All News (Page 86)

Two members of Massive Attack were issued with stern warnings and barred from re-entering Singapore after the British band ended their performance on Wednesday with a display of the Palestinian flag, according to local media reports.

Authorities said the band were investigated for their “actions of support for a political cause and unfurling of a foreign flag,” during the band’s concert, reports said.

The Infocomm Media Development Authority also said it is investigating the possible breach of a number of license conditions and will take “necessary action” when investigations are completed, reports added.

Singapore does not allow the public display of foreign national emblems without a permit or exemption, and the Palestinian flag is especially sensitive given the war in Gaza and Singapore’s Muslim population.

In 2023, the home affairs ministry said: “The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict is an emotive issue. We would like to advise against the public display and wearing of articles in relation to the conflict, given the heightened sensitivities.”

Singapore Home Affairs Ministry emphasizes the need to preserve peace and harmony

“The peace and harmony between different races and religions in Singapore should not be taken for granted, and we must not let events happening externally affect this peace and harmony we have in Singapore.”

Singapore’s resident population is 74% Chinese, 13.6% Malay, and 9% Indian, with 3.3% classified as others. Around 15% are Muslim.

Massive Attack, formed in Bristol in the west of England in 1988, are known for their outspoken political stances, with videos during their concert highlighting conflicts from the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, to Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine.

Neither the concert organizer Lushington nor the band immediately responded to a request for comment.

This post was originally published on here. 

A month before the 2013 election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked a softball question in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt.

“If we look at all the threats that Israel faces, why would anyone in the world want your job?” asked interviewers Cornelius Tittel and Clemens Wergin. “It seems to be the toughest job in the world.”

Netanyahu laughed as he answered it, apparently pleased that he got such a question he would never be asked by any Israeli media outlet that existed back then.

“It’s a good question, but apparently not enough people are asking it because quite a few people would like to have [my job],” Netanyahu said.

He then used the question to remind German readers about the Holocaust, segue to Iran, and then warn about the dangers of the narrative war.

“In our history, including on the soil of Europe, we had a regular pattern,” he said. “First the Jewish people were maligned, then they were attacked. And the maligning, the vilification served as the legitimization for the attacks that followed. In many ways, this is what is happening to the State of Israel. It is vilified again and again in public opinion, including in European public opinion, to prepare the attacks. And people don’t know the facts.”

What Netanyahu said back then rings true even more today, as the maligning and vilification that reignited after Oct. 7 rages on.

But I disagree with the interviewers. I think there is a job even harder than Israel’s prime minister: Ambassador of Israel to the UK.

And that job is held now by… technically, no one. Tzipi Hotovely left the post nearly a year ago, and the role is not expected to be filled any time soon.

Netanyahu tried to gift the job to his loyal chief of staff, Tzachi Braverman, and the cabinet approved the nomination in September, but the appointment is on hold indefinitely, as British authorities will not approve it while a legal cloud hangs over Braverman’s head.

Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara said she intends to indict Braverman, pending a hearing on charges of obstruction of justice, fraud, and breach of trust in the Feldstein-Bild Affair. He is also suspected of having altered the stated time at which Netanyahu first received an update on the morning of Oct. 7.

A new ambassador will not be appointed until the next government is formed after the Oct. 27 election – and, perhaps, as is looking increasingly likely – after another election or two after that.

Seasoned diplomat began as charge d’affaires at London embassy

THE GOOD news is that meanwhile, a new chargé d’affaires arrived at the embassy on Monday, and he is a seasoned diplomat who speaks English. He is Christian Cantor (yes, Christian), and he has served as ambassador to Colombia and in diplomatic postings in Australia, Guatemala, and London, where he was a political counselor for five years at the embassy that he will now head de facto.

Cantor will be in charge of representing Israel to the new government of Prime Minister Andy Burnham, dealing with the scourge of antisemitism, and impacting the dangerously biased British media. Each of those responsibilities ranges from extremely difficult to borderline impossible.

Shortly before becoming prime minister, Burnham apologized for his Labour Party’s policies on Israel and Gaza, and pandered to his progressive wing in an interview with The Guardian, a biased, anti-Israel newspaper.

“I know many people feel that at the start of Israel’s military action in Gaza, my party didn’t get it right, and I am sorry about that. The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better,” he said. 

“We’ve got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government… Yes, we have taken some important steps… But let’s be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire. And we must now do more to strengthen our approach.”

Upon becoming defense secretary, Wes Streeting immediately accused the IDF of falling short of UK military standards. Writing in The Jewish Chronicle, Andrew Fox, who served in the British Army for 16 years, compared what the IDF did in Gaza to what the British did in Afghanistan, and pronounced Streeting guilty of slander.

