable in 2010.

What has remained remarkably consistent is the recurring appearance of Israel-related political narratives during major sporting events, even when those events have little direct connection to Israel itself.

Conclusion

Global sporting events attract enormous audiences. The FIFA World Cup, more than any other tournament, offers activists, journalists, photographers, and political organizations access to a platform capable of reaching hundreds of millions of people.

That visibility creates opportunities for storytelling.

It also creates opportunities for political messaging.

The opening week of the 2026 World Cup demonstrates how quickly a tournament can become a vehicle for narratives that have little to do with the matches being played. Sixteen years after HonestReporting documented the use of soccer imagery to promote anti-Israel political themes, many of the same methods remain visible across traditional media, activist campaigns, and social media platforms.

The names have changed.

The technology has evolved.

The playbook remains remarkably familiar.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• Tucker Carlson once described Iran’s regime as “evil” and a threat to regional stability. Today, his rhetoric increasingly minimizes the dangers posed by the Islamic Republic and its proxies.
• Iran is not only an adversary of Israel. For decades, the regime has funded anti-American terrorism, attacked American interests, and defined itself through hostility toward the United States.
• The contradiction at the heart of Carlson’s position is not simply about Iran. It is about how a leading America First voice came to downplay the threat posed by one of America’s most enduring enemies.

In 2012, Tucker Carlson described the Islamic Republic of Iran as “evil” and its leaders as “lunatics.” He even argued that the Iranian regime “deserves to be annihilated.” At the time, Carlson recognized a reality that remains unchanged today: the Islamic Republic is not a normal state pursuing normal state interests. It is a revolutionary regime built on repression, proxy warfare, and regional destabilization.

What makes Carlson’s evolution particularly striking is that he is often presented as one of the leading voices of the America First movement. Iran is not merely an adversary of Israel. For nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic has defined itself in opposition to the United States, funded groups responsible for killing Americans, attacked American interests across the Middle East, and built a foreign policy around hostility toward both Washington and its allies.

Yet Carlson increasingly directs his criticism toward those confronting the regime and its proxies rather than toward the regime itself. The contradiction is not simply with Carlson’s earlier views on Iran. It is with the political worldview that made him one of the most influential voices in the America First movement. How does a movement built around defending American interests end up minimizing the threat posed by a regime whose leaders still lead crowds in chants of “Death to America”?

The Regime

The Iranian regime is evil because it is a revolutionary theocracy built on repression at home and destabilization abroad. Inside Iran, the regime suppresses dissent, imprisons political opponents, censors information, persecutes minorities, and denies millions of its own citizens basic freedoms. Journalists face intimidation and imprisonment. Women who challenge compulsory hijab laws face arrest and violence. Protest movements are crushed with remarkable brutality. For nearly half a century, the regime has prioritized ideological control over the well-being of its own population while enriching the institutions responsible for maintaining its grip on power.

Nor is the regime’s conduct confined to its own borders. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has pursued a strategy of projecting power through proxies and allied militias across the Middle East. Rather than confronting its enemies directly, Tehran has spent decades building armed organizations capable of advancing Iranian interests while providing a degree of plausible deniability. This strategy is not incidental to the regime. It is central to how it operates. The regime seeks regional influence, the export of its revolutionary ideology, and the destruction of Israel. It has spent decades constructing the military and political infrastructure necessary to pursue those objectives.

The Purpose of Hezbollah

No organization better illustrates the contradiction in Carlson’s position than Hezbollah. Iran helped create Hezbollah, finances it, arms it, trains it, and coordinates with its leadership. Hezbollah’s military capabilities exist because Tehran wants them to exist.

Commentators speak as though Hezbollah exists to defend Lebanon. The evidence points in the opposite direction. From Tehran’s perspective, Hezbollah exists to advance Iranian interests. It provides leverage against Israel, allows Iran to threaten its adversaries without exposing itself directly to retaliation, and extends Iranian influence into the Levant.

This tendency to treat Hezbollah as a legitimate Lebanese political actor rather than an Iranian proxy is increasingly common. In a recent interview, Tucker Carlson gave a remarkably sympathetic hearing to arguments that Hezbollah represented the best hope for political consolidation in Lebanon. His guest, former State Department official Lawrence Wilkerson, went so far as to suggest that Israel’s killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah had deprived Lebanon of the opportunity to unite under a leadership capable of commanding broad public support.

For a commentator who built his reputation warning Americans about hostile foreign powers and the threats they pose, the exchange was striking. Hezbollah is not merely a Lebanese political movement. It is one of the principal instruments through which the Islamic Republic projects power across the Middle East.

Yet Carlson offered little challenge to the premise. Instead, the discussion proceeded as though Hezbollah could be understood separately from the regime that created it. That is precisely the contradiction. If the Islamic Republic is the dangerous revolutionary regime Carlson once described, then Hezbollah is one of the primary ways that danger manifests itself. To treat Hezbollah as an independent actor is to obscure the role Iran plays in projecting power throughout the Middle East.

The Contradiction

This is where Tucker Carlson’s position becomes impossible to reconcile with his earlier understanding of Iran. In 2012, he recognized that the Islamic Republic was not a normal government pursuing normal interests. He described it as evil because he understood that it was a revolutionary regime seeking to reshape the Middle East through violence, intimidation, and proxy warfare.

Yet today, he frequently speaks about conflicts involving Iran and its proxies as though they can be understood separately from the regime that created them. Hezbollah is not an independent actor that merely shares some interests with Tehran. It exists because Tehran built it. Its weapons, training, funding, and strategic purpose derive from the Islamic Republic. To discuss Hezbollah while minimizing the role of Iran is to discuss the symptom while ignoring the disease.

That is the contradiction at the heart of Carlson’s position. Either the Islamic Republic is the dangerous revolutionary regime he once said it was, or it is not. If it is, then its proxy network represents one of the principal ways in which that danger manifests itself. If it is not, then Carlson’s earlier warnings were wrong. Both positions cannot be true simultaneously.

What makes Carlson’s evolution particularly troubling is that it obscures the nature of the threat facing the region. The victims of the Islamic Republic span the entire Middle East. They are Israelis hiding in bomb shelters. They are Iranians denied freedom by their own government. They are Lebanese civilians forced to live under the shadow of Hezbollah. They are Syrians, Iraqis, and others whose countries have become arenas for Iranian influence and proxy warfare. Every attempt to separate Hezbollah from Tehran, or to minimize the role Iran plays in regional instability, serves the interests of the regime itself.

