• 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!

• Media reports downplayed terrorism and omitted key facts. Several outlets failed to identify the attack as terrorism or clearly state that an Israeli Arab targeted Jewish Israelis inside sovereign Israeli territory.
• Geography was used to frame the story. AP and other outlets highlighted the attack’s proximity to the West Bank, introducing context that can imply the violence was connected to location rather than anti-Jewish terrorism.
• Coverage distorted the identity of the perpetrator. CNN and France 24 described the attacker as a “Palestinian citizen of Israel,” despite evidence that most Israeli Arabs do not primarily identify as Palestinian and despite the term’s broader political implications.

One Israeli man was killed, and five others were wounded after an Israeli Arab carried out a shooting spree in central Israel on Sunday. International media coverage followed a familiar pattern: failing to clearly identify the attack as terrorism while omitting crucial details about both the perpetrator and the victims.

But this latest attack also highlighted another troubling tendency in media coverage of violence against Israelis: the impulse to contextualize or even implicitly justify attacks based on geography.

When Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are victims of Palestinian terrorism, their murders are too often presented as an inevitable consequence of where they live. Even children and babies, who have no say in where they are born or raised, are frequently stripped of their civilian status. As HonestReporting has previously documented, the label “settler” is routinely used as a means of dehumanization.

What made some of Sunday’s coverage particularly striking was that the attack took place well within sovereign Israeli territory.

Two men in their 30s were shot at a gas station near Kochav Ya’ir. A 31-year-old man and a 61-year-old woman were shot at the entrance to Tzur Yitzhak. Two more men were wounded outside Tzur Natan, one of whom, 55-year-old Haim Kalomiti, later succumbed to his injuries.

Yet the Associated Press’s initial response left much to be desired:

Hey @AP – who was killed? And by whom?

Anyone reading your misleading headline would have no idea.

So let’s supply the missing information:

An Arab Israeli citizen carried out a terrorist attack against Jewish Israelis inside Israel’s sovereign borders, targeting them because… pic.twitter.com/s3RTQ5u0qX

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 7, 2026

Israel’s narrowest point is only around 15 kilometers (nine miles) wide from the Mediterranean coast to the Green Line. Large parts of the country lie in close proximity to the West Bank.

The question, therefore, is why AP chose to emphasize that the shootings occurred “near the West Bank” rather than simply stating that they took place inside Israel.

The answer appears obvious. Referencing the West Bank serves to provide context and, intentionally or not, explanation. If the victims were sufficiently close to territory routinely described by the media as Palestinian, then the attack can be framed as somehow connected to its location.

That is far easier than confronting the reality: a terrorist targeted Israeli Jews because they were Jews.

While less explicit than AP, CNN also highlighted Kochav Ya’ir’s proximity to the West Bank.

Like AP, France 24‘s headline failed to identify either the victims or the perpetrator. The article itself described the attacker, an Israeli Arab from the town of Taibeh, as a “Palestinian man with Israeli citizenship.”

CNN similarly referred to the terrorist as a “Palestinian citizen of Israel.”

This is despite survey data consistently showing that only a small minority of Israeli Arabs primarily identify as Palestinian.

The media’s preferred terminology not only conflicts with how most Israeli Arabs define themselves; it often serves a broader narrative portraying Israel as an apartheid state or suggesting that its Arab citizens somehow live under occupation.

CNN also described the incident as a “suspected” terror attack despite the overwhelming evidence available from the outset.

Sadly, the mere appearance of the word “terror” already placed CNN ahead of Reuters, whose initial headline referred simply to an “attack.”

Who was killed? Who carried out the attack? Reuters’ readers were left none the wiser.

The one thing the media can consistently be relied upon to do when reporting attacks against Israelis is to get key elements of the story wrong.

In this latest case, they certainly did not disappoint.

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 repeatedly grants sympathetic platforms to terrorists and Iranian regime officials without meaningful scrutiny. This includes recent interviews with a Hezbollah operative and Mohsen Rezaei, the senior military advisor to Iran’s supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.
• In both interviews, the CNN journalists did not question the statements provided by the interview subjects, raising concerns about how access to Iran and Hezbollah-dominated areas are given and maintained.
• Together, these two pieces paint a broader picture of how CNN is prioritizing access over rigorous journalistic standards.

Are two weeks of reporting filled with propaganda interviews with terrorists and agenda-driven narratives merely a coincidence? Or are they part of a larger – and far more problematic – pattern?

Looking at CNN’s recent coverage raises precisely these questions.

A Meet-And-Greet With Hezbollah

“Elusive” is perhaps not the first adjective a rational and neutral news outlet would use to describe Hezbollah. Yet, that is exactly how a Hezbollah “fighter” is described by CNN’s Isobel Yeung in an exclusive interview published this past week.

In the interview, Hezbollah is recast through the lens of a legitimate organization seeking to protect Lebanon from occupiers. Hezbollah’s standing as a terrorist organization and its role in destabilizing Lebanon as it drags the country into countless wars are not acknowledged in the interview. Nor are the civilians who have lost their lives because of the terrorist threats Hezbollah poses.

1/
This might be one of the most disturbing CNN segments on Hezbollah you’ll see this year.

A Hezbollah terrorist is cast as an “elusive fighter” in a soft‑focus human‑interest profile – not as a member of a US‑designated terrorist organization. pic.twitter.com/P5RcbZTeCW

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 5, 2026

Instead, Yeung focuses her questions on why her interview subject joined Hezbollah, how the death – or “martyrdom” as the terrorist refers to it – of other Hezbollah terrorists makes him feel, and whether or not “firing [rockets] towards Israel and Israeli troops is going to create a safer Lebanon.”

The questions effectively create a platform for the terrorist to justify his actions – and Hezbollah’s more broadly – knowing that he will not be met with any pushback. The rockets that are merely “fired” towards Israel are not contextualized as threats that have indiscriminately killed Israeli civilians.

2/
These are the first two questions:
“Why did you join Hezbollah?”
“You’ve seen a lot of fighters die. How does that make you feel?”

That’s talk‑show therapy language for a man who boasts about “martyrdom” – not serious journalism.

He answers that he envies dead fighters and… pic.twitter.com/xDymTEqAGM

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 5, 2026

The result is an interview that largely serves as a platform for a Hezbollah operative to rationalize terrorism to a Western audience. Given Yeung’s past reporting from Lebanon when the war ticked up again in March, it is perhaps unsurprising that she was able to secure such exclusive access. More troubling, however, is that the access appears to have come at the expense of basic journalistic skepticism, allowing Hezbollah’s narrative to reach viewers largely unchallenged.

This points to a larger and unmentioned caveat: journalists reporting from Hezbollah-controlled areas, or speaking with such terrorists, are required to follow Hezbollah’s rules. And, as CNN has now shown on multiple occasions, it is more than willing to do so.

Meeting with Khamenei’s Advisor

It is not only in Lebanon that CNN uncritically platforms terrorists. In Iran, Frederik Pleitgen has similarly gained access to the most senior officials in the Iranian regime.

During the Israel-Iran wars in June 2025 and in March 2026, Pleitgen entered the country, reporting from the ground, interviewing pro-regime citizens, and Kamal Kharazi, the Foreign Policy Advisor to the office of the Supreme Leader. The coverage presented the regime through a sanitized lens, ignoring the brutal crackdown on civilians and the Iranian regime’s intent to destroy Israel.

That regime-controlled access has afforded Pleitgen another exclusive interview, this time with Mohsen Rezaei, the senior military advisor to Iran’s supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

“Trump must make decisions independently of Israel, stop the blockade and release our frozen assets.”

Top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader tells @fpleitgenCNN in exclusive interview that a meeting between Trump and Khamenei “will not happen.”

More https://t.co/XzPmXP3m4f pic.twitter.com/Er7bi2aQKQ

— CNN International PR (@cnnipr) June 5, 2026

Unsurprisingly, then, the interview did not include any pushback or even questions about how the regime has been treating its civilians, who, until recently, were under an internet blackout that lasted nearly 90 days.

Nor is Rezaei’s own record questioned. Rezaei, who is thought to have potentially ordered the murder of his own son in 2011, is also wanted by Argentine authorities for his involvement in the terrorist attack at the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in July 1994, which claimed the lives of 85 people.

With such a high position and as the former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Rezaei would have taken an active role in the brutality that struck the country’s civilians.

But to get such an interview placement, CNN’s Pleitgen merely nods along and stays quiet, not daring to ask the questions that would revoke his access.

The Future of CNN

When examined together, these pieces and the journalists publicizing them do not reflect small editorial mishaps but a larger pattern of CNN’s reporting and the direction the outlet is heading. It is a direction that frequently platforms terrorists and Iranian regime members with sympathy, rewarding and promoting the access that such platforms provide.

When CNN trades the truth for exclusivity, journalistic integrity is the price they pay.

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!

Antisemitism online does not always come in the form of slurs. Increasingly, it hides behind memes, coded language, and even emojis.