Burnham’s new solicitor-general, Andy Slaughter, has been accused of showing sympathy for Hamas after pictures resurfaced from 2010 of him smiling with its leaders alongside Jeremy Corbyn. And even outside the government, Green Party leader Zack Polanski has displayed an unhealthy obsession with Israel, even though he’s Jewish.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan told Channel 4 News that Britain would enforce the International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Netanyahu, saying that “anyone accused of genocide must face justice” and that he would work with Burnham to “enforce the law” if Netanyahu comes to London.

Sounding like the equally confused mayor of New York, he added: “People who commit genocide are not welcome in London.”

Khan, however, does not take action to stop London’s streets from being filled with weekly antisemitic hate marches. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign claims that more than 100,000 marched on Downing Street, demanding that Burnham immediately stop arms trades with Israel and impose sanctions.

Rising explicitly anti-Zionist incidents in UK

The Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in Britain during 2025, the second-highest annual figure since the CST began recording, and more than twice the 1,662 incidents recorded in 2022, the last full year before Oct. 7. In at least 1,766 of the incidents, the motivation was explicitly anti-Zionist.

Two Jews were murdered in the antisemitic terrorist attack at Heaton Park Synagogue in Burnham’s Manchester, last Yom Kippur. The intent was the same in April 2026, when two Jewish men were stabbed in London’s predominantly Jewish Golders Green neighborhood.

Campaign Against Antisemitism polling reported in February 2026 that 96% of British Jews felt less safe than before Oct. 7, 59% avoided displaying visible signs of Jewish identity, and 61% had considered leaving Britain during the previous two years due to antisemitism.

The CST recorded 272 university-related antisemitic incidents in the 2023-2024 academic year, compared with 53 in 2022-2023, an increase of more than fivefold.

“There I was, an 18-year-old on my first day of university, crying on my bed. I could not understand what I had done to deserve such hatred,” Students Supporting Israel President at King’s College Tali Smus wrote in a heart-wrenching article in The Telegraph about how she was persecuted for not hating Israel.

As for the media, there had been hope that the BBC would become less biased against Israel following the long-awaited firing of Director-General Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness in November, and the introduction of compulsory antisemitism training for staff. But it’s not getting any better.

The first article for Cantor to deal with could be the awful one in last weekend’s Sunday Times with the headline “My son was on my wife’s lap when the IDF shot him dead,” and the sub-headline, “In a land besieged by settler terror, baby Sam is one of 259 Palestinian children killed since the atrocities of Oct. 7.”

Media watchdog HonestReporting called out The Guardian for adopting Palestinian propaganda by writing in a headline that on Tisha B’Av “Jewish extremists stormed al-Aqsa mosque compound.” The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis slammed The Guardian for referring to Hebron as Islam’s fourth holiest city while failing to mention that it is Judaism’s second holiest.

It has only gotten harder since Netanyahu lamented European public opinion in that interview with Die Welt: “Can they seriously tell us you have no connection to these areas? These areas where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, where my ancestors walked, where Jews have been for thousands of years?”

Christian Cantor will have to deal with all this and so much more. Good luck, Christian! No one envies you.
 
The writer served as the chief political correspondent and analyst of The Jerusalem Post and executive director of HonestReporting, and has lectured about Israel in all 50 US states.

This post was originally published on here. 

Egypt’s cabinet said Thursday that a drone caused a fire aboard two vessels at Damietta port, after initial accounts from Egyptian security sources disputed reports that the fire was caused by a drone strike.

“Following the containment of the fire that affected two vessels at Damietta Port, preliminary investigations by the relevant authorities determined that it was caused by a drone,” the cabinet said in a statement.

The fire occurred Wednesday, July 29. No party has claimed responsibility, the cabinet said, and investigations are continuing. The statement said Egypt was taking “the necessary measures” to safeguard its interests and national security. It did not say where the drone originated from.

Hany El-Aasar, executive director of the National Center for Studies and a researcher specializing in security and military affairs, said the attack marked a departure for Egypt. “The Damietta incident is clearly deliberate and intentional,” El-Aasar told The Media Line. He said the attack severely damaged Egyptian economic interests, even though the vessels were not Egyptian. “It also detracts from the legitimacy of the political system, which rests on protecting and securing the state,” he said.

Egypt suspects Houthi involvement

El-Aasar said Egyptian intelligence was considering every possibility, but he assessed that the available evidence pointed most strongly to the Houthi movement. He cited the group’s assessment of Egypt’s response to its escalation against Saudi Arabia and how far Cairo might go to police Red Sea shipping. “The group functions as Iran’s military arm, and that shaped a strike aimed at American interests,” El-Aasar argued. However, he also said Iran likely did not order the attack because Tehran did not want new enemies or to jeopardize its improved relations with Cairo.

Days before the strike, Damietta appeared on a map of potential targets broadcast by Iranian state television, under the headline “What could be the targets of Iran’s revenge against Ukraine?” The accompanying text described the port’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility as having an annual capacity of 5.2 million tons and serving as a gateway for gas exports to Europe. Iranian media had said openly that Tehran would retaliate by striking targets connected to oil and gas shipments to Europe.