That is more than a personal contradiction. It is a political one. Carlson built his reputation warning Americans about elites who failed to recognize threats to American interests and security. Yet when confronted with a regime that has spent decades funding anti-American terrorism, attacking American allies, and pursuing a foreign policy explicitly hostile to the United States, he increasingly directs his skepticism elsewhere.

Whatever America First means, it cannot mean treating one of America’s most committed adversaries as though it is simply another misunderstood actor in the international system. If the Islamic Republic remains the evil and dangerous regime Carlson once said it was, then minimizing the role of its proxies and obscuring the nature of the threat they pose is not America First. It is the abandonment of the very premise that made Carlson influential in the first place.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• Israeli director Nadav Lapid is a fierce critic of the State of Israel who moved to France in 2021 as a form of self-exile. However, his public aversion to the Jewish state was not enough to save him from having his invitation to a Marseille-based festival revoked following pressure from anti-Israel activists.
• Lapid is but the latest in a long line of anti-Israel activists and scathing critics of the Jewish state (particularly Jewish ones) who their fellow anti-Zionists have turned on for not passing a strict ideological test set by the most fundamentalist members of the movement.
• As long as the zealots control the anti-Israel movement, they will continue to imitate the most vicious totalitarian states of the 20th century in their willingness to turn on their fellow ideologues and harshly purge them from their heterogeneous ranks.

Israeli director Nadav Lapid is a fierce critic of both the State of Israel and its government.

He left Israel and went into self-exile in France in 2021 as a form of protest against the Israeli government.

He was an early proponent of a ceasefire in Gaza following the October 7, 2023 attacks.

His latest film, Yes, is a scathing critique of Israeli nationalism and society.

Yet none of this was enough to save Lapid from the baying mob of Israel boycotters.

Lapid had been invited to head the jury at the Marseille-based FID festival and was also due to be honored at a special event. But his invitation was revoked after 10 pro-Palestinian filmmakers threatened to withdraw their films from the festival.

The stated justification for the boycott was that Lapid’s films receive support from the Israeli Film Fund, which itself receives some funding from Israel’s Ministry of Culture and Sports.

But the real issue appears to be something much simpler.

No matter how critical Lapid is of the Israeli government, the Israeli military, or Israeli society, nothing can redeem him in the eyes of the boycott movement. His original sin is being Israeli.

While Lapid may have been shocked by the ugly turn against him by some of his ideological allies, the episode was entirely predictable.

Nadav Lapid, an Israeli filmmaker, is a staunch critic of Israel’s government.

As part of a political protest, Nadav moved to France in 2021, and his films often offer a critique of Israeli society. He has spoken up about Gaza many times.

He was meant to be a judge for the… pic.twitter.com/cP7sOpHxSG

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) June 9, 2026

Anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activists have a long history of turning on their own whenever an individual’s opposition to Israel fails to satisfy the movement’s increasingly rigid ideological purity tests.

Like other highly ideological political movements throughout history, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin and Mao’s China, the most zealous elements of the anti-Israel camp have little tolerance for dissent, nuance, or ideological heterogeneity. Those deemed insufficiently anti-Israel are routinely denounced, ostracized, and purged from the movement’s good graces, regardless of how much they otherwise agree with its goals.

A recent example was the response to Irish author Sally Rooney‘s decision to work with a BDS-compliant Israeli publisher in order to release a Hebrew translation of one of her novels. Although Rooney believed her actions were fully consistent with the cultural boycott of Israel, she was nevertheless attacked by fellow anti-Israel activists, accused of betrayal, and subjected to online abuse that included antisemitic invective.

Similarly, in 2025, the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land – produced jointly by Israelis and Palestinians and sharply critical of Israeli actions – was condemned by anti-Israel activists for cooperating with an Israeli organization. The film’s Israeli co-director, Yuval Abraham, a prominent pro-Palestinian activist, was also vilified online after condemning Hamas’ October 7 massacre during his Academy Awards acceptance speech.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by HonestReporting (@honestreporting)

Other examples of the anti-Israel movement devouring its own include:

• Bitterly anti-Israel academic Norman Finkelstein being publicly attacked by Palestinian journalist Ali Abunimah, founder of the extremist Electronic Intifada website, for allegedly failing to align completely with Abunimah’s views.
• British-Jewish journalist Rivkah Brown discovering that even her extreme opposition to Israel was insufficient to shield her from the antisemitic ire of disgraced British doctor Rahmeh Aladwan, who accused her of media manipulation and abusing the term “antisemitic.”
• The New York City-based Palestinian restaurant Ayat being condemned by anti-Israel activist Nerdeen Kiswani for hosting a public Shabbat dinner, which included attendees from far-left and anti-Zionist Jewish groups. In the minds of Kiswani and like-minded activists, even social interaction between Palestinians and Jews can constitute unacceptable “normalization.”

Taken individually, these incidents may appear isolated. Viewed together, however, they reveal a clear pattern.

The loudest and most influential elements of the anti-Israel movement increasingly demand ideological conformity and treat dissent as heresy. Nuance is discouraged. Independent thought is viewed with suspicion. Those who deviate from the accepted orthodoxy, even slightly, risk being cast out.

This dynamic is especially evident when it comes to Jewish anti-Zionists. Time and again, they discover that no amount of opposition to Israel can fully absolve them of their identity in the eyes of the movement’s most radical activists. No matter how loudly they condemn the Jewish state, they remain suspect.

Nadav Lapid is merely the latest Jewish critic of Israel to learn this lesson.

He will almost certainly not be the last.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• CNN’s Isobel Yeung went to Lebanon to interview a variety of people aligned with or supporting Hezbollah. By failing to scrutinize her interview subjects, she provided a platform for Hezbollah’s messaging.
• Rather than challenging Hezbollah’s narrative, Yeung frequently adopted its framing of the conflict. Hezbollah’s role in sustaining the war, destabilizing Lebanon and endangering Israelis was omitted.
• The report prioritized access over accountability, allowing weapons smugglers, Hezbollah operatives, and supporters to advance their claims with limited pushback.

When CNN correspondent Isobel Yeung traveled to Lebanon to explore how Hezbollah is “still standing” after months of Israeli military pressure, she had an opportunity to examine one of the Middle East’s most deadly terrorist organizations at a pivotal moment.

Instead, her report, Inside Hezbollah, largely allowed Hezbollah-aligned voices to shape the narrative while leaving many of the group’s actions, responsibilities, and claims insufficiently challenged.

Throughout the 15-minute film, Yeung meets weapons smugglers, Hezbollah supporters, family members of Hezbollah operatives, and a man presented as a Hezbollah “fighter.” Yet rather than using these encounters to scrutinize Hezbollah’s role in destabilizing Lebanon, violating international resolutions, and rebuilding its military capabilities, the report frequently gives interview subjects space to advance the organization’s narrative with limited pushback.