What looks like a harmless symbol can carry a very different meaning in online communities that traffic in conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish hate. A juice box emoji, for example, is often used as a stand-in for the word “Jews.” A nose emoji plays on antisemitic stereotypes that have existed for centuries. Other symbols reference historical slurs or even mock the Holocaust.

The goal is not subtlety. It is plausibly deniable hate speech. By replacing words with symbols, users can spread antisemitic messages while avoiding moderation systems or accountability.

Many people encountering these emojis have no idea what they mean. That ignorance is exactly what allows the code to spread. Once a symbol becomes recognizable within certain online communities, it can be deployed across social media platforms to target Jews, amplify conspiracy theories, and normalize antisemitism.

The internet has given old prejudices new packaging. The language changes, the symbols evolve, but the underlying message remains the same.

Recognizing these codes is an important first step in understanding how antisemitism adapts and survives in the digital age.

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!

• Drop Site News has increasingly amplified Hezbollah propaganda, promoting the terror group’s narratives, military claims, and media content to a Western audience
• The outlet has a documented history of providing platforms to contributors linked to terrorist organizations and of legitimizing Hamas, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups.
• Despite its record of extremist advocacy, Drop Site News has gained credibility among influential commentators and mainstream institutions, helping blur the line between journalism and propaganda.

“Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem vows ‘third liberation’ of Lebanon, rejects disarmament as Israeli project.”

“Hezbollah says it carried out 41 military operations on June 1 as fighting intensified across southern Lebanon and northern Israel.”

“Israel, which has been getting hammered by daily Hezbollah FPV drone strikes on military sites and command centers, is lashing out by escalating attacks on Lebanese civilian areas.”

While these might sound like dispatches from Hezbollah itself, they are actually excerpts from posts by Drop Site News, a popular “independent” media outlet that has increasingly adopted pro-Hezbollah rhetoric on social media for its nearly half a million followers since the conflict between Israel and the Iran-backed terror organization reignited on March 2, 2026.

Over the past several weeks alone, Drop Site News has repeatedly amplified Hezbollah’s messaging, celebrated its military operations, or framed the terror group’s campaign against Israel in sympathetic terms, even as the conflict continues to endanger both Lebanese and Israeli civilians.

Examples include:

• Publishing an extensive summary of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem’s Resistance and Liberation Day speech attacking both Israel and the Lebanese state.
• Sharing a translation of Hezbollah’s daily report detailing attacks on Israeli forces and northern Israeli communities.
• Claiming that Israel is being “hammered” by Hezbollah and is responding by taking out its frustrations on Lebanese civilians.
• Promoting a Hezbollah propaganda video directed at Israeli soldiers and their families.
• Sharing footage of a Hezbollah drone strike alongside approving commentary from Hezbollah-affiliated Al-Manar TV, which Drop Site refers to as “The Station of the Resistance.”
• Sensationalizing Hezbollah rocket and drone attacks on civilian communities in northern Israel.
• Publishing an interview with an analyst who narrates Hezbollah drone footage as though providing color commentary for a sporting event.

While the repackaging of Hezbollah propaganda for a Western audience is troubling enough, it is entirely consistent with Drop Site News’ broader editorial trajectory. Since its founding, the outlet has repeatedly positioned itself as a platform for anti-American and anti-Israel narratives while providing sympathetic coverage of terrorist organizations and their causes.

Listen to how Al-Manar TV, the “Station of the Resistance,” narrated the recent attacks on Israeli troops at Beaufort Castle in south Lebanon.

The commentary follows Hezbollah drone operators as they hunt Israeli soldiers after Israel had publicly celebrated the capture of… https://t.co/kVHc1qevqP pic.twitter.com/nsbZFcObLC

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 2, 2026

Employing Terrorists, Spreading Propaganda: Drop Site News’ Modus Operandi

Since launching in 2024, Drop Site News has frequently blurred the line between journalism and activism. Its reporting routinely sanitizes terrorist organizations, portrays them as legitimate political actors, and amplifies their messaging to English-speaking audiences.

The outlet and many of its contributors regularly refer to Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups as the “resistance,” justify violence against Israel, and publish statements and propaganda produced by those organizations. One of the primary sections on Drop Site’s homepage is even titled “The Palestinian Resistance After October 7.”

Support for Hamas and other terrorist organizations appears not merely incidental to Drop Site’s editorial mission but central to it. The outlet’s first major exclusive was an extensive interview titled On the Record With Hamas, described as an opportunity for Hamas officials to discuss “their motivations, political objectives, and the human costs of their armed uprising against Israel.”

New Statement – Hamas:
—

The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) welcomes the inclusion of the Zionist occupation entity on the United Nations blacklist of parties responsible for using sexual violence in conflict zones, based on documented evidence and testimony investigated… pic.twitter.com/7LZwGzCsvg

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 2, 2026

Beyond sympathetic coverage, Drop Site has also employed or published contributors with documented ties to terrorist organizations.

According to analyst Eitan Fischberger, the outlet has published work by Hamas-affiliated journalist Abdel Qadder Sabah, who was fired by CNN after HonestReporting exposed his ties to the terror group but remains active at Drop Site News. Other contributors include Hossam Shabat, whom the IDF has accused of serving as a Hamas sniper, and Mujahed Al-Saadi, who previously worked for Islamic Jihad-affiliated media outlets in Gaza.

The outlet has also provided a platform to individuals who openly justified Hamas’ October 7 massacre. Among them are Abubaker Abed, who has called for Israel’s destruction and advocated violence against Jews, and Ahlam Al Nafed al Talouli. More recently, Drop Site hired Iran-based contributor Peiman Salehi, who celebrated Hamas’ October 7 invasion and has continued promoting narratives aligned with both the Iranian regime and Hezbollah.

The outlet’s sympathy for Hamas has become so pronounced that even a Palestinian Authority diplomat publicly called out co-founder Jeremy Scahill as a “fervent apologist for Hamas and jihadist elements.”

If Scahill is a Hamas apologist, co-founder Ryan Grim is a demagogue who has described the United States as a “rogue state” and a “cancer on the world.”

Recently, Drop Site crossed another line. The outlet shared a post falsely identifying dozens of Israelis as participants in the interception of a Gaza-bound flotilla and amplifying a bounty campaign that effectively placed targets on their backs. Although the post was eventually deleted, the episode illustrated how Drop Site’s activism more closely resembles incitement rather than reporting.

We kept the receipts.

Here’s the tweet @DropSiteNews quietly deleted after we called them out for amplifying what was effectively a murder for cash campaign.

Unlike Drop Site, we’re not reposting the image that placed $100,000 bounties on 69 Israelis most incorrectly identified… https://t.co/rh5t0nXPZ2 pic.twitter.com/5apuFOij0p

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 27, 2026

Drop Site News: Influencing the Mainstream From the Fringes

While Drop Site News spreads anti-American and anti-Israel narratives to hundreds of thousands of followers online, the greater concern is the degree to which the outlet has gained acceptance among influential commentators and mainstream institutions.

On the political left, former Obama administration officials and Pod Save America hosts Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor have publicly acknowledged reading the outlet, with Rhodes jokingly adding, “We love you guys.”

On the right, former National Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent has shared misinformation originating from Drop Site on X, while Tucker Carlson has praised the outlet’s “amazing reporting.”

Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim just called the U.S. a “rogue terrorist state.”

You know who loves Drop Site News? Tucker Carlson. Here’s a clip of him fawning over the Soros-funded outlet pic.twitter.com/Yj6f46ik3o

— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) April 2, 2026

More troubling than endorsements from political commentators, however, is the legitimacy that mainstream institutions have increasingly afforded the outlet.

Nika Soon-Shiong, publisher of Drop Site News, sits on the board of directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), one of the world’s most influential press freedom organizations.

Soon-Shiong‘s association with an outlet that routinely promotes extremist narratives raises serious questions about CPJ’s judgment. Given the organization’s repeated efforts to classify individuals affiliated with terrorist groups as journalists and its increasingly hostile posture toward Israel, the connection is difficult to ignore.

1/
Meet Nika Soon-Shiong. She’s the pro-Palestinian daughter of the LA Times owner and has recently been appointed publisher of the left-leaning outlet Drop Site News—which now stands to gain a significant injection of funding to spread anti-Israel propaganda. pic.twitter.com/hyeosUpq5t

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 5, 2025

Drop Site News has also been welcomed by institutions such as the 2026 SXSW London festival, which provided the outlet with a prominent platform, and Britain’s Sky News, where veteran journalist Yalda Hakim recently interviewed co-founder Jeremy Scahill.

When an outlet operating at the ideological fringes successfully enters mainstream discourse, the consequences extend beyond politics. It normalizes propaganda masquerading as journalism, legitimizes support for violent extremist movements, and further erodes public trust in the media.

The danger posed by Drop Site News is not simply that it promotes anti-Israel or anti-American narratives. It is that institutions that should know better increasingly treat it as a credible journalistic enterprise rather than what it has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be: an activist platform willing to amplify terrorist propaganda under the banner of independent journalism.