The broadcast followed a Ukrainian drone strike on July 25 against vessels in the Caspian Sea. Kyiv said it had targeted a Russian warship and ships carrying Iranian-linked military cargo. Iran said one of the vessels hit was the civilian cargo ship Anna, and that a sailor was killed. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the attack a violation of the UN Charter and said it “cannot go unanswered.”

The two countries’ foreign ministers spoke on July 28. Araghchi wrote afterward that Ukraine’s Andrii Sybiha had assured him the attack was unintentional. “Iran does not seek escalation either but made clear any attack on our citizens or interests is unacceptable.”

Damietta was struck the following day.

Egypt’s Petroleum Ministry said Wednesday that a fire had broken out aboard a regasification vessel and a storage vessel at Damietta and was brought under control with no casualties reported. The ministry did not initially give a cause and urged news outlets and social media users to rely only on its official statements.

British maritime security firm Ambrey said Wednesday that at least one drone had struck the US-owned, Marshall Islands-flagged floating storage and regasification unit Energos Winter, and that fire spread to a second vessel, the Greek-owned Gaslog Salem. The attack occurred at 14:20 GMT.

“The cabinet’s promised measures amount to a forensic exercise,” El-Aasar said. “They will establish responsibility and motive, assess whether the weapon matches the suspected party’s known arsenal, determine how it got through, and review security at Egyptian ports and other critical facilities.”

Drones previously struck the Egyptian towns of Taba and Nuweiba in October 2023, injuring six people. Egypt’s military said they came from the southern Red Sea but did not identify who launched them.

El-Aasar said Cairo viewed the previous incident as accidental spillover because the Houthis were targeting Israel. He expected the government to describe the Damietta attack in terms that avoid drawing Egypt into the US war with Iran.

Egypt may escalate diplomatically

Talaat Taha, a political analyst and expert on Arab affairs, expected a tougher response. Egypt would stay out of the war, he told The Media Line, but could take the case to the UN Security Council, escalate diplomatically, or strike the responsible party.

“Egypt can keep things under control without triggering a regional war,” he said.

If Iran were found responsible, Taha said, Cairo’s diplomatic opening with Tehran would end. “Egypt and Iran would go back to zero,” he said. “That file would close, and we would be back to square one.”

However, in his view, relations with the Gulf would strengthen in the wake of such an attack. “Our relations with the Gulf states are strong, and Gulf security is part of Egypt’s security,” he said, noting that Egypt had already paid a high price for Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping. “We have suffered heavy losses from the pressure on the Suez Canal,” he said.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty urged his Iranian and Omani counterparts on July 25 to halt all escalatory action. He had told Bloomberg two days earlier that the US-Iran crisis was bridgeable.

The attack may reduce Egypt’s LNG import and regasification flexibility rather than its export capacity, although the operational consequences remain unclear. The affected vessels were reported damaged and operations at Damietta disrupted, while the government said the port was operating normally.

“It’s mainly symbolic,” Elai Rettig, an assistant professor in the Department of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University who specializes in energy geopolitics, told The Media Line. “Egypt has barely exported any LNG through its two facilities in Idku and Damietta since 2024. It suffers gas shortages, especially during the summer months, and has become a net importer of LNG. So, there’s no effect for Europe.”

Damietta last loaded a major LNG export cargo in 2023. Egypt has been a net importer of liquefied natural gas since late 2024 and imported a record 8.92 million tons in 2025. The Energos Winter is one of four floating regasification units Egypt uses to meet summer demand.

Israeli gas once reached international markets through Egypt’s liquefaction plants, which Iran could use to present the strike as aimed at Israel. Rettig called that “a rather weak claim since that hasn’t happened in the past two years, and currently Damietta is used more for LNG imports.”

“So, Iran hasn’t damaged Israel at all,” he said. “It only damaged Egypt’s energy security.”

On July 28, Eni and TotalEnergies approved the Cronos gas project off Cyprus, creating a future source of LNG exports for Damietta. Starting in 2028, Cypriot gas is expected to be processed in Egypt and liquefied at Damietta for shipment mainly to European markets, helping restore the terminal’s export role.

Prof. Brenda Shaffer, an energy expert at the US Naval Postgraduate School, told The Media Line that Tehran will most likely pick its next targets “by opportunity, rather than a calculated choice,” and that “energy and gas facilities around the globe need to raise their security alert level.”

Shaffer, who attributes the strike to Iran, reads it as an effort to raise global oil prices and exacerbate LNG shortages to pressure President Trump ahead of the US midterm elections. She said Egypt “demonstrated flawed defense of critical energy infrastructure,” and called the strike a wake-up call for Egyptian defense in general.

An Abu Dhabi security source told The Media Line that the strike ended Egypt’s insulation from the war and reset the regional threat map, and that targeting now follows US-linked economic and energy assets “regardless of the host nation’s political posture.” The source said that “Staying out has been exposed as a political preference, not an operational reality.”