Exclusive Access Comes With a Price

After months of “persuading” an arms dealer to meet with her and the CNN crew, Yeung is taken to a house in an undisclosed location in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, where she interviews a masked weapons smuggler.

Despite the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, Hezbollah continues to exploit instability along the Syrian-Lebanese border, using Syria as a logistical corridor through which it receives weapons and military supplies.

Israel has repeatedly targeted these smuggling routes in an effort to prevent weapons from reaching Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Syria’s new government has also taken steps to curb cross-border weapons trafficking, signaling its willingness to reduce threats along Israel’s northern frontier.

Nevertheless, weapons smuggling remains a persistent problem, allowing Hezbollah to replenish its arsenal even after suffering significant battlefield losses.

Yet CNN’s report devotes little attention to the broader consequences of these smuggling operations. There is no meaningful discussion of how Hezbollah’s independent military infrastructure undermines Lebanese sovereignty, weakens the Lebanese Armed Forces, or contributes to Lebanon’s ongoing instability.

Instead, Yeung asks the smuggler whether the weapons are needed to “defend [the buyers] against Israel,” framing the issue through the lens of Hezbollah’s own justification for maintaining an armed force outside state control.

Missing from the discussion is the central reality that Hezbollah’s military presence in southern Lebanon and its repeated attacks on Israel are themselves a primary driver of the conflict.

Nor does Yeung challenge the smuggler on the role he plays in sustaining a terrorist organization’s military capabilities. Unsurprisingly, he is allowed to dismiss concerns about how the weapons are ultimately used without facing meaningful scrutiny.

The result is a portrayal that humanizes the smuggling network while largely overlooking its contribution to Hezbollah’s rearmament efforts.

A similar pattern emerges when Yeung meets a man presented as a Hezbollah operative, whom she describes as an “elusive fighter.”

Before the interview, Yeung correctly notes that Hezbollah is an “incredibly secretive group.”

Hezbollah rarely grants access to foreign journalists. When it does, reporters are expected to operate within the organization’s reporting guidelines. Rather than using this rare opportunity to question Hezbollah’s role in dragging Lebanon into conflict, violating UN Security Council resolutions, or rebuilding its military capabilities, CNN’s interview largely allows the organization’s narrative to go unchallenged.

Notably, Hezbollah’s Media Relations Office later issued a statement claiming that the interviewee was not a Hezbollah member and that the interview had not been coordinated through the group’s official media channels, while describing itself as the “sole entity authorized to coordinate any communication or interviews.”

1/@CNN‘s @IsobelYeung was probably pleased to land a powder puff interview with one of Hezbollah’s supposedly “elusive fighters.”

Now there’s another problem.

Hezbollah’s own media office says the man CNN interviewed is “not a member of the party in any way, shape, or form.”… https://t.co/LUxcmkBk8o

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 11, 2026

This raises significant questions not only about Yeung’s vetting of sources but also about the extent to which Hezbollah controls access and information available to foreign journalists.

The broader issue is a familiar one: when access to members or supporters of a terrorist organization becomes the priority, accountability often suffers.

Leading Questions to Hezbollah Supporters

Beyond interviewing Hezbollah terrorists, Yeung also speaks with their supporters and relatives.

In a cemetery containing the graves of Hezbollah members killed during the conflict, she interviews a young Lebanese man who lost friends and family members killed as a result of their involvement in the terror organization.

Throughout these exchanges, Yeung repeatedly refers to Hezbollah operatives as “fighters,” a term that risks obscuring the fact that Hezbollah is designated as a terrorist organization by numerous governments around the world.

Language matters. Describing members of a terrorist organization primarily as “fighters” can subtly shift perceptions, watering down their participation in a group responsible for decades of terrorism.

That framing continues when Yeung states that Hezbollah’s “greatest strength is the thousands of fighters willing to sacrifice their lives.”

While intended as an observation, the statement echoes Hezbollah’s self-image and presents its members through a lens of commitment and idealism rather than examining the nature of the cause to which they are devoted.

In another exchange, Yeung tells an interviewee that Israel is responsible for destroying neighborhoods, displacing people, and causing civilian casualties.

There is no dispute that Israeli military operations have had severe consequences in Lebanon. However, responsible reporting requires explaining why those operations occurred and the role Hezbollah played in triggering and sustaining the conflict.

A journalist’s responsibility is not simply to repeat one side’s framing of events but to provide audiences with the context necessary to understand them. Yeung has failed to do that.

Hezbollah’s Role in Lebanon

Since its founding in 1982, Hezbollah has worked to establish itself as both a military force and a political actor within Lebanon.

Taking advantage of periods of instability and state weakness, the organization developed extensive social, educational, and welfare networks that helped expand its influence while advancing Iran’s revolutionary agenda.

Over time, Hezbollah became deeply embedded within Lebanon’s political system, using its parliamentary representation and military power to shape national policy while maintaining an armed force independent of the Lebanese state.

Yet when Yeung interviews Hezbollah parliamentarian Ibrahim Al Moussawi, viewers are told that Hezbollah “stepped in where the state has failed.”

What is largely absent from the discussion is Hezbollah’s role in contributing to that failure.

The organization’s repeated military confrontations with Israel, its independent armed structure, and its alignment with Iran have all imposed significant costs on Lebanon politically, economically, and militarily.

Similarly, Hezbollah’s impact on Israeli civilians receives only limited attention.

At one point, the report notes that Hezbollah has caused “some civilian harm” in Israel.

That description understates the scale of the threat.

Hezbollah attacks have displaced tens of thousands of residents from northern Israel, destroyed homes and infrastructure, killed civilians, including children, and forced communities to live under the constant threat of rocket and missile fire.

Long before October 7, Israeli security officials warned about Hezbollah’s growing military capabilities and the possibility of a large-scale cross-border attack.

Yet viewers of Inside Hezbollah receive little sense of either the scope of that threat or the fears it has generated among Israeli civilians living near the border.

What Does This Say About CNN?

The issue is not that CNN interviewed Hezbollah terrorists, supporters, or individuals connected to the organization. Journalists should engage with all relevant actors, including those involved in conflict and terrorism.

The problem is that Yeung follows the script, avoids the hard questions that would make the terrorists accountable for their actions, and provides a platform for them to push their narrative without facing any challenges.