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!

• When Israel legally intercepted the flotilla, the press erupted with wall-to-wall coverage; when Libya violently crushed the land convoy, the global media went completely silent.
• Western capitals immediately summoned Israeli ambassadors to demand explanations, yet not a single country formally challenged Libya for assaulting participants and disappearing negotiators
• Flotilla organizers exposed their true agenda by downplaying Libya’s detentions when compared to Israel’s

The anti-Israel world has spent months in hysterics over the treatment of participants in the various flotillas attempting to reach Gaza.

When Israel intercepted participants attempting to breach its naval blockade, we were told this was a crime against humanity.

Governments demanded explanations. Media outlets devoted endless coverage to fanciful allegations of mistreatment. Social media was flooded with claims that these “peaceful humanitarians with aid” had fallen victim to that patented “Israeli brutality.”

Then something interesting, albeit predictable, happened.

The activists encountered Libya, and suddenly everyone seemed a lot less interested.

The Interception and Detention by Israel

On May 18-19, Israeli naval forces intercepted a 54-vessel flotilla in international waters off Cyprus, enforcing Israel’s naval blockade on Gaza. From Israel’s perspective, the blockade serves a security function: preventing weapons and contraband from reaching Hamas and ensuring humanitarian aid flows through designated land crossings where materials can be inspected to prevent diversion.

The ships were boarded, and all participants were swiftly taken to Israeli ports. From there, they were processed through formal military and state immigration channels, placed into detention centers, and systematically deported from the country within 2-3 days.

The Detention in Libya

While the Israeli detention was unfolding, a complementary mission was underway by land. The Global Sumud Land Convoy had launched on May 15, traveling through Tunisia with the goal of reaching Gaza via Egypt. After Israeli naval forces intercepted the sea flotilla, the land convoy became the fallback route.

On May 24-25, the convoy reached Sirte, Libya, where it came under the control of the Government of National Stability (GNS). The approximately 200 convoy participants established a camp several kilometers from the Egypt-Libya border crossing. According to flotilla accounts, they were then encircled by unmarked vehicles, physically assaulted, and forcibly evacuated.

Ten activists sent as negotiators were arrested. The GNS Foreign Ministry justified the detention on bureaucratic grounds: the detainees had failed to complete legal entry procedures and lacked proper permits. While the Libyan government’s public statement assured that detainees were being treated in accordance with humanitarian principles, from the flotilla’s perspective, the ten detainees remained in Libya under what they characterized as arbitrary detention, severed communications, and sustained psychological pressure.

A recent press release from the organizers now says that 11 of its volunteers are in Libyan custody.

International Diplomatic Responses

The diplomatic reaction to both events puts the global double standard on stark display. After Israel detained the maritime participants – and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was filmed mocking these political agitators – a cascade of Western nations, including France, Canada, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Italy, immediately summoned Israeli ambassadors on May 21–22 to demand explanations and the participants’ immediate release. Within days, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Greece followed suit. Foreign ministers from at least ten additional nations issued public joint statements, while European Union diplomatic channels scrambled to coordinate formal rebukes.

Naturally, Libya happily joined in on the ritual condemnation of Israel.

In contrast, following the brutal Libyan detention, Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani mentioned the crisis only in passing, drily noting that two Italian nationals would eventually appear before a judge in Benghazi for processing. No country formally summoned Libya’s ambassador. While the Global Sumud Flotilla desperately urged supporters to contact their representatives, foreign governments largely refused to issue coordinated public responses. There have been quiet appeals for information, but absolutely zero formal diplomatic public escalation.

The Media Responses

When it came to the international media, every wild allegation became a breaking headline, every radical was treated as an objective source, and every unverified claim was presented as gospel evidence of Israeli wrongdoing – completely ignoring the glaring logical inconsistencies in the participants’ testimonies.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by HonestReporting (@honestreporting)

Yet, when Libya violently shut down the convoy and disappeared its leaders, the media response was entirely subdued. There were no days of non-stop cable news coverage. Instead, reports have been largely confined to regional outlets like Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, and some Israeli publications.

Ten Flotilla land convoy members were detained by Libyan militias TEN DAYS AGO and just had their imprisonment extended by the repressive regime there. I haven’t seen a global outcry or obsessive coverage by media. I wonder why. pic.twitter.com/SbR0F5d9h4

— Heidi Bachram (@HeidiBachram) June 2, 2026

The Flotilla Organizers Tell On Themselves

Ultimately, the flotilla organizers themselves exposed the hollow nature of their movement. While they did complain about Libya, accusing local authorities of violating international human rights law, they carefully softened their language, characterizing the lawless detention of their peers merely as an “arbitrary detention.”

In contrast, they weaponized loaded terms like “illegal abduction” when describing Israel’s lawful maritime enforcement. This linguistic gymnastics proves that for these ‘activists’, the demonization of the Jewish state trumps everything.

The Libya episode has stripped away the pretense and exposed the double standard in plain sight.

When Israel detained flotilla participants for a matter of days before deporting them, governments condemned, ambassadors were summoned, media outlets flooded the airwaves, and the flotilla cried out “abducted.” When Libya detained participants and continues to hold others for over a week, the reaction has been noticeably more muted.

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!

• In international reporting, casualty numbers from Lebanon rarely break down the civilian to combatant deaths.
• The IDF has targeted 2,500 Hezbollah terrorists, making the civilian-to-combatant ratio roughly 1:3, an incredibly low ratio for modern and urban warfare.
• By omitting Hezbollah’s casualties in their reports, the media misrepresents the war in Lebanon, as Israel is portrayed as intentionally targeting civilians.

Throughout the Israel-Hamas war, the media consistently relied on the Hamas-run Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza to provide casualty figures, frequently taking its claims at face value without examining their reliability. This was especially problematic because the MoH deliberately refused to distinguish between combatants and civilians.

The reason was clear: By collapsing civilians and terrorists into a single casualty count, Hamas could maximize international sympathy while advancing the narrative that Israel was deliberately targeting innocent civilians.

A similar pattern is now emerging in Lebanon.

Since March 2, 2026, after Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel and joined the Iranian regime’s attack on the Jewish state, the IDF has conducted extensive operations aimed at removing the terrorist threat along Israel’s northern border and beyond.

Yet when casualty figures appear in major international media outlets, the numbers are typically reported as a single undifferentiated total. As in Gaza, Hezbollah operatives are rarely separated from civilians.

The IDF recently revealed that it has targeted 2,500 Hezbollah operatives since the war resumed in March. This is in addition to the 7,000–8,000 Hezbollah terrorists reportedly killed since October 8, 2023. According to the IDF, these losses amount to roughly one-third of Hezbollah’s pre-war fighting force.

Meanwhile, as of June 1, 2026, the Lebanese Health Ministry reported approximately 3,300 total fatalities.

Based on these figures, approximately 76% of all reported fatalities were Hezbollah terrorists, producing a civilian-to-combatant ratio of roughly 1:3.

That is a remarkably low ratio by the standards of modern warfare. It is even more notable given Hezbollah’s well-documented practice of embedding fighters, weapons, and military infrastructure within civilian areas.

Related Reading: The Real “Gaza Model”: How Hamas and Hezbollah Tactics Shape the Battlefield

Even Hezbollah officials have acknowledged that “several thousand” of the group’s fighters have been killed.

This @Reuters report reveals more than Hezbollah’s heavy losses after going to war with Israel on March 2.
It exposes a clear contradiction.

Hezbollah officials admit “several thousand” fighters have been killed — while the group’s own media office denies it.

Same… pic.twitter.com/kErwySxTDE

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 5, 2026

Yet this crucial context is almost entirely absent from the casualty figures routinely appended to news reports by major international outlets.

According to analysis conducted by HonestReporting.ai Labs, of 2,397 articles published between March 1 and May 31, 2026, approximately 35% described the fatalities simply as “people,” while another 7% referred to them as “civilians.” Hezbollah casualties were explicitly identified in fewer than 2% of all articles analyzed.

An additional 5% of articles singled out women and children, while men were never separately identified.

This framing matters.

When combatants and civilians are merged into a single casualty figure, the nature of the conflict is fundamentally altered in the eyes of readers. The resulting impression is one of indiscriminate targeting and disproportionate force.

Yet the available evidence points in a different direction.

The casualty statistics themselves suggest that the IDF’s operations are overwhelmingly directed at terrorist infrastructure and operatives rather than civilians. The military’s stated objective remains the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military capabilities while minimizing collateral damage, and the casualty ratios appear consistent with that goal.

The media’s own reporting has often unintentionally reinforced this reality. Journalists have repeatedly shown funerals draped in Hezbollah flags and insignia, documented Hezbollah supporters returning to southern Lebanese towns, and reported on the group’s use of civilian infrastructure.

Hezbollah itself has held countless public funerals for its operatives, many of them attracting significant media attention.