In April, Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the UAE president, praised Egypt and several other Arab states for supporting the UAE during Iranian attacks. Egypt condemned the attacks and reportedly deployed air-defense systems and military personnel to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait.

The Damietta Port Authority said Thursday that the port was fully operational. “All terminals and berths are operating normally, with vessels continuing to arrive and depart, alongside ongoing loading, unloading and cargo-handling operations at the targeted operational rates,” the authority said. The port “continues to provide maritime and logistics services around the clock without interruption,” it said, and cargo handling was proceeding normally across all sectors “in accordance with approved operational plans.”

This post was originally published on here. 

US President Donald Trump said on Friday that a US campaign to dismantle the International Criminal Court was intended to defend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others from prosecution, not himself.

Trump made the comment after Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a cabinet meeting at Camp David that five countries had announced plans to quit the court since the United States launched a campaign earlier this month against what it says is a threat to US sovereignty.

“There’s no information that they’re after me,” Trump said.

“It could happen, but just so you know … he (Rubio) is not trying to defend me. He’s trying to defend Bibi and various other people,” Trump said, using Netanyahu’s nickname. “But there are many people that shouldn’t be looked at that way. But there is no indication that I’m one of them at this moment.”

Rubio responded that the people in biggest danger were US service members, who he said could face prosecution years later over their actions in war.

ICC can prosecute non-member nationals for crimes in member states

The ICC was established in 2002 by the international community to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It asserts jurisdiction only if a member state is unable or unwilling to prosecute atrocities itself.

The United States ​has never been a member of the court.

However, the ICC statute also gives the court the power to prosecute atrocity crimes committed on the territory of member states by ​nationals of non-member states.

Trump’s opposition toward the court goes back to his first term. It surfaced again with a plan to penalize ICC officials, an idea developed in November 2024 when Trump was reelected ‌and the ⁠ICC issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict.

Rubio earlier this month denounced the court based in The Hague, citing calls from activists for the ICC to investigate US personnel over actions like the deportation of migrants or US strikes on boats that officials say are carrying narcotics.

The Trump administration has said it would lobby other countries to leave the court and use travel bans and further sanctions against the ICC and affiliated organizations to try to undermine the court, which is being opposed in the courts by ICC judges and US advocacy groups which accuse the administration of violating their free speech rights.

This post was originally published on here. 

I owe Homer, the author of The Iliad and The Odyssey, an apology.

Millions of people have flocked to Christopher Nolan’s 2026 adaptation of The Odyssey. Within days of its release, it became one of the year’s biggest box office successes, despite running more than three hours. Like so many others, I found myself sitting in the theater expecting to watch the story of Odysseus’s long journey home.

Instead, I spent much of the film thinking about Israel.

Homer, I suspect, would not have appreciated my divided attention. Then again, tradition tells us he wrote these great works 2,700 years ago, so perhaps I have nothing to worry about. However, if you have never read Homer’s works or seen the movie, then a “spoiler alert” is in order, so maybe I do need to worry. 

One scene has refused to leave my mind.

As Odysseus, the hero, approaches the island of the sirens, he understands something profound about human nature: the danger is not that his crew lacks courage or intelligence; the danger is that the sirens promise exactly what each sailor most longs to hear. Their songs are irresistible. Ship after ship is drawn off course and smashed against the rocks.

The sirens are not merely tempting him toward pleasure. They force him to confront his deepest regrets, his guilt, and his most impossible longings. 

Odysseus knows that when he hears the voices, he will no longer trust his own judgment.

So, he prepares before the temptation arrives.

He orders his crew to fill their ears with wax so they cannot hear the songs. He orders them to tie him tightly to the mast. Most importantly, he gives them one final command: no matter what I say, no matter how desperately I beg, no matter how convincingly I plead, do not untie me until we have safely passed through these waters.

He knows that his future self cannot be trusted.

Watching that scene, I couldn’t help thinking that Israel today is sailing through its own sea of sirens and dangerous waters. How many of us long for peace and simple solutions to the complex realities of our situation here in the Holy Land?

I have participated in many TV panels in the last months in which my fellow panelists, very impressive people, have expressed unrealistic, shockingly simplistic views on the highly complex challenges of our situation. 

Without the needed wax in my ears, I squirm in my chair, and then wonder what life would be like if their view of the world could materialize. 

Then I snap back to reality and remember that our history has shown that if we accept their analysis, and in a metaphorical sense listen to the sirens, we will be crashing into the rocks rather quickly.

Our sirens and pundits of the simple solutions are broadcasting to us constantly while the complexities of the situation would make any international relations professor’s head spin. The songs include tempting, attractive illusions of a new Middle East based on peaceful cooperation backed by paper agreements and new accords. 

Not to forget that our detractors have manipulated the songs of sirens to include twisted messaging echoed not only abroad, but here in Israel as well.