Related Reading: When Hezbollah Provides CNN Access, Propaganda Shapes the Coverage

When journalists are granted rare access to individuals connected to a terrorist organization, that access should be used to ask difficult questions, challenge unsupported claims, and provide viewers with the context necessary to evaluate what they are hearing. Too often, however, Inside Hezbollah allowed interviewees to present Hezbollah’s preferred narrative without sufficient scrutiny.

Responsible journalism requires skepticism, context, and a willingness to confront powerful actors with difficult questions, especially when those actors are members or supporters of a terrorist organization.

Viewers were promised an inside look at Hezbollah. What they received instead was a report that frequently echoed Hezbollah’s framing of events while offering limited examination of the organization’s responsibility for the conflict, its impact on Lebanon, or the threat it poses to Israeli civilians.

A rare journalistic opportunity ultimately became a missed opportunity for accountability.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

More than 100 UNRWA employees have now been referred for suspension or debarment from receiving U.S. taxpayer funding after being linked to Hamas and the October 7 massacre.

According to USAID’s Inspector General, those implicated included school principals, teachers, security personnel, counselors, and medical professionals. Some allegedly served simultaneously as Hamas commanders, intelligence officers, or combatants.

Hamas’s infiltration of UNRWA is no secret. But the real question is: if UNRWA employees are also Hamas operatives, where does Hamas end and UNRWA begin?

Found this video interesting? Follow the HonestReporting page on Facebook to catch more videos, and read articles debunking news bias and smears, as well as others explaining Israel’s history, politics, and international affairs. Click here to learn more!

Key Takeaways:

• The queer community’s betrayal of Jewish members is not a fringe phenomenon: Eve Barlow documents that every major LGBTQ+ organization and community center in the Western world has been captured by an ideology that treats Jewish identity as incompatible with progressive belonging.
• The red-green alliance between radical queer politics and jihadism is not driven by ignorance. This is an educated, ideologically trained movement, not a mob acting on instinct.
• LGBTQ+ Jews face a compounded vulnerability that straight Jewish allies rarely see: they are being targeted not only as Jews but within the intimate spaces where they sought refuge from a previous ostracization.

Pride began as a celebration of survival. The foundational belief was simple and radical: the closet is a form of violence. Hiding who you are does real damage. A generation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans people built something extraordinary on that premise — legal rights, visibility, cultural legitimacy — and taught the world that no one should be forced to choose which part of themselves to suppress in order to be accepted.

That same movement is now asking Jews to leave their Star of David at the door.

Eve Barlow has been documenting this inversion from the inside. As a lesbian Jewish journalist who spent the first decade of her career at NME and writing cover stories for GQ, Elle, and The Guardian, she was woven into the fabric of progressive cultural life.

In 2019, she started saying one thing out loud: that the anti-Zionism rising around her was antisemitism in a new coat. The world that had welcomed her turned on her. She named her Substack after what followed: Blacklisted.

Thrown Out for Wearing a Star

In the week before this conversation, two married Jewish women, both American, one American-Israeli, walked into a queer women’s sauna night in Barcelona wearing Stars of David. What happened next was not spontaneous.

Barlow, who has spoken directly with the couple, believes the organizers were alerted in advance. The interrogation was initiated by a trans woman, a deliberate choice in Barlow’s reading: the trans identifier carries the highest position in the current oppression hierarchy, which offers maximum plausible deniability and minimum capacity for the targets to push back without being framed as the aggressor. The questions were calibrated: “We have no problem with the star. We have a problem with Zionists.” A second figure appeared, fluent in English, smugly explaining to two Jewish women that Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing.

The three perpetrators, once identified, were a trans biology teacher, a sociology doctorate at the University of Barcelona, and a queer lawyer who is also an author and parent.

“These are not people who bypass intelligence and swallow propaganda and just ignorantly start targeting Jews,” Barlow says. “These are people who are elitists, at the top institutions in these states. They are actively excluding Jews from public life and using Gaza and Palestine as the misnomer to do so.”

This was not an anomaly. Barlow has spent the past year researching and writing about the exclusion of Jews from LGBTQ+ spaces, and her conclusion is blunt: this pattern is endemic across every city with an organized LGBTQ+ presence. Every community center and organization has been targeted by a radical politics that has fused Palestinian advocacy with queer identity, not because of a genuine concern for Gazan rights but because the ideological framework demands it.

How Queer Theory Was Hijacked

Queer theory, Barlow argues, arrived in the 1970s as a Marxist reframe of homosexuality. Being queer was no longer primarily about same-sex attraction or civil liberties. It became a political identity organized around the binary of oppressor and oppressed, committed to dismantling any structure deemed colonial, including gender itself.

In that framework, Israel became a target not because of specific policies but because it reads as a colonial project. The alliance with Palestinian advocacy followed from the theory, not from any actual knowledge of or concern for life in Palestinian society, where gay people are persecuted.

The original movement, Barlow is careful to note, was centered around explicit goals: same-sex marriage, adoption rights, military inclusion, healthcare access, non-discrimination in employment. These were tangible legal reforms. The LGBTQ+ umbrella that exists today has largely replaced that agenda with what she calls an economy of feelings, focused on validation and political signaling rather than on defending the rights that were hard won, or protecting communities that are already seeing a legal backlash.

“The eyes of the LGBTQ+ community are completely off that ball,” she says, “because they’re invested in this kind of pie-in-the-sky idea of feelings and validation and political advocacy.”

The movement, in her telling, is now eating itself. Having been pushed so far toward ideological radicalism, it has begun to lose the rights it already secured. And no one inside is paying attention because their attention is elsewhere.

The Writing on the Wall

Barlow did not begin this fight because she is a theorist. She began speaking out because she was afraid.

She left London not only for a career change. She was living in Shoreditch, a racially diverse corner of East London, and she was watching the writing appear on the wall — literally — as she recalled walking past swastikas graffitied in the streets. A standout moment was when a Tesco grocery store near London Bridge quietly pulled kosher products from its shelves. When she approached staff, she was told they no longer carried Israeli settlement products. Meanwhile, the brand was manufactured in Kent, because staff had confused kosher with Israeli. BDS slogans were also appearing at morning editorial meetings, with colleagues inviting Bobby Gillespie of Primal Scream to write a piece in favor of boycotts. Barlow, the only Jew in the office, was unable to get a word in edgewise.

“My gut was like, get the hell out of here,” she says.

She arrived in LA, threw herself into her career, and tried to leave it behind. Then George Floyd was killed, the BLM protests began, and synagogues in the Fairfax district were vandalized with the words “Fuck Israel” and “Fuck Jews.” She recognized the same political energy, in a different year, in a different city. She knew then it was far from over.