Mass funerals in Lebanon reflect the scale of Hezbollah’s losses

In recent weeks since the ceasefire, there has been a growing number of reports from across Lebanon documenting mass funerals of Hezbollah operatives, taking place simultaneously in multiple locations. These events… pic.twitter.com/zSZHhTalgd

— Israel-Alma (@Israel_Alma_org) May 3, 2026

Why, then, is this context so often absent from casualty reporting when the evidence is hiding in plain sight?

Nor is this phenomenon limited to the current phase of the war.

Following the pager attack in September 2024, for example, the Associated Press described confirmed Hezbollah casualties as “civilians.”

Are these the ‘enormous number of civilian casualties’ you’re talking about, @AP?
Let’s set the record straight: vast majority of those killed in the walkie-talkie/pager attacks were terrorists, as even Hezbollah admits.
Correct this misinformation immediately, @AP pic.twitter.com/9m0iITV5IU

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) September 20, 2024

Repeating casualty figures without identifying who those casualties are deprives readers of the information necessary to understand the conflict. The distinction between combatant and civilian is not a minor detail; it is central to assessing proportionality, military conduct, and the nature of the war itself.

Every civilian death is a tragedy.

But when the media presents aggregate casualty figures stripped of context, while omitting overwhelming evidence that a large majority of those killed were Hezbollah operatives, it risks reinforcing a misleading narrative. Whether intentional or not, such reporting mirrors Hezbollah’s own interest in obscuring the distinction between terrorist fighters and civilians, ultimately leaving audiences with a distorted picture of both the war and Israel’s objectives.

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!

When headlines describe the fighting on Israel’s northern border as a war between Israel and Lebanon, they leave out the most important detail: Israel is not fighting the Lebanese people.

It is fighting Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization that has spent years building a military force inside Lebanon that rivals or exceeds the power of the Lebanese state itself.

Since October 8, 2023, Hezbollah has launched rockets, drones, mortars, and anti-tank missiles at northern Israel. The attacks have killed Israeli soldiers, damaged homes, and forced roughly 60,000 civilians to evacuate communities near the border.

For many Israelis in the north, daily life has been replaced by sirens, shelters, and uncertainty. Families have been displaced for months. Children have grown up far from their homes and schools because Hezbollah chose to open a second front against Israel after October 7.

At the same time, Hezbollah continues to operate from within Lebanon, embedding military infrastructure among civilian areas and using the country as a base for Iran’s regional agenda. The group’s actions have placed both Israelis and Lebanese civilians at risk.

The conflict is often framed as a dispute between two countries. In reality, it is a fight against a heavily armed terrorist organization that has turned southern Lebanon into a launchpad for attacks on Israel.

That distinction matters. Because when Hezbollah fires at Israeli communities, it is not only endangering Israelis. It is also dragging Lebanon deeper into a war that many ordinary Lebanese never chose.

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

• Qatar has funneled an estimated $100 billion in undocumented money into American universities, and campuses that accepted funds experienced up to 300% more antisemitic incidents than those that did not.
• ISGAP has documented Qatari funding of K–12 curricula used in over 8,000 American schools — materials that erase Israel from the map and strip Jewish and Christian history from the Middle East.
• ISGAP’s research was instrumental in the U.S. government’s designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization — a move with international ramifications for how Western countries treat Brotherhood-linked institutions and funding.

When Elie Wiesel helped found the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) in 2003, he told his colleagues they were not living in a time of great urgency. They were living in a time of great emergency.

That was 23 years ago: before October 7th, before the campus encampments; before the new mayor of New York City was a college student at Bowdoin, founding a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.

Wiesel saw it coming because he had seen it before. What Dr. Charles Asher Small has spent the last two decades proving is that the emergency did not arrive by accident. It was paid for.

The Late Night That Started Everything

In 2012, Dr. Small was pulling an all-nighter at Stanford, wired after finally finishing a long-overdue book manuscript. Unable to sleep, he was aimlessly browsing the internet when he stumbled across an email from a vice president at Yale University. The administrator’s tone struck him as antisemitic. He Googled him.

What he found was a thread that, once pulled, never stopped unraveling.

The Yale official had worked for a pharmaceutical company in Cambridge, Massachusetts. That company was owned by the Ben Mahfouz family. President Clinton had ordered a military strike on one of their chemical factories in Sudan for supplying weapons to terrorists. From there, Small traced a network of foundations and banks funneling money into Yale and Harvard.

“In about an hour, I found this whole network,” he recalls. “I do social theory and philosophy. I had no idea if what I was finding was real or the tip of an iceberg.”

He gave it to experts in Middle East affairs and terror financing who confirmed: it was indeed the tip of an iceberg.

Following the Money

What began as a late-night internet search grew into one of the most consequential antisemitism research projects in the Western world. Small co-founded ISGAP with Elie Wiesel, and the organization has now published over two dozen reports since October 7th alone, assembling a team of scholars specializing in antisemitism, radical Islam, and forensic accounting.

The numbers they have uncovered are staggering:

• An estimated $100 billion in undocumented foreign funding has flowed into American universities
• $10 billion to Cornell University from Qatar — unreported
• Over $1 billion to Georgetown — unreported
• $1.3 billion to Texas A&M — unreported, with 58 research projects having dual military use and 13 with potential nuclear applications. Texas A&M also handed Qatar all intellectual property rights from 504 research projects

In 2019, ISGAP presented its findings at a Washington summit attended by the Attorney General, the head of the FBI, and Homeland Security leadership. The first Trump administration subsequently launched a federal investigation into illegal foreign funding of American higher education. Within months, investigators found $18 billion in undocumented money. When the Biden administration took office, the investigation was shut down.

The reporting obligations are not new. Laws dating back to the Second World War require universities to disclose any foreign contribution over $250,000 — including the exact amount and the source. Columbia, Harvard, and Yale all failed to comply. Harvard submitted only aggregate totals with no source breakdown. Yale and Columbia cited clerical errors. These were institutions receiving billions of dollars, and not disclosing it as required by law.

Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and a Spiritual Oath

Why would Qatar, a country of 350,000 citizens, invest this kind of money in American academia?

The answer, according to Small, lies in ideology.

Qatar’s royal family holds what Small describes as a spiritual oath to the Muslim Brotherhood, following its religious edicts, rulings, and fatwas. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded roughly 100 years ago in Egypt, is in Small’s framing a fusion of a perversion of Islam with genocidal European antisemitism. Its founding texts drew heavily from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Hamas charter (Hamas being the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood) essentially plagiarizes the Protocols as its constitution.

“The Muslim Brotherhood takes the very words and ideas that led to the Shoah,” Small says. “This is not the military wing or the radical wing. This is core to their ideology.”

The Brotherhood’s strategic goals, articulated 50 years ago, were explicit: create distance between Israel and the United States, weaken and destroy Israel (the “little Satan”), then use antisemitism as a vehicle to fragment and destroy the United States of America (the “great Satan”).

“For 50 years, the Muslim Brotherhood and their proxies have mastered our language, our culture, our systems of governance, our education system,” Small explains. “We in the West perceived them as backwards and primitive. We don’t speak their language. We don’t understand their philosophy. We thought if we were nice to them, everything would be okay.”

Inside the Classroom: How Ideas Filter Down

Georgetown University received over $1 billion from Qatar and serves as, in Small’s description, the most important intellectual hub of Muslim Brotherhood academic activity in the United States. Its diplomatic training program — arguably the most significant in the Western world — is Qatari-funded.

The implications extend well beyond individual institutions. Small traces a direct line between the ideas produced in these environments and the social movements that have erupted in American streets and campuses.

He draws a historical parallel: the great universities of late 19th-century Europe taught racial hierarchy. They defined Jews as a racialized threat to Aryan purity. Those ideas filtered into society, and under the right political and economic conditions, they produced the Holocaust two generations later.

“In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s,” Small explains, “the notion of the Jew shifted completely. Jews were redefined from ‘not white’ into white colonialists, supporters of apartheid, occupiers. Edward Said argued in 1983 that the Palestinians were the Jews and the Israelis were the Nazis. People dismissed him. Maybe he had a bad day, maybe he was a bit disconnected from reality. Those ideas, 40 years later, are the zeitgeist.”

Ten days after October 7th, Small attended a teach-in at Columbia University’s School of Social Work. Professors of literary criticism, philosophy, and gender studies, along with their doctoral students, argued that the massacres were morally justified as part of the resistance, that the violence must continue until the occupation ends, and that anyone who supported Israel must also be resisted by any means. Female professors who identified as feminists defended the rape and torture of Israeli Jewish women as legitimate acts of resistance.

“They were arguing this at the highest levels of scholarship and intellectual discourse,” Small says. “These ideas are dangerous. They filter down from the classroom to the encampment. And now they’re marching through our streets.”

Children in the Crosshairs

The ideological infiltration does not stop at university gates.