Like many of us, these tempting thoughts are confusing, so I look to the wisdom of our elders for direction, remembering the famous Tractate of Eretz Rabbah of Rabbi Yehoshua: “Always regard people as though they might be robbers, yet honor them as you would Rabban Gamliel.”

Answering the real question

This week alone, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Washington to discuss Iran, ceasefires, nuclear ambitions, proxies, and an increasingly unstable Middle East. Iranian missiles and drones continue to threaten Israel and our regional partners. Hamas has not disappeared. Hezbollah has not disappeared. The Houthis continue their attacks. 

The strategic waters and ominous rock formations surrounding Israel are as dangerous as they have been in decades.

At the very same time, Israel is entering another election season.

Political parties are preparing campaigns. Advertising agencies are crafting emotionally powerful messages. Consultants are testing slogans. Television panels, newspaper headlines, podcasts, social media feeds, and endless commentary compete for our attention every waking hour.

Every day Israelis are bombarded with thousands of competing messages.

Some tell us to be afraid. Some tell us to be angry. Some tell us whom to blame.

Some promise simple solutions to impossibly complex problems.

Some insist salvation lies just one election away. Others insist catastrophe is inevitable unless we follow them.

Unlike Odysseus’s crew, however, we cannot simply put wax in our ears.

We cannot ignore the news when our sons and daughters are serving in the IDF.

We cannot ignore missile warnings. We cannot ignore terrorism.

We cannot ignore the ominous strains percolating across Israeli society.

We cannot simply disconnect from reality.

Which leaves us with a different question: If wax in our ears is not a viable alternative… to which mast do we tie ourselves?

Every Israeli, consciously or not, has already chosen one.

Some tie themselves to faith, believing that whatever storms lie ahead, God remains with the Jewish people.

Others tie themselves to a political worldview, convinced they already know who is responsible for every crisis and who alone can solve it.

Some tie themselves to their families, deciding that their first and only responsibility is protecting those closest to them.

Others tie themselves to Zionism itself, to the conviction that despite every disagreement, the existence and future of the Jewish state transcend today’s political battles.

Still others tie themselves to hope, to resilience, military strength, democracy, or to something else entirely.

The point is not that every mast is equally strong; they are inherently personal. The point is that none of us can navigate these waters without tying ourselves to one.

Perhaps that is why another moment from the film stayed with me.

After surviving the sirens, one of Odysseus’s companions asks him what he heard.

His answer is haunting: he says that the sirens sang of everything he had ever wanted, everything he had ever dreamed of, everything he thought would finally satisfy him. And perhaps, everything he should never have wanted in the first place.

That may be the most timeless lesson of all: the greatest dangers rarely announce themselves as dangers; they arrive disguised as certainty.

As validation.

As the promise that someone finally accepts our view of the world.

As the assurance that every complex problem has a simple answer.

This illusion is perhaps the strongest explanation of the mindset our security leadership had on October 6.

Israel is navigating extraordinarily dangerous waters. The rocks are real. The currents are strong. The voices calling from every direction are louder than ever.

The question is no longer whether we will hear them.

We will.

The real question is this: When those voices promise us everything we have ever wanted to hear… to which mast will you tie yourself?

Because eventually all of us, every Israeli, must answer that question.

All of our answers affect our collective future as we are all truly in the same boat, sailing across these challenging waters.

What will you choose?

The writer is a global strategist and a strategic adviser at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs. He can be reached at globalstrategist2020@gmail.com.

This post was originally published on here. 

Some say that antisemitism is the world’s oldest form of racism. No one can quantify if that is true or not, but the reality is the world has become a scary place for Jews since the Hamas-led massacres on October 7, 2023.

Whether you love Israel, support its government, or believe its actions in Gaza in this war are justified or not, Jews are prime targets of hate and antisemitic incidents, which are surging everywhere.

Attacks against Jews come in many guises. From Australia to Britain, France to the US and Canada, some have been deadly, while others more nuanced – Jews erased from certain industries, challenged about their views, or forced to hide their identities to stay safe.

In this edition of The Jerusalem Report, we look at the resurgence of this age-old hatred and hear from top professionals combating it.

For the cover story, David Harris, executive vice chair of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), lays out how the organized Jewish world must view antisemitism as an extension of Israel’s war.

The Jerusalem Post’s editor-in-chief, Zvika Klein, asks why, after the billions spent on fighting antisemitism, this phenomenon is still growing. Kenneth Jacobson, deputy national director of the Anti-Defamation League, shares the latest data on the scourge.

Jeffrey Veidlinger, director of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute at the University of Michigan, argues it’s time for US colleges to better distinguish between protected political protest and antisemitic intimidation or criminal conduct by employing clear legal standards

On a global level, Ben Cohen, director of Rapid Response at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, looks at the pervasive blood libel being wielded against Jews in international institutions.