When she started speaking publicly about antisemitism in 2019, during Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign, the response was split down the middle. Half her world thought she had lost her mind. The other half expressed a secret, exhausted relief that someone they respected was finally saying it out loud. It was not without a cost.

“Every element of me, my lesbianism, my womanhood, all of that was up for discussing,” she says. “I never felt fear around talking about misogyny or being a lesbian. But I knew, when I started to speak about Jew hatred, how taboo and risky it was.”

The Double Betrayal

For lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans Jews, the current moment carries a particular weight. They are experiencing the antisemitism that all Jews are navigating while simultaneously being expelled from the spaces that once offered them shelter from a previous ostracization, because their sexuality made them unwelcome in the mainstream.

“It’s a double betrayal,” Barlow says, “and because it hits the most intimate part of our lives, it’s very trauma inducing.”

She is careful not to construct a hierarchy of victimhood. But she is direct about the specific vulnerability of LGBTQ+ Jews, who are exposed in spaces and on platforms that their straight Jewish allies do not see. She references the case in Australia, reported in the wake of the Bondi Beach murders, of young Jewish men being lured via Grindr and then filmed being beaten by their assailants. The digital world, in her account, has made the targeting of LGBTQ+ Jews both more precise and more invisible to those not living inside it.

The coordinated nature of the online hate she has experienced over years of advocacy is something she returns to. The attacks are not random individuals operating in isolation: they are campaigns. The people running them understand the internet’s architecture and use it deliberately. Until you have been the target, she says, you cannot fully comprehend what is possible.

You Can’t Reach Them

Barlow says flatly that you cannot reach the true believers. People like the Barcelona event organizers are in a “cult.” Barlow says they have organized themselves around a common target, and the social bonds that form through shared hatred are among the most durable humans produce.

The psychology she describes is one of inverted power. The pride movement was built around the memory of exclusion. That memory, weaponized rather than processed, becomes license to do the excluding, so the bullied becomes the bully. The closet, which was supposed to be abolished, gets rebuilt for the next group in line.

“They know exactly what they’re doing,” she says. “They feel entitled to enjoy it. In our lifetimes, we are going to be the ones in power. That’s the energy.”

The alliance between the radical queer left and radical Islamism, she argues, will not hold. They are united now by a common target and a shared desire for vengeance. One is the useful idiot of the other. When the common enemy is gone, the bigger bully takes out the smaller one. Barlow warns the LGBTQ+ world is not looking sideways at this, and by the time it does, it will be too late.

The Movement That Abandoned Its Own

The accusation of pink washing (the claim that Israel promotes its LGBTQ+ rights as a public relations exercise to distract from its treatment of Palestinians) is one Barlow dismisses with a kind of exhausted precision.

By the same logic, every Pride parade in every Western city is pink washing. The accusation is applied to one country: the Jewish state, which is in a region where LGBTQ+ rights are nonexistent. If celebrating queer freedom constitutes propaganda, it constitutes propaganda everywhere. Only Israel gets the charge because it is subject to the singular standard applied to the Jewish state.

Israel recognizes same-sex partnerships, has some of the most visible and celebrated Pride culture in the world, and sits in the geographic center of the most aggressively homophobic region on earth. That it has not yet legislated full same-sex marriage is a genuine gap. It is also a gap that Barlow believes will close, because Israel is a democracy and democracies evolve.

“At 78 years young,” she says, “and also fighting a war that hasn’t relented in those 78 years, I think we’re not doing that bad.”

A Message for the Queer Jewish Kid Told to Choose

Barlow’s piece in The Spectator, Queers for Zion, ends with the observation that the Free Palestine movement needs the gay movement far more than the gay movement needs it. The original moral core of Pride, extending freedom to those who have none, should point directly toward Gaza’s LGBTQ+ community, people living under Hamas rule without any of the rights that queer activists in the West take for granted.

An LGBTQ+ movement true to its founding logic would be advocating for gay Palestinians. Instead, it is acting, in her words, as a handmaiden for Hamas.

To any young queer Jewish person listening who has been told to choose, Barlow’s answer is short. Being openly Zionist and openly LGBTQ+ means targeting, harassment, and stalking. It is also the only path to genuine integrity, which she describes as a dying art form. The alternative is performing whatever identity the room requires you to be. That is the closet by another name.

“I don’t have a choice,” she says. “I never had a choice. Go forth. Be brave.”

Eve Barlow is a journalist, and author of Blacklisted, a Substack newsletter. This interview was conducted by Ben Chertoff for The Honest Take, available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and all major streaming platforms [https://thehonesttake.transistor.fm/episodes/pride-and-prejudice-how-antisemitism-captured-lgbtq-spaces-with-eve-barlow].

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• Both NBC News and The New York Times broke a story that the Pentagon has raised the threat of Israeli espionage due to an alleged ramp-up in Israeli efforts to spy on senior Trump administration officials.
• Both stories were based on allegations from unnamed officials and purported reports that the outlets did not verify before publishing their “exclusive” stories.
• This is the latest example of how a weak story with credibility issues becomes legitimized by mainstream media outlets and then spread as a factual narrative throughout social media.

One of the most viral Israel-related stories to emerge over the weekend was a claim spread by NBC News and amplified by The New York Times: that Israel has intensified efforts to spy on senior Trump administration officials, particularly those involved in negotiations with Iran, and that concerns about Israeli espionage have been elevated within the U.S. Defense Department.

The story quickly spread from mainstream media into social media, where the usual cohort of anti-Israel accounts seized upon it as confirmation of long-held accusations about Israeli misconduct and duplicity.

The claim was circulated by figures across the American political spectrum, including Republican Representative Thomas Massie, AIPAC Tracker, conspiracy theorist Max Blumenthal, former Trump administration official Joe Kent, and anti-Zionist agitator Shaiel Ben-Ephraim.

But behind the headlines and salacious narrative, is there any evidence to actually support these allegations?

Depending on how one assesses the reporting, the story may amount to little more than unverified claims that have been spun into a major controversy for views.

Israel targeting senior U.S. officials cannot be accepted by our government.

This is not standard practice, especially considering the fact that Israel survives on our defense funding & diplomatic top cover.

Until we actually take away the support we give Israel they will… https://t.co/xaXW9ruK5x pic.twitter.com/h6yNeR3rjR

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) June 6, 2026

The story was first broken by NBC News, which claimed that the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had recently raised the counterintelligence threat posed by Israel to its highest level amid concerns that Israel was seeking intelligence on U.S. officials involved in negotiations with Iran.

Such a serious allegation would ordinarily require substantial evidence.

Instead, NBC’s report relies primarily on claims made by three unnamed U.S. officials – two current officials and one former official.