ISGAP investigated the Choices Program, a curriculum development initiative based at Brown University’s history department. Funded by Qatar and Muslim Brotherhood-linked entities, the program created educational materials distributed to over 8,000 American schools for students from kindergarten through 12th grade.

In those materials, Israel was erased from the map, and the historical presence of Jews and Christians in the Middle East was removed from the curriculum. When ISGAP published its findings, parents from California to Maine contacted the organization to report that their young children had been receiving antisemitic instruction at school.

Brown University subsequently closed the Choices Program. ISGAP considers it a partial victory. Similar investigations into the manipulation of textbooks and children’s books are ongoing.

The Red-Green Alliance

One of the most disorienting features of the current moment is the coalition that has formed between the radical left and radical Islamist movements — groups diametrically opposed on virtually every social issue except their hostility to Israel and Jewish self-determination.

Small points to philosopher Judith Butler as a representative case. Butler, who is Jewish, queer, and an independent feminist academic, has argued that Hamas and Hezbollah should be understood as part of the global progressive left. Yet these same movements that would punish Butler for leaving her home unaccompanied by a male relative.

“Why would a highly educated, liberated woman want to be associated with social movements that want to subjugate women, murder gay people, kill Jewish people, and destroy democracy?” Small asks.

His answer lies in postmodern anti-colonial philosophy. Thinkers like Foucault viewed the Iranian Revolution as a liberatory event analogous to the French Revolution — a shaking off of Western hegemony. The radical left and radical Islamism share an anti-Western, anti-hegemonic worldview that, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, overrides all other considerations. And the irrationality of antisemitism, Small argues, blinds adherents to what should be obvious contradictions.

New York City’s New Mayor

Small is direct about Zohran Mamdani, the new mayor of New York City, who founded Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Bowdoin College as an undergraduate.

“We as a community really need to understand who Mayor Mamdani is,” he says. “The tragedy is that so many Jewish people voted for him. We don’t understand what is threatening our community or our democratic principles.”

SJP emerged from American Muslims for Palestine, a Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated entity. Its goal is not a two-state solution; it is the delegitimization and dismantlement of Israel. Mamdani, Small argues, knows exactly what he is doing.

“He had a Shavuot party. He brings the radical left and a few anti-Zionist religious people together. He looks like a nice guy. But he is delegitimizing and demonizing Israel at every opportunity, and in doing so increasing antisemitism in New York and across the United States in a very dangerous way.”

A Legislative Foothold

ISGAP is currently pushing for passage of the DETERRENT Act, which has cleared the House and is before the Senate. The legislation would lower the reporting threshold for foreign contributions from $250,000 to $50,000 and impose stricter standards on universities accepting money from countries hostile to American democratic values.

The organization also played a significant role in a major recent development: in late 2025, ISGAP published a landmark report on Muslim Brotherhood penetration of the United States. Two weeks after its public launch event in Washington, the American government signed an executive order designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.

“Eighteen months ago, many people thought it was impossible,” Small says. “How do you ban an entity with no address? How do you ban an entity in a country with the First Amendment? We decided we were going to try anyway. And we decided even if we fail, we’ll create awareness of who the Brotherhood is and what their ideology is.”

The designation is already producing ripple effects in Canada and Western Europe, where governments that might otherwise ignore the issue are paying closer attention.

What Comes Next

ISGAP has major reports forthcoming on Muslim Brotherhood penetration of Canada, on Hezbollah and the IRGC in Canada, on the UK, and on South Africa.

On the broader question of how to fight an ideology, Small is both clear-eyed about the difficulty and genuinely optimistic. Totalitarian communism was defeated. Fascism was defeated. Both required generations of focused resistance.

“Ideas matter and they filter into society. It is a powerful enemy,” he says. “But if we focus and we understand the threat, understand the enemy, understand their ideas, understand what’s hitting us, then we can address the problem, not the symptoms of the problem. We have no choice but to be successful.”

Dr. Charles Asher Small is the founding director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy. All ISGAP publications, including the Follow the Money project, are available free at the organization’s website [isgap.org]. This interview was conducted by Ben Chertoff for The Honest Take. Listen and subscribe to the show on your favorite podcast streaming platform. [https://thehonesttake.transistor.fm/episodes/follow-the-money-how-the-muslim-brotherhood-bought-a-seat-in-americas-schools-dr-charles-asher-small]

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 genocide accusation against Israel remains an allegation, not a fact. Despite years of confident assertions from activists, politicians, and media outlets, no court has concluded that Israel is committing genocide.
• South Africa’s request for an 18-month extension undermines claims of urgency. If genocide is the most immediate and grave crime in international law, the willingness to delay proceedings for years raises obvious questions about the strength of the case.
• The evidence points away from genocidal intent. Israel’s efforts to warn civilians, establish evacuation routes, and facilitate humanitarian corridors are difficult to reconcile with the claim that it is seeking to destroy the Palestinian people.

The Contradiction of Urgency

Genocide is humanity’s worst crime. The word evokes some of history’s darkest chapters: the Holocaust, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Srebrenica. It describes not only mass death, but the deliberate attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Because of the enormity of the crime, accusations of genocide have traditionally carried extraordinary weight. If a genocide is taking place, urgency is not optional. Every day matters.

That is why the latest development in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is so revealing. In seeking a lengthy extension to submit its reply, South Africa has unintentionally clarified what it tried to obscure. If it truly believed Israel was committing genocide, delay would be intolerable. Yet the state that has spent two years insisting a genocide is underway has now agreed to a timetable that could push further proceedings well into the next decade. The message is difficult to ignore: There is no emergency because there is no genocide.

South Africa’s baseless “genocide” case at the ICJ is collapsing.

South Africa has requested an extraordinary 18-month (!) extension to submit its arguments.

The written submissions will not end before 2029.

All the claims of “urgency” have now turned into South Africa’s quiet… https://t.co/PbSrOaKAln

— Israel Foreign Ministry (@IsraelMFA) May 31, 2026

And if the evidence is so overwhelming, why does the case require more time to prove its argument? This is the contradiction at the heart of the genocide accusation. On social media, in university lecture halls, and across much of the international press, genocide is presented as obvious. In court, however, proving that claim appears impossible.

Genocide Requires Intent

That should not surprise us. The legal question was never whether Gaza has suffered. It has. Nor was the question whether civilians have died or whether buildings have been destroyed. All of those realities exist without genocide. The legal question has always been whether Israel is intentionally seeking the destruction of the Palestinian people as a people.

After more than two years of war, the evidence does not merely fail to establish genocidal intent. It points in the opposite direction. Israel’s critics frequently point to casualty figures, military operations, and inflammatory statements by individual politicians, but they have failed to demonstrate a state policy aimed at the destruction of the Palestinian people. Israel has repeatedly warned civilians to evacuate combat zones, contacted Palestinians directly through calls, texts, voice recordings, and leaflets, and established evacuation routes and humanitarian corridors.

John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point’s Modern War Institute, has argued that these measures contributed to a combatant-to-civilian casualty ratio of roughly 1:1 to 1:1.5, which he describes as historically low for modern urban warfare. While the precise figures remain disputed, such actions are difficult to reconcile with the claim that Israel’s objective is the destruction of the Palestinian people. Devastation is not genocide. The Genocide Convention requires proof of intent to destroy a people, and after more than two years of scrutiny, that evidence has not emerged because it does not exist.

This is why the accusation has relied on rhetoric rather than evidence. Genocide has become less a legal claim than a political weapon. Once deployed, the word carries enormous emotional and moral force. It transforms a complex conflict into a simple story of perpetrators and victims. But serious allegations require more than slogans.

If genocide is occurring, there should be mountains of evidence. If the case is as straightforward as activists claim, there should be no need for years of additional argument before the world’s highest court. If the facts are as clear as we have repeatedly been told, the legal process should be confirming an obvious reality rather than continuing to wrestle with a deeply contested accusation.

Instead, the opposite appears to be true. The longer the proceedings continue, the more apparent it becomes that the certainty surrounding the allegation has always exceeded the strength of the evidence behind it.

The Verdict Is Not In

South Africa’s request for additional time is a reminder that accusations are not evidence and slogans are not verdicts. Years after the case was filed, the world’s highest court remains nowhere near reaching a final determination. The certainty that dominates public debate is conspicuously absent from the courtroom itself.

South Africa may continue litigating until 2029. Activists may continue chanting “genocide.” Journalists may continue repeating the accusation. But repetition is not proof. Israel is not committing genocide. The fact that those making the accusation require years of additional proceedings to establish it only highlights the distance between political rhetoric and legal reality.

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!

• Breaking the Silence is frequently cited in the international media for its soldiers’ testimonies claiming intentional misconduct in the IDF.
• The media presents Breaking the Silence as a neutral, non-profit organization, omitting that it has an explicit anti-Israel agenda and has a history of false, misleading, or unverifiable testimonies. The result is an inaccurate picture of the IDF and the wars it fights.
• Because of the dramatic nature of the testimonies provided by Breaking the Silence, the media is quick to highlight them without additional verification, creating the impression that anonymous claims constitute facts.