Israeli author and online activist Hen Mazzig, at the forefront of the digital fight to counter antisemitism, recounts his personal experiences, while Report staff writer Chani Kaplan tells about her first-hand experience monitoring online Jew-hatred.

Feature writer Lianne Kolirin sums up the relentless antisemitism in the United Kingdom and The Post’s correspondent Mathilda Heller delves into the lives of British Jewish college students who have been abandoned by their institutions.

Feature writer Batsheva Shulman talks to South African Jews about what they’ve gone through since October 7, and Neville Teller explores the roots and validity of “intersectionality.” 

Egyptian dissident Dalia Ziada, a research fellow at ISGAP, writes about the rampant – and unchallenged – Jew-blaming in the Arab world.

The Post’s Lara Sukster Mosheyof takes us back to an era of antisemitism through the eyes of Zevi Ghivelder – one of the few journalists still alive who covered Adolf Eichmann’s 1961 trial.

Looking at the ongoing war, Eric R. Mandel writes about the role Syria could play in emerging diplomacy, and Israel’s former deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, and Moran Alaluf, a Middle East analyst, examine the diplomatic miscalculations by America vis-à-vis Iran. Feature writer Dana Ben-Shimon explains recent developments in Jordan, which recently brought back the death penalty.

Wrapping up the edition are two articles from students who participated in the “Art of Journalism” workshop at Reichman University’s School of Communications: Ben Kauschansky explores the trend of Israelis moving to Germany 80 years after World War II, while Noa Jeifetz writes about integration challenges facing young olim.

It’s another packed edition, putting the urgent issues facing the Jewish world and the Middle East into perspective.

– Ruth Marks Eglash

This post was originally published on here. 

Hamas has signaled an unprecedented willingness to relinquish its military capabilities as part of a proposed agreement brokered by the Board of Peace, according to prominent Palestinian-American scholar and former mediator in the hostage deal talks, Dr. Bishara Bahbah, who says the group has already presented a detailed demilitarization proposal to the Trump administration.

In an interview, Bahbah described what he characterized as Hamas’s most far-reaching proposal to date, including commitments to surrender its weapons, halt all military activity, end weapons smuggling, and abandon Gaza’s extensive tunnel network in exchange for a long-term ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal.

“I think the Palestinian side, including Hamas, is very serious about the proposal they have put together,” Bahbah said.

According to Bahbah, Hamas submitted the proposal approximately three weeks ago, and he personally transferred it to officials at the White House.

The proposal envisions a 10-to15-year hudna, or ceasefire, under which Hamas would also give up all of its weapons, cease manufacturing weapons, end all weapons smuggling, refrain from demonstrating any military capabilities in Gaza, and abandon the use of tunnels across the Strip.

“The proposal talked about Hamas giving up its weapons. It would entail Hamas not developing any weapons, not smuggling any weapons, not demonstrating military capabilities in Gaza, and giving up the use of the tunnels,” Bahbah said.

Israel responds cautiously to Hamas proposal

Despite expressing optimism regarding Hamas’s intentions, Bahbah acknowledged that Israel has so far responded cautiously.

“My feeling is that the initial Israeli response has been negative,” he said. “They don’t think what Hamas is proposing is sufficient in terms of actually giving up its arms.”

According to Bahbah, Israeli officials remain unconvinced that Hamas is prepared to irreversibly dismantle its military infrastructure before an International Stabilization Force is deployed and Israeli forces begin withdrawing from Gaza.

Bahbah said Hamas has come under significant pressure from other Palestinian factions, particularly allies of former Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan, to permanently abandon armed struggle in order to allow reconstruction to begin.

“They have been under tremendous pressure from the various Palestinian factions, particularly from Mohammed Dahlan’s group, to really, once and for all, give up their weapons so Israel can begin withdrawing and reconstruction can begin,” he said.

According to Bahbah, Hamas increasingly recognizes that its military strategy has become unsustainable after nearly three years of war.

“I think Hamas has come to the realization that if it wants to continue to be a political entity, it can no longer have weapons,” he said.

“What kind of weapons do they still have that could be used against the Israelis? If they ever use those weapons again, Israel would immediately respond with devastating force.”

“The utility of their arms has come to an end.”

Security of Hamas leadership a high priority

Bahbah identified one issue that he believes remains central to any agreement but has received little public attention: security guarantees for Hamas members and leaders after disarmament.

“Hamas is concerned about the security of its elements and its leadership,” he said.

While the group has avoided saying so publicly, Bahbah argued that internal discussions suggest the issue is one of Hamas’s highest priorities.

“I believe that if the United States is able to guarantee that once Hamas gives up its weapons, there will be guarantees for the safety of Hamas members and its leadership, then that becomes a very important element of the agreement.”

Bahbah believes that if Israel accepts verified disarmament and proceeds with the deployment of an International Stabilization Force, the conflict could effectively come to an end.