According to the report, one of these officials said they had reviewed an internal seven-page DIA document that elevated the threat of Israeli espionage to a “critical” level.

That alleged document, which has not been made public, together with the testimony of anonymous sources, forms the core basis of NBC’s sensationalized reporting.

Notably, NBC also acknowledged that a White House official rejected the claims, calling them “false” and saying they were sourced to someone “who doesn’t have any knowledge of what’s going on.”

Without additional corroborating evidence, the story ultimately rests on anonymous sourcing and an unseen intelligence assessment. Nevertheless, it was presented to readers as an “exclusive” factual story on a significant national security development.

I had to read this latest New York Times anti-Israel piece a few times. Once you get past the definitive-sounding language, the sourcing underneath it is remarkably thin:

– “Several current and former U.S. officials” – unnamed
– “One senior official” – unnamed
– “Two senior U.S.… pic.twitter.com/5l5iB1AnLW

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) June 7, 2026

Following NBC’s report, The New York Times published its own article, asserting that concerns about Israeli intelligence-gathering have increased in recent years and have intensified amid ongoing negotiations with Iran.

Like NBC’s report, the Times article relies heavily on unnamed current and former officials as well as references to intelligence assessments that have not been made public.

Despite the limited publicly available evidence, both reports quickly generated widespread attention.

As mentioned earlier, the allegations rapidly spread across social media, where many users treated them as established fact, citing the credibility associated with major news organizations.

This illustrates a familiar dynamic: a story based on limited sourcing is amplified by prominent media outlets, adopted by social media influencers and political activists, and rapidly transformed into a widely accepted narrative before the underlying claims have been independently verified.

To the best of my knowledge and assessment, Israel’s intelligence community stopped spying on U.S. soil and against American targets or individuals around the world following the Pollard affair in 1985. Period. Not Unit 8200. Not the Mossad and not the Shin Bet.

Therefore, my…

— Yossi Melman (@yossi_melman) June 7, 2026

So what should readers make of the allegations?

It is certainly possible that the reports are accurate. However, several analysts and intelligence observers have raised questions about both the evidence presented and the broader plausibility of the claims.

Haaretz intelligence correspondent Yossi Melman and academic Kobby Barda, writing in Yediot Ahronot, both argue that Israel significantly curtailed intelligence operations directed at the United States following the Jonathan Pollard affair in the 1980s.

While neither excludes the possibility that Israel continues to monitor certain American communications, both contend that the scale implied by recent reporting is inconsistent with what is publicly known about Israeli intelligence practices over the past several decades.

Barda further notes that the leaked assessment reportedly expresses “concerns” rather than presenting concrete evidence that Israel has recently expanded espionage activities inside the United States.

Both Melman and Barda also suggest that the leak itself may have been motivated by internal political or bureaucratic considerations. Melman argues that some officials may be seeking to portray Israel’s government and intelligence services as convenient scapegoats in the context of tensions surrounding Iran. Barda, meanwhile, suggests that elements within the U.S. administration may be attempting to create greater distance between Washington and Jerusalem despite growing military cooperation between the two countries.

Whatever the explanation, one fact remains clear: the allegations that Israel has become a heightened espionage threat are currently based on anonymous sources and intelligence assessments that have not been made public.

That does not necessarily mean the allegations are false. But it does mean that readers should distinguish between verified facts and claims that have yet to be independently substantiated.

In an era when narratives can spread globally within hours, that distinction remains as important as ever.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• Most misunderstandings about Israel begin with misunderstandings about the Jewish people, their history, and their indigenous connection to the Land of Israel.
• My work with HonestReporting reinforced a conclusion I had already reached through years of studying Jewish identity: Jews are a people, not a religious community.
• Making Aliyah is not a departure from my work. It is the continuation of a journey rooted in Jewish peoplehood, Jewish self-determination, and the belief that the Jewish people have a homeland.

After living in Britain for most of my life, I am making Aliyah and moving to Israel. For many years, my work has focused on Jewish identity, Jewish peoplehood, and Jewish indigeneity. Since last year, I have also written for HonestReporting, analyzing headlines, examining news reports, and challenging inaccurate or distorted coverage of Israel.

On the surface, that work is about journalism. In reality, it is about something much deeper.

The Story Beneath the Headlines

By the time I began writing for HonestReporting, I had already spent years exploring questions of Jewish identity, Jewish peoplehood, and Jewish indigeneity. Through writing and researching Jewish identity, I had become increasingly convinced that one of the challenges facing Jews stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of who we are.

My work at HonestReporting reinforced this. Again and again, I encountered coverage that treated Israel as though it existed in a historical vacuum. Zionism was frequently discussed without reference to the Jewish people from whom it emerged. Israel was portrayed as an inexplicable anomaly: a colonial project, a foreign implant, a state whose existence required constant justification. The deeper I looked, the more I realized that many debates about Israel were not really about borders, governments, or policies. They were debates about who Jews are.

At HonestReporting, we often focus on correcting factual errors. We challenge misleading headlines, missing context, and double standards, while fighting against false narratives and educating the public to become better media consumers. Those interventions matter. But facts alone cannot resolve a misunderstanding that exists at the level of identity.

A person who believes Jews are merely a religious community will inevitably struggle to understand why a Jewish state exists. A person who sees Jews only through the lens of twentieth-century European history will struggle to understand a people whose story began in the Land of Israel thousands of years earlier. A person who has never encountered the concept of Jewish indigeneity will naturally view Zionism through frameworks developed for entirely different historical experiences.

Working with HonestReporting has reinforced something I have long known to be true: most arguments about Israel are ultimately arguments about whether Jews have the right to define themselves on their own terms.

An Am, Not a Religion

Through writing three books and engaging with Jewish communities around the world, I came to a conclusion that should be obvious but has become strangely controversial: Jews are an am, a people.

We are an indigenous people whose civilization emerged in the Land of Israel. Judaism is the cultural, spiritual, and ethical expression of that civilization. Jewish history did not begin in exile. It began in our homeland.

Once I understood that reality more deeply, my relationship with Israel began to change. Israel was no longer just a subject I wrote about or defended. It was no longer merely a country I visited. It became impossible to ignore the fact that the place at the center of Jewish history, Jewish memory, and Jewish civilization was also my homeland.

From Conviction to Citizenship

The question was no longer academic, because if I believe Jews are a people, what does that mean for my own life? If I believe Jewish self-determination is legitimate, what responsibility do I have to participate in it? If I believe Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, why am I living somewhere else?

Those questions do not produce the same answer for every Jew. The overwhelming majority of Jews throughout history never had the opportunity to make Aliyah. Many Jews today will continue to build meaningful and vibrant lives in the Diaspora. But for me, the questions became impossible to ignore. 