Throughout Israel’s history, IDF soldiers have worked to defend the country against those seeking its destruction. The terrorist organizations Israel faces today not only openly declare their intent to eliminate the Jewish state, but have repeatedly embedded themselves within civilian infrastructure and committed war crimes in pursuit of that goal.

The IDF, operating under a strict code of ethics and operational guidelines, is tasked with preventing atrocities such as the October 7 massacre from happening again.

Yet some Israeli non-governmental organizations (NGOs) work to undermine public confidence in the military by portraying soldiers as participants in immoral and systematic misconduct.

Among the most prominent is Breaking the Silence, which describes itself as an organization of former soldiers seeking to “expose the public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories.”

In practice, Breaking the Silence has become a conduit for allegations against Israeli soldiers and military policy, relying heavily on anonymous testimonies and broad claims that are often impossible to independently verify.

The organization’s influence on international media coverage is significant. From June 2025 through May 2026, HonestReporting.ai Labs found that Breaking the Silence or soldiers affiliated with the group were quoted 27 times in top-tier outlets, including The New York Times, CNN, and Associated Press, with a further eight appearances in stories syndicated through wire services.

In all 35 cases, Breaking the Silence was presented as a credible human rights organization built on soldiers’ testimony. Not once were readers informed of the group’s politicized anti-Israel agenda or long-standing controversies.

The gap between how Breaking the Silence presents itself and how it operates is far wider than most readers realize.

Anonymous Sources

Breaking the Silence’s latest media campaign has secured prominent coverage in The Economist and the Associated Press (AP).

Although the individual soldiers featured differed, the core allegation remained the same: that IDF troops intentionally and indiscriminately target civilians approaching the so-called yellow line in Gaza.

As is customary with Breaking the Silence, the testimonies were anonymous, making independent verification impossible.

Related Reading: Breaking the Silence: A Middleman For Anonymous Sources

The anonymity allowed AP to repeat claims that soldiers were “relishing the chance” to shoot those nearing the yellow line without independently substantiating the allegation. Nor did the article meaningfully address the ongoing threat posed by Hamas and other terrorist organizations operating in the area.

The IDF is not firing indiscriminately at civilians. It is targeting terrorists who approach the security zone in violation of ceasefire arrangements and military restrictions.

Yet when Breaking the Silence provides testimony, the broader security reality often disappears from the narrative.

At the same time, these allegations were being amplified, the IDF continued to uncover and dismantle extensive tunnel infrastructure, including networks extending close to or beyond the yellow line.

DISMANTLED: ~11km of underground tunnel routes east of the Yellow Line in the Beit Hanoun area in northern Gaza.

The area served as a central Hamas terrorist stronghold. An underground network built beneath residential homes, public institutions & roads, and used by the… pic.twitter.com/5B5IqPJWrj

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) May 26, 2026

Far from providing a comprehensive picture of the conflict, these anonymous testimonies offer international outlets sensational accusations that often cannot be independently confirmed.

The Amplification of Unverifiable Stories

The problem is not merely that the allegations are difficult to verify. It is that they are routinely elevated to headline news.

The most notable example came in a 2024 New York Times report alleging that Israel was using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza.

Relying heavily on anonymous sources connected to Breaking the Silence, the newspaper published photographs purportedly supporting the claim. The images themselves were so blurry that they provided little evidentiary value.

Here we go again. @AP‘s story on Israel’s alleged use of human shields is a repeat of an identical story from 2024 that appeared in @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @CNN & @guardian.

Even down to the same decontextualized photos supplied by politicized NGO @BtSIsrael. pic.twitter.com/rP8xXe2iG9

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 25, 2025

That did not prevent the allegations from being presented as credible evidence.

More broadly, it highlights how Breaking the Silence’s claims are frequently treated as authoritative despite conflicting with both IDF procedures and testimony from other soldiers.

The IDF’s stated policy is to investigate allegations of misconduct whenever credible evidence is presented. Such investigations are routinely conducted.

Yet the tension between anonymous accusations and official policy is precisely what makes these stories attractive to international media.

The Economist’s recent profile of a Breaking the Silence soldier follows the same pattern. Readers are presented with dramatic allegations that cannot be independently verified, yet are framed as evidence of wider military conduct.

The objective is not to illuminate the complexities of war. It is to reinforce a narrative.

By elevating isolated, anonymous, and unverifiable testimonies, Breaking the Silence creates the impression that alleged misconduct is not exceptional but systemic.

Anti-Israel Intentions

Given Breaking the Silence’s record, it should come as little surprise that the organization consistently portrays Israel and the IDF in the worst possible light.

The NGO receives funding from foreign governments and political organizations, including substantial support from European entities. Such funding raises legitimate questions about the group’s priorities and intended audience.

If its primary purpose were to reform military conduct within Israel, one might reasonably ask why so much of its activity is directed toward foreign governments, media outlets, and international advocacy campaigns.

Nor is the methodology new.

A 2015 publication of testimonies relating to the 2014 Gaza war was criticized for relying on anecdotal and unverifiable claims. Earlier collections of testimonies covering 2000–2010 similarly used broad allegations portraying Israeli actions as deliberate efforts to terrorize civilians. Other testimonies have been publicly challenged by soldiers who served in the same units.

The organization’s activism extends beyond soldier testimonies.

Its Hebron tours, for example, present the city as a “ghost town” and a “microcosm of the occupation, while omitting key historical context, including the ancient Jewish connection to Hebron and events such as the 1929 massacre.

As a result, Breaking the Silence has become a trusted intermediary for international journalists seeking criticism of Israel, even when the underlying claims cannot be independently verified.

The consequence is a distorted portrayal of the IDF, the ethical framework under which it operates, and the enemies it confronts.

Given the organization’s history, it is fair to ask whether that outcome is accidental – or exactly the point.

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!

• A photograph from the May 31 terror attack at Gush Etzion Junction was repurposed online to support a false claim about an assassination in Beersheba.
• The same image appeared in reporting by veteran Israeli journalist Amit Segal and later in posts by anti-Israel social media influencer Ethan Levins, but with entirely different descriptions of the event.
• The episode demonstrates how authentic photographs can be detached from their reporting chain and reassigned to entirely different narratives.

On the evening of May 31, a Palestinian terrorist carried out a vehicular ramming attack at the Gush Etzion Junction south of Jerusalem.

Israeli police, the IDF, the Magen David Adom paramedic service, and multiple Israeli media outlets reported that the attacker drove into civilians waiting near the junction before being shot and killed at the scene. Among the wounded were two teenage girls, including a 17-year-old who sustained serious injuries.

As the attack unfolded, Channel 12 chief political analyst Amit Segal published a sequence of updates on his Telegram channel documenting the developing situation through casualty reports, operational updates, and official confirmations. One of those updates included a photograph from the scene showing a silver Peugeot with severe front-end damage, deployed airbags, a crushed front-right side, police tape stretched across the foreground, and security personnel gathered around the vehicle under floodlit streetlights.

The image entered the public domain as part of the reporting trail surrounding a documented terror attack.

The Story Changes

Within hours, the same photograph appeared on the X and Telegram accounts of Ethan Levins, an anti-Israel influencer who describes himself as an independent journalist and has built a substantial online following around geopolitical commentary, breaking news claims, and regional security developments.

The photograph that had circulated as part of live reporting from Gush Etzion was now attached to a very different narrative. Levins presented the image as evidence that an IDF officer had been assassinated in Beersheba. The post then expanded beyond the alleged assassination, claiming that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps had deeply penetrated Israel and suggesting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was no longer safe.

The image itself remained exactly the same. The damaged Peugeot, the police cordon, the emergency response, and the junction infrastructure visible in the photograph were all features of the Gush Etzion attack scene that had already been documented elsewhere that evening. What changed was the story attached to the image.

Following the Image Trail

Unlike many misinformation cases, the evidentiary chain in this instance is unusually clear.

The photograph appears in contemporaneous reporting connected directly to the attack itself. It was published by Amit Segal while the incident was still unfolding and was also credited elsewhere to the Gush Etzion Regional Council. The visual details remain consistent across every appearance of the image, including the vehicle damage, the emergency response, and the scene layout.

The significance of the case lies in that continuity. The image did not move through multiple edits, transformations, or manipulations. It moved through multiple narratives.

A photograph documenting the aftermath of a terror attack was reassigned to an alleged assassination in a different city and then elevated further into claims of Iranian penetration of Israel and threats to the country’s leadership.

The visual evidence never changed.

The narrative did.

Two Information Ecosystems

The contrast between the two reporting chains illustrates how the same image can function very differently depending on where it enters the information environment.

Segal’s reporting followed a conventional journalistic process. Information was updated as emergency responders arrived, casualty figures were revised, and official confirmations became available. The photograph formed part of that reporting chain and served as documentation of a specific event at a specific location.