“The way I understand it is that Israel is not willing to withdraw from Gaza until Hamas gives up its arms,” he said.

“If Israel respects the fact that Hamas is handing over its weapons, whether to an international force, NCAG, or the Egyptians, I believe that is the end of the war in Gaza. I sincerely hope that will be the case.”

This post was originally published on here. 

A US government map of Africa mislabeled every country during a State Department presentation at a global conference taking place in Brazil this week, causing a stir among attendees who took screenshots and posted them online.

Reuters viewed a video of the presentation given at the AIDS 2026 conference in Rio de Janeiro, which shows the errant map displayed halfway through a presentation about the State Department’s new health agreements.

A Reuters analysis found the image of the map included in the presentation contained an artificial intelligence watermark that signals it was made with OpenAI tools. The company said it was investigating the report.

The State Department said it took “full responsibility” for the confusion caused and that the map had been produced by a team member who hastily changed the slide deck before the event.

The map showed Nigeria, where the US currently has several hundred troops deployed, as landlocked in the Sahara Desert. Mozambique, which is in southeastern Africa, was relocated to the Horn of Africa, while Ivory Coast in West Africa was placed on the other side of the continent.

Screenshots of the map first appeared in a Substack post by AIDS expert Emily Bass and were widely shared on LinkedIn, with one post garnering some 40,000 views.

“Whoever created and approved this slide did not know where countries in Africa are and did not care to check their work,” wrote Matt Petit, who focuses on AI and geopolitics at the Atlantic Council, in the post.

 US says it is committed to fighting AIDS

In a statement, the State Department said: “We take full responsibility for the confusion and misrepresentation it caused for attendees, including our African partners.”

The speaker at the conference was Jeff Graham, the top US health envoy who oversees an initiative known as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. He did not reply to requests for comment.

The State Department said the discussions at the conference were “substantive and constructive” despite the map and that it remains committed to fighting AIDS with real results.

The Trump administration’s decision last year to pause funding pending a review disrupted aid programs worldwide, but PEPFAR’s core work, such as the provision of life-saving drugs, has largely resumed.

The US is scaling back other areas of its spending, including on prevention and surveillance, and plans to fully phase out the program in South Africa.

This post was originally published on here. 

‘The bomber will always get through,” said British statesman Stanley Baldwin in autumn 1932, when many thought the fighter plane obviated the need for large ground forces. Future wars refuted that thinking, but the quality of a country’s air force remains a vehicle of its military power and political sway. 

That is why Turkey’s quest to obtain the world’s best fighter jet, the American-made F-35, is a major international issue involving not only Ankara and Washington, but also Athens, Jerusalem, the Arab world, and every Western country. All these have a variety of reasons to view this deal as a threat, but one reason should trump the rest. 

The Turkish army is one of the world’s largest and finest, with more than 2,200 battle tanks, some 250 fighter jets, roughly 100 combat vessels, and nearly 1 million well-trained troops. A successor to the military that conquered the Ottoman Empire’s tri-continental realms, this army underpinned the modern republic that vowed to bury its Ottoman prehistory. 

Turkey was thus a natural cofounder of NATO. It bordered the Soviet Union, the successor to Turkey’s historic enemy, Russia, and it shared the West’s fear of communism’s advance. And that is where the first reason to resist the F-35 deal comes in. 

Yes, communism is gone, but Russia is alive and kicking. Occupying a swathe of Ukraine, Moscow treats the West as a rival and casts a shadow over its European heartland. That’s not how today’s Turkey sees things. 

Set aside its refusal to join Washington’s anti-Russian trade sanctions; in 2017, Ankara signed a $2.5 billion deal to buy Russia’s S-400 air-defense system. That’s not what you do if you want to be America’s ally. Owning these missiles while flying Uncle Sam’s best fighter jet can help the Russians improve their anti-aircraft weapons’ response to its American challenges.

What would the consequences of giving Turjey F-35s be?

Still, the F-35 deal’s American consequences dwarf its meaning for Turkey’s neighbors, first of all the Greeks.  

“Greece will not be pleased if the United States decides to sell the F-35 fighter jets to Turkey,” Defense Minister Nikos Dendias said this month in Athens. That’s an understatement. Turkey is Greece’s historic enemy, the one that in 1974 molested predominantly Greek Cyprus, and still occupies its north. 

There is constant military tension between Ankara and Athens, traditionally tempered by NATO, to which they both belong. But that was before Donald Trump. 

Having repeatedly called into question NATO’s right to life, Trump doubtfully understands what countries like Turkey and Greece mean to each other, or indeed for the US. As he sees things, what matters is that Turkish President Erdogan “is a close friend of mine” and that “Turkey is a very strong country.” 

One wonders what that “close” friendship actually is. Erdogan doesn’t play golf, drink, or womanize. How, then, did he become Trump’s buddy? Late-night sign-language conversations between a man who speaks only Turkish and another who speaks only English? Who knows?