In many ways, making Aliyah feels less like a departure than a continuation. I will continue my work with HonestReporting and my broader efforts to advance Jewish Pride, Jewish peoplehood, and Jewish self-understanding. The conversation remains the same, but I will now be having it from Israel.

I am not making Aliyah because I believe Israel is perfect. No society is. Israel faces immense challenges, both internal and external. But it remains the greatest achievement of the Jewish people in two thousand years. It is the place where Jewish self-determination is not a theory but a reality.

Working with HonestReporting has reinforced something I have long known to be true. Many arguments about Israel are ultimately arguments about whether Jews have the right to define themselves on their own terms. Whether we are permitted to understand ourselves as a people, connected to our ancestral homeland, with the same rights afforded to other indigenous peoples and nations.

My answer is yes.

That answer is why I wrote about Jewish Pride. It is why I wrote about Jewish peoplehood and Jewish indigeneity. And it is why, this week, I will become an Israeli citizen.

For me, making Aliyah is the continuation of a journey that began with a simple question about how Jews understand themselves and ended with a simple conclusion.

The Jewish people have a homeland.

I am going home.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• The latest eruption of clashes between Israel and Iran did not suddenly arise out of the blue – they are a direct result of Hezbollah’s continued belligerence and ceasefire violations.
• Since October 8, 2023, Israel and Hezbollah have engaged in multiple rounds of fighting and ceasefires. Even during the ceasefires, Hezbollah continued to violate them, attack Israeli forces and civilians, and test the boundaries of Israel’s response to the terror group’s intransigence.
• While Hezbollah and Iran may claim that they are defending the Lebanese people, it is clear that their anti-Israel attacks are for their own benefit and not for the benefit for the people of Lebanon.

Over the past 24 hours, the Islamic Republic of Iran has fired multiple waves of missiles at Israel for the first time since a fragile ceasefire between the United States, Israel, and Iran came into effect on April 8, 2026.

In response, Israel has carried out strikes on strategic targets inside Iran.

As of this writing, it remains unclear whether the latest violence will develop into a broader regional war or whether tensions will once again subside.

To understand how Israel and Iran arrived at this point, however, it is necessary to look beyond Tehran and Jerusalem.

The immediate catalyst for the current escalation can be found in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah spent months violating ceasefire agreements, rebuilding its military infrastructure, and ultimately reigniting its war against Israel.

While media coverage often portrays the current crisis as a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran, Hezbollah’s actions played a critical role in setting the stage for the latest round of fighting.

1/@AP has published a timeline tracking hostilities between Iran, Israel, and Lebanon. While the chronological sequence of events is accurate, the presentation heavily strips away crucial context, resulting in a skewed narrative of the conflict. pic.twitter.com/cvP2biC2Sm

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 8, 2026

Israel’s Fight Against Hezbollah Terrorism (October 2023 – November 2024)

Following Hamas’ October 7, 2023 terrorist invasion of southern Israel, Hezbollah opened a second front against Israel the following day, launching attacks from southern Lebanon in support of its Palestinian ally and fellow member of Iran’s so-called “Axis of Resistance.”

Over the following eleven months, Hezbollah maintained a steady barrage of rockets, missiles, drones, and anti-tank fire against northern Israeli communities. The attacks, and Israel’s military response, displaced tens of thousands of civilians on both sides of the border.

By September 2024, Israel had significantly weakened Hamas in Gaza and shifted its attention to the growing threat posed by Hezbollah.

That month, Israel carried out a highly sophisticated intelligence operation in which explosive devices hidden inside Hezbollah communication equipment detonated across Lebanon, killing and wounding thousands of operatives. The operation was followed by a sustained campaign of targeted strikes against Hezbollah’s leadership and military infrastructure, including the killing of the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

On September 30, Israel launched a ground operation aimed at pushing Hezbollah forces away from the border and dismantling terrorist infrastructure threatening northern Israeli communities.

The conflict continued until November 26, 2024, when Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a U.S.-brokered ceasefire.

Under the terms of the agreement, Hezbollah was required to disarm in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701, withdraw from southern Lebanon, and allow the Lebanese Armed Forces to assume responsibility for enforcing security in the area. Israel and Lebanon also retained the right to act in self-defense.

The Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire (November 2024 – February 2026)

The ceasefire brought a measure of stability to the region.

Israel withdrew from most of southern Lebanon, retaining only five strategic positions overlooking the border.

Hezbollah, however, failed to fulfill its obligations under the agreement.

Rather than disarming and withdrawing from the area, the Iranian-backed terror group continued rebuilding its military capabilities and maintaining an armed presence in southern Lebanon.

An analysis of the ceasefire period between November 2024 and December 2025 found that Hezbollah committed nearly 2,000 violations of the agreement.

Israel responded to many of these violations through military action targeting weapons depots, launch sites, operatives involved in rebuilding Hezbollah’s infrastructure, and terrorists preparing attacks against Israel.

Despite these repeated violations, the ceasefire largely succeeded in preventing a return to full-scale war and allowed displaced civilians on both sides of the border to begin returning home.

Even during the twelve-day war between Israel and Iran in June 2025, Hezbollah refrained from joining the fighting directly.

The relative calm, however, would not last.

Hezbollah Resumes Its War Against Israel (March 2026 – Present)

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched strikes against Iran targeting elements of its ballistic missile and nuclear programs, while also encouraging the possibility of regime change.

As part of the operation, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed.

Two days later, Hezbollah resumed attacks against Israel, launching missiles at northern Israeli communities in response to the death of its principal patron.

Israel responded by re-entering parts of southern Lebanon in an effort to push Hezbollah away from the border and reduce the threat to Israeli civilians. The renewed fighting once again displaced large numbers of Lebanese civilians and threatened to unravel the fragile stability that had emerged since late 2024.

In short, Hezbollah chose to break the ceasefire and reopen a conflict that had largely been contained for more than a year.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by HonestReporting (@honestreporting)

A week after hostilities between Israel, the United States, and Iran ended, Israel and Hezbollah entered into another U.S.-brokered ceasefire.

Israel and Lebanon subsequently began direct discussions aimed at transforming the temporary truce into a more durable arrangement.

Yet Hezbollah continued attacking Israeli forces operating in southern Lebanon and communities in northern Israel.

According to the Alma Research Center, between April 17 and June 8, Hezbollah launched 975 attack waves against Israeli forces and civilians.