Levins used the image differently. Detached from its original context, the photograph became supporting material for a much larger geopolitical narrative. A terror attack at Gush Etzion Junction was transformed into evidence of an assassination in Beersheba, an Iranian operation inside Israel, and a broader warning about national security.

The authority carried by the image remained intact because the photograph itself was genuine. Viewers were looking at a real scene, a real vehicle, and a real incident. The disconnect occurred between the image and the explanation accompanying it.

The Levins Pattern

Levins has built a following across X and Telegram by positioning himself as an alternative source of geopolitical information and breaking developments from the Middle East.

His content frequently focuses on dramatic security events, intelligence claims, military activity, and regional escalation. Critics have accused him of amplifying unverified reports, circulating miscaptioned imagery, and promoting sensational claims before independent verification is available.

Whether supporters regard him as a whistleblower, commentator, or independent journalist, his reach is significant. Posts can reach hundreds of thousands of users within hours, allowing narratives to spread far faster than traditional verification processes.

That reach places a premium on accuracy, particularly when photographs from genuine events are used to support claims that are unrelated to the events depicted.

The Real Manipulation

Public debate about misinformation often centers on altered photographs, AI-generated imagery, and digital fabrication.

This case followed a different path.

The photograph was authentic. The vehicle existed. The attack occurred. The casualties were real. The image entered the information stream carrying one set of facts and emerged carrying another.

Its persuasive power came from its authenticity. Viewers were not being asked to believe a fabricated image. They were being shown a genuine photograph and encouraged to accept a false explanation for what it depicted.

That distinction is important because it reflects one of the most effective forms of modern misinformation. The credibility of the image is borrowed to support a narrative that the image itself cannot verify.

Conclusion

The photograph from Gush Etzion documented a real terror attack that left Israeli civilians wounded and generated extensive reporting across Israeli media.

Within hours, the same image was circulating online as evidence of an alleged assassination in Beersheba and a supposed Iranian operation inside Israel.

Nothing about the photograph needed to be altered. The vehicle, the scene, and the underlying event remained exactly as they had been when first reported.

The transformation occurred after the image left its original reporting chain and entered a different information ecosystem, where a documented terror attack became the foundation for a completely different story.

The episode serves as a reminder that some of the most effective misinformation does not begin with fake images.

It begins with real ones.

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!

Drake has spent years trading shots with rivals, but his latest target surprised many: DJ Khaled.

On a new track, Drake references criticism aimed at Khaled for refusing to publicly say “Free Palestine.” The lyric revived a debate that has followed Khaled since October 7, when activists began pressuring him to take a more outspoken position on Gaza. In one widely shared clip, Khaled was asked to say the slogan on camera. His response was simple: “Peace and love to everybody.”

For many activists, that was not enough.

The episode highlights how discussion of the conflict has increasingly become a loyalty test. Public figures are expected to repeat specific slogans, and those who refuse often face backlash regardless of their background or personal connection to the issue.

That is what makes Drake’s intervention so striking. Rather than adding meaningful insight into a complex war, the lyric reduces the conversation to a celebrity feud and a political catchphrase.

Lost in the process are the realities of the conflict itself: the October 7 massacre, the hostages taken into Gaza, the role of Hamas in starting the war, and the suffering experienced by both Israelis and Palestinians.

Political slogans can be powerful, but they can also flatten complicated issues into social media soundbites. When celebrities use them as ammunition in personal disputes, the result is less awareness and more performance.

The war in Gaza is not a branding opportunity. Turning it into one may generate headlines, but it does little to help the people actually living through it.

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!

• The political extremes are converging on anti-Israel narratives. The Owens–Kasparian conversation shows how hostility toward Israel increasingly bridges left-right divides.
• Antisemitic conspiracies are being reframed as legitimate critique. Tropes about Jewish power and Israeli manipulation are being repackaged as political analysis.
• Alternative media is helping normalize anti-Jewish rhetoric. Fringe distortions are being presented as “independent thinking” rather than dangerous falsehoods.

Candace Owens and Ana Kasparian agree on almost nothing. Except, it turns out, the Jews.

Owens has built her brand on right-wing populist provocation and increasingly conspiratorial commentary. Kasparian rose to prominence as one of progressive media’s most recognizable voices on The Young Turks.

Ordinarily, these are not two commentators one would expect to find in close agreement.

Yet when the conversation turned to the Jewish state, their supposed ideological distance collapsed entirely.

Their recent 90-minute discussion offered a revealing illustration of a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in modern politics: hostility toward Jews serving as a bridge between ideological opposites.

This is the horseshoe theory in action.

The phenomenon is not new. For years, anti-Israel rhetoric has demonstrated a unique ability to unite otherwise opposing political camps. The language may differ depending on the audience. On one side, it is often framed through anti-establishment suspicion of elite influence. On the other, through the language of anti-colonialism and progressive liberation politics.

But the destination is often the same.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by HonestReporting (@honestreporting)

The “Zionist Lobby” Conspiracy

The Owens-Kasparian conversation offered multiple examples.

At various points, Owens attributed both Australia’s decision to deny her entry and her departure from The Daily Wire to the influence of a powerful “Zionist lobby,” rather than to the widely documented controversies surrounding her repeated promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories

This is not simply sharp criticism of lobbying activity. Democracies contain countless interest groups that seek to influence policy, after all. Rather, this echoes age-old canards about hidden Jewish power operating beyond democratic accountability.

Fighting “Israel’s War”

Elsewhere, the conversation advanced claims that America is effectively fighting “Israel’s war,” that Israeli interests dictate U.S. foreign policy, and that confronting the Iranian regime serves no genuine American interest.

This framing erases geopolitical reality. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, sponsorship of regional terror proxies (like Hamas and Hezbollah), and direct threats to Western democratic stability make it a global menace, not just an Israeli one. Reducing American strategic calculations to “Israeli manipulation” replaces serious foreign policy analysis with a repackaged trope of dual loyalty and manipulation.

Collective Demonization

More disturbing still were claims that moved beyond criticism of Israeli policy into sweeping accusations about Jews as a people.

Criticizing Israel is not antisemitic. Democracies should be scrutinized. Israeli governments, like all governments, are open to criticism and debate. However, imputing collective moral depravity to an entire people crosses a dangerous line.

Claims made during the discussion – such as suggesting Jews believe “genocide is their birthright,” view themselves as entitled to “mass murder children,” and that Jews do not regard Arabs as fully human – are not policy critiques. They are sweeping, dehumanizing generalizations that recycle medieval blood libels in modern political jargon.

Laundering Terror as Resistance

The dialogue extended into apologia for Hezbollah, framing the Iranian-backed, internationally designated terrorist organization as a form of “justified resistance.” Concurrently, post-9/11 Western counterterrorism efforts were dismissed as mere Islamophobic propaganda. This moral inversion strips violent extremists of their bloody records while treating Western democratic frameworks as inherently suspect. The result is a rhetorical sleight of hand in which violent extremism is laundered into political legitimacy.

This kind of moral inversion has become increasingly common. It requires minimizing or ignoring the actual record of terrorist organizations while treating the societies they target as the primary villains. The result is a framework in which extremism is rationalized and democratic self-defence is portrayed as the greater offense.

The Illusion of “Independent Thinking”

Perhaps most revealing was the broader atmosphere in which these ideas were presented.

In today’s alternative media ecosystem, anti-Israel extremism is increasingly marketed as “courageous, independent thought.” Platforming fringe, anti-Jewish rhetoric is rebranded as brave truth-telling, where performance art replaces intellectual rigor.

There is nothing courageous about recycling centuries-old conspiracies. Nor is there anything independent about reproducing anti-Israel narratives that have already become conventional orthodoxy across large swaths of the internet.

What The Horseshoe Really Reveals

The real story of the Owens-Kasparian dialogue is not that two polarized commentators found common ground. Political realignments happen all the time.

The real story is that hostility toward Jews and the Jewish state has become the ultimate unifying language across political divides.

This is not the triumph of independent thought. It is what happens when distortions about Israel and Jews become so normalized that they no longer register as extraordinary.

The horseshoe effect is not a sign of ideological enlightenment – it is proof of how easily anti-Jewish falsehoods travel across party lines when media figures refuse to challenge them.

And that should concern anyone who values honest debate, regardless of where they stand politically.

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!

• Eid images from Gaza followed a familiar pattern already seen during Ramadan, weddings, hospital ceremonies, and other highly publicized events throughout the war.
• The question is not whether the events occurred, but how they were organized, photographed, and distributed to global audiences.
• Some of Gaza’s most powerful visual moments appear less spontaneous than they first seem, raising important questions about coordination, access, authority, and narrative production.

For much of this war, international audiences have been presented with a succession of highly symbolic images emerging from Gaza: families breaking Ramadan fasts beside shattered mosques, Christmas celebrations staged among rubble, graduation ceremonies held inside damaged hospitals, and wedding portraits framed against destruction. Now Eid has joined that visual catalogue.

Images distributed by Anadolu Agency, AP, and other outlets showed worshippers gathered among ruins, praying beside collapsed buildings and damaged mosques. Drone footage captured rows of people stretching through debris-filled streets, while photographs of children carrying balloons through the wreckage added a further emotional dimension to the coverage. The images were undoubtedly striking, and it is not difficult to understand why they travelled so quickly across international media platforms.

But beyond their immediate emotional impact lies a question that is almost never addressed in the accompanying coverage: how exactly do these moments become such polished global media products?

This is not to cast doubt on the reality of the scenes themselves. Gazans observed Eid, as they have continued to mark religious occasions throughout the war, often under extraordinarily difficult conditions. Nor is it to suggest that the worshippers themselves were anything other than genuine participants in a real religious observance. The more relevant issue is the degree to which these highly symbolic moments are not simply documented, but carefully framed and produced for maximum visual and narrative effect.

Images of this scale and precision do not simply emerge by accident. Large public gatherings require organization and communication. Drone footage requires operators with access and foreknowledge of where to position themselves. Photographers need vantage points, timing, and an understanding of which visual elements will carry the strongest symbolic resonance. By the time such images reach international audiences, a series of decisions has already shaped what viewers ultimately see.

What makes this particularly notable is the extent to which these images follow a now-familiar visual pattern. Earlier in the conflict, photographers captured families breaking Ramadan fast beside destroyed mosques.

Similar imagery emerged around weddings staged against bombed-out backdrops and graduation ceremonies held in damaged buildings. The formula is strikingly consistent: moments of faith, celebration, or communal resilience are framed against visible destruction, creating compositions that convey not simply documentation but a powerful symbolic narrative.

Viewed individually, each image appears to capture a spontaneous moment of human perseverance. Viewed collectively, however, they begin to suggest something more deliberate – a recurring visual language that has come to define much of Gaza’s international media imagery throughout this conflict.

Professional photojournalists understand that compelling images rarely depend on chance alone. They are usually the result of preparation, positioning, access, and editorial judgment. That is not unusual in itself. What is unusual is how rarely this production process is acknowledged when the images are presented to global audiences, particularly in the context of Gaza.

This matters because Gaza is not an open operating environment. Hamas remains the governing authority, and public gatherings, media access, and drone operations take place within a framework of control that necessarily shapes what can be photographed, where, and under what conditions. Acknowledging this does not diminish the authenticity of the worshippers or the reality of their observance. It simply introduces context that is almost always absent from the final presentation.

Yet most audiences encounter these photographs as if they are seeing pure, unmediated documentation. What remains invisible is the infrastructure of planning, access, coordination, and editorial selection that made the final image possible in the first place.

For nearly three years, imagery from Gaza has played a central role in shaping international perceptions of this conflict. Much of the discussion has focused on what the photographs show. Far less attention has been paid to the mechanisms that produce them.

The Eid images are merely the latest example of why that question deserves greater scrutiny. Journalism should not stop at presenting compelling images. It should also examine the conditions under which those images were created and ask what may lie beyond the frame.

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!

• In the current conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, one actor that gets limited media attention is the Amal movement, the Iran-backed terror organization’s junior partner.
• Despite not being as fundamentalist as Hezbollah, the Amal movement represents the terror organization’s interests on the international stage and is fighting alongside it against the Jewish state.
• For news consumers to have a full understanding of the dynamics at play between Israel, Hezbollah, and the Lebanese state, the media must provide them with a full look at the conflict, which includes the Amal movement.

As media attention remains fixed on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, another key actor continues to escape meaningful scrutiny: Hezbollah’s junior partner, the Amal movement.

That blind spot was on display most recently when both The New York Times and Sky News covered the funeral of a first responder killed in an Israeli strike, yet overlooked the unmistakable red-and-green Amal flags draped across the motorcade carrying his body to the cemetery.

While Amal may not carry Hezbollah’s global notoriety, it has played a pivotal role in Lebanon’s modern history and remains an active participant in the military and political architecture confronting Israel today.

1/
Meet Ahmad Hariri. According to The New York Times, he was “a paramedic and photojournalist who was killed in Deir Qanoun an-Nahr on Friday” in an Israeli airstrike.

Don’t let the press vest fool you. Was Ahmad Hariri targeted for his medical or media work? Five minutes… pic.twitter.com/DO3CXiI2Lp

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 25, 2026

Founded in 1974 by the charismatic Shiite cleric Musa al-Sadr, Amal, an acronym for the “Lebanese Resistance Regiments,” meaning “hope” in Arabic, initially emerged as a movement focused on social justice for Lebanon’s marginalized Shiite population.

Its early mission was focused on the betterment of Lebanon’s impoverished Shiite population, including improving its political position and raising its socioeconomic status. While arising from the Shiite community, Amal’s guiding philosophy was the development of a Lebanese society where all the major religious communities were taken care of.

The outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975 transformed Amal from a political and social movement into one of the most significant Shiite militias in Lebanon, particularly in the country’s south.

That evolution accelerated under Nabih Berri, who assumed leadership in 1980 and remains at Amal’s helm to this day.

In 1982, a new Shiite movement arose in southern Lebanon, the Islamist Hezbollah terrorist organization. While Amal was considered to be more moderate and secular, the influence of radical Shiism from the newly created Islamic Republic of Iran created friction within it, with many Amal members dissatisfied with the movement’s centrist approach, leaving to join the more radical and violent Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad organizations.

While Hezbollah and the Amal movement were defined by differing philosophies regarding theology and violence, observers noted that, on the grassroots level, the average organization member did not view the groups as being inherently different, and their choice of membership in one over the other was largely due to personal loyalties.

Following the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982, the Amal movement was largely focused on passive resistance to Israel’s military presence but Amal members commonly engaged with Israeli soldiers alongside Islamist Shiite militiamen. At the same time, Amal members also engaged in conflict with Palestinian militias as part of the Lebanese Civil War.

Near the end of the Civil War, Amal (which was primarily supported by Syria) engaged in a conflict with the Iran-backed Hezbollah for the loyalty of the Lebanese Shiite community.

The conflict, known as the “War of Brothers” lasted until 1990 and ended with an agreed division of labor where Hezbollah would control armed opposition to Israel while Amal would serve the Shiite community in the political and social realm.

In 1992, Amal entered the Lebanese parliament for the first time and its leader, Berri, became the parliamentary speaker, a position which he has maintained for over 30 years (according to Lebanese political tradition, the Speaker of Parliament must always be a member of the Shiite community).

When Hezbollah entered the Lebanese parliament in 2005, it solidified the terror organization’s status as the dominant Shiite movement in all realms and relegated Amal to a secondary player.

However, despite the power asymmetry between the two movements, they are both considered “partners” or “sister organizations” in representing the needs of the Lebanese Shiite community.

Despite their ideological differences, Amal is part of the Hezbollah-associated March 8 movement and regularly votes in line with Hezbollah’s interests in the Lebanese parliament. As well, due to its moderate appearance and political respectability, Amal often represents Hezbollah’s interests in negotiations with the international community.

Just another day at @NPR:

Calling Israel’s presence in southern Lebanon “occupation” and referring to “waves of airstrikes” while omitting the reason: Hezbollah’s repeated indiscriminate attacks on northern Israel.
Claiming the war “began in March,” erasing the fact that… pic.twitter.com/M9BCUstoRR

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) May 26, 2026

One day after Hamas’ October 7, 2023 massacre, Hezbollah opened a northern front against Israel in solidarity with Hamas. Israel’s ensuing conflict with Hezbollah continued until a November 2024 ceasefire.

Hezbollah never fully observed the ceasefire and, following the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei as part of the American-Israeli attack on Iran, reignited the conflict by firing on Israel’s north.

During the first (October 2023-November 2024) and second (March 2026-present) conflicts, Amal gunmen participated in fighting against Israeli security forces alongside Hezbollah.

Despite there being signs that Amal was upset with Hezbollah for reigniting the conflict with Israel in 2026 (and even not opposing the Lebanese government’s outlawing of Hezbollah’s violent activities), Amal has buttressed Hezbollah’s militant activities during this conflict.

However, there is a clear distinction between Amal and Hezbollah’s fight with Israel.

Hezbollah’s confrontation with Israel is rooted in its Islamist ideology and allegiance to Iran’s regional revolutionary project. Its fallen fighters are routinely described as having been “martyred on the road to Jerusalem.”

Amal, by contrast, presents itself as fundamentally Lebanese nationalist. It commemorates its dead as having fallen “defending Lebanon and the south.”

But these differences should not obscure the central reality.

Whatever rhetorical distinctions Amal draws between itself and Hezbollah, it remains an active combatant in the campaign against Israel and an integral component of the infrastructure sustaining Hezbollah’s war effort.

When major media outlets erase or ignore Amal’s role, they distort the realities of the conflict and help sanitize the broader militant ecosystem operating in southern Lebanon.

Amal may be Hezbollah’s junior partner.

But it is no innocent bystander.

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!