On June 3, Israel and Lebanon reached a new ceasefire agreement that called for Hezbollah to cease all attacks on Israel and disarm south of the Litani River. The agreement also envisioned the creation of pilot zones where the Lebanese Army would exercise exclusive security control and remove non-state armed groups.

Hezbollah rejected the arrangement the following day, describing it as a capitulation to Israel, and continued its attacks.

Meanwhile, amid U.S. concerns about broader regional escalation and ongoing diplomatic efforts with Iran, Israel largely avoided targeting Hezbollah infrastructure in Beirut, focusing instead on threats in southern Lebanon.

That changed on June 7.

Following continued rocket and drone attacks on northern Israeli communities, Israel struck a Hezbollah installation in Beirut’s Dahieh district, a major stronghold of the terror group.

The strike was particularly significant because Iran had previously warned that attacks on Beirut would trigger a direct response against Israel.

Hours later, Iran launched multiple waves of missiles at the Jewish state.

Let’s get this straight, @MSNOWNews.

This isn’t a case of Israel and Iran “launching missiles at each other.”

That framing falsely suggests two morally equivalent parties trading blows.

What actually happened?

Hezbollah violated the Israel-Lebanon ceasefire by launching… pic.twitter.com/kTCQeuMs6O

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 8, 2026

The latest escalation highlights the extent to which Hezbollah’s military decisions remain closely tied to Iran’s regional ambitions.

Despite repeated ceasefire agreements, ongoing negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, and opportunities to reduce tensions, Hezbollah repeatedly chose confrontation over de-escalation.

As Lebanese President Joseph Aoun recently told CNN, Iran has used Lebanon as a “bargaining chip” in its negotiations with the United States and has no right to interfere in Lebanese affairs.

Those comments underscore a growing frustration within Lebanon itself: that decisions made in Tehran and by Hezbollah continue to impose enormous costs on the Lebanese people.

Whether the current exchange of fire develops into a wider regional war remains uncertain.

What is clear is that the latest confrontation did not emerge suddenly. It was preceded by months of Hezbollah ceasefire violations, renewed attacks against Israel, and a deliberate decision to place Lebanon once again at the center of Iran’s confrontation with the Jewish state.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!

• Over the past several days, the Iranian regime has fired missiles and drones at Gulf states.
• After Hezbollah broke the ceasefire with Israel, the IDF struck targets in Beirut. The Iranian regime then fired missiles toward Israel, claiming it was doing so in “defense” of Lebanon.
• The Iranian regime is only acting with its own interests in mind. It did not fire missiles to defend Lebanon, but rather to protect Hezbollah and continue the pursuit of its own interests, no matter what country it harms.

On June 7, 2026, Iran once again fired ballistic missiles at Israel, claiming the attack was carried out “in defense” of Lebanon following Israeli strikes in Beirut.

Almost immediately after the first missiles were launched, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi shared an image of the Iranian and Lebanese flags on social media, signaling that Tehran was portraying the attack as an act of solidarity with Lebanon.

pic.twitter.com/8vpGXiayxz

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 7, 2026

The Iranian Regime’s Recent Actions in the Gulf

Yet even before launching missiles at Israel, Iran had already been escalating its military activity elsewhere in the Middle East.

Since the beginning of June, the regime has intensified attacks across the Gulf region. On June 3, Kuwait International Airport was struck by Iranian missiles, killing one person and injuring several others. Days later, Iran launched another round of missiles toward both Kuwait and Bahrain.

As of June 6, 2026, the Gulf Research Center reported more than 7,000 Iranian missile and drone attacks against Gulf states since the ceasefire took effect. According to the data, nearly 3,000 attacks targeted the UAE, more than 1,000 each targeted Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, while Bahrain faced more than 700 attacks.

Iranian attacks on the GCC states and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the post-ceasefire phase (as of Jun 6, 2026):

A total of 7,069 attacks, including missiles and drones, reflecting a clear escalation in both the scale of operations and their geographic spread.#GCC #Iran… pic.twitter.com/dFz23ICjcD

— Gulf Research Center – مركز الخليج للأبحاث (@Gulf_Research) June 8, 2026

Since the ceasefire was implemented in April, Iran has repeatedly tested its limits while portraying itself as the aggrieved party whenever the United States responded to ceasefire violations that endangered American personnel and interests in the region.

What Tehran conveniently ignores is that launching missiles and drones at sovereign states, as well as targeting American forces and assets, constitutes a clear violation of the ceasefire itself.

Iranian Regime Attacks Israel for Its Own Interests

Before Israel struck Hezbollah targets in Beirut, the IDF had made clear that it would do so if Hezbollah continued violating the ceasefire agreement. Only after Hezbollah fired rockets at northern Israel did Israel respond with airstrikes on the Lebanese capital.

Tehran’s reaction was immediate. Iranian officials threatened a “painful and decisive response” to Israel over the strikes against Hezbollah – Iran’s most important, albeit significantly weakened, regional proxy.

Given Iran’s pattern of missile and drone attacks throughout the Middle East, it should be obvious that its launch of more than 20 missiles at Israel was not motivated by a desire to “defend” Lebanon. There was no threat to Lebanese sovereignty or Lebanese civilians that required Iranian intervention.

Rather, the attack was another manifestation of Iran’s long-running campaign against Israel and part of a broader strategy aimed at projecting power, maintaining regional influence and instability, and preserving its network of proxies.

That did not stop parts of the international media from adopting Iran’s framing.

The New York Times, for example, reported that Israeli strikes in Beirut “prompted” Iran to “retaliate.”

The Guardian similarly described Iran’s missile barrage as coming “in response” to Israeli strikes in Beirut.

But if Iran’s missile barrage was simply a reaction to Israeli military action in Beirut, how should readers interpret its simultaneous attacks on Kuwait, Bahrain, and other Gulf states?

The answer is that they cannot.

The claim that Iran was acting to “defend” Lebanon collapses when viewed alongside the regime’s broader regional behavior. A government genuinely concerned with Lebanese sovereignty would not use Lebanon as a base for an armed proxy force, nor would it simultaneously threaten neighboring countries across the Middle East.

Iran’s actions are driven by its own strategic interests. Hezbollah remains one of the regime’s most valuable tools for advancing those interests, regardless of the consequences for Lebanon itself.

Tehran may attempt to portray itself as a victim standing up for a neighboring state. But its record tells a different story.

This is not a story of defense.

It is the story of a regime willing to destabilize an entire region in pursuit of its ideological ambitions.

Liked this article? Follow HonestReporting on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok to see even more posts and videos debunking news bias and smears, as well as other content explaining what’s really going on in Israel and the region. Get updates direct to your phone. Join our WhatsApp and Telegram channels!