What we do know is that a bolstered Turkish air force is a problem not only for Greece and Washington, but also for Turkey’s bigger neighbor, the Arab world. 

It is now 23 years since Turkey pivoted from Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s European orientation to Erdogan’s Middle Eastern alternative. It began with a much-heralded offer of a Turkish-Arab free-trade zone. It was a seemingly harmless idea, but its main addressees – the rich Gulf states and populous Egypt – smelled a neo-Ottoman imperialism and said, “No thanks.” 

Arab governments, then, also don’t want to see a reinforced Turkish military brandishing a fleet of F-35s. 

Israel’s problem is in the same vein, except its fear is not about the traumas from the Ottoman past. It’s about here and now, as Turkey openly hosts, aids, and justifies Israel’s most brazen enemy, Hamas, ignoring its open demand that Israel cease to exist, and its leaders’ vows to repeat the kind of massacre they carried out on October 7, 2023. 

Turkey’s encroaching threat to Israel

Having turned Syria into its proxy, Turkey now effectively borders Israel while wielding a vast army and spewing antisemitic vitriol day in and day out. Even so, the main reason to stem Ankara’s military growth is not its regional bullyism, but its religious zeal. 

Under its current leadership, the country that was once a paragon of secular governance has since strayed to religious reaction. 

On the anecdotal side, this counterrevolution meant, among other things, lifting Ataturk’s ban on wearing headscarves in public institutions, and fighting alcohol consumption by imposing heavy sales taxes on its consumers. 

On the substantive side, this transition meant funding a network of more than 4,000 Islamist junior high schools, while more than one-tenth of Turkish teenagers were tracked to Islamist high schools that received more than twice the budgets of regular schools. This is how the Islamist supremacism that threatens Western civilization and international harmony is incubated.

“The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets / The minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers,” wrote Erdogan before he rose to power. Such was the Islamist zeal of the man who would later call the Jewish state “bloodsucking,” while multiplying Turkey’s jailed population from 50,000 in 2002 to more than 400,000 today, most of them political prisoners, including opposition leader Ekrem Imamoglu.

No one needs such a tyrannical Turkey: not the Arabs, not the Jews, not the Europeans, not the Americans and not the rest of mankind, not to mention the Turks themselves, even without the world’s best fighter jets, let alone with them. 

www.MiddleIsrael.net

The writer, a Hartman Institute fellow, is the author of the bestseller, The Jewish March of Folly (Yedioth Books 2026), now available in English on Amazon.

This post was originally published on here. 

When NATO leaders gathered in Ankara on July 7 and 8, 2026, for the alliance’s annual summit, it was clear that this was more than another diplomatic event. It was a strategic declaration.

Turkey – long regarded as a complicated and at times problematic member of the Atlantic alliance – hosted a NATO summit for only the second time in its history, following the Istanbul summit in 2004.

The message was clear. Ankara is no longer sitting on the alliance’s sidelines. It has become a pivotal state whose decisions influence the region stretching from Eastern Europe to the Middle East.

The Turkish paradox remains. Turkey maintains complex relations with its allies, has purchased Russian weapons systems and frequently generates tensions with Washington. At the same time, it holds some of NATO’s most important strategic assets.

As the US signals its desire for Europe to assume a greater share of the security burden, Turkey is positioning itself as a partner that is difficult to replace.

It leads the naval task force responsible for mine clearance in the Black Sea, plays a central role in defending the alliance’s southern flank and maintains NATO’s second largest land army.

At the same time, it stresses that threats emerging from its southern border, including terrorism, regional instability and the consequences of wars in the Middle East, demand the same attention as the challenges facing Eastern Europe.

This message, once pushed to the margins of NATO discussions, took center stage at the Ankara summit and demonstrated the growing importance of the alliance’s southern flank.

Energy as a geopolitical lever

Turkey’s strength is rooted not only in its military power, but also in its geographic position. Continued disruptions to shipping routes and energy supplies in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz have once again demonstrated how urgently Europe needs alternative energy routes.

In this environment, Turkey is becoming a central hub for gas and oil pipelines and transit infrastructure connecting Asia, the Caucasus and Europe.

Ankara’s standing, therefore, is based not only on military strength, but also on its ability to influence Europe’s energy security. This strategic advantage is becoming increasingly significant as instability in the Middle East continues.

Alongside developments in the Middle East, the Ankara summit also addressed the future of the alliance itself. Key decisions included strengthening security cooperation among member states, expanding defense production, increasing investment in military infrastructure, and continuing to adapt NATO to future threats.

Some analysts describe this process as a transition toward “NATO 3.0,” an alliance that depends more heavily on European responsibility and advanced industrial cooperation.

Turkey enjoys a clear advantage within this process. Its defense industry is expanding rapidly, its weapons exports are rising, and it is becoming an increasingly important partner in the alliance’s joint defense projects.

The combination of proven military capabilities, an irreplaceable geographic position, and growing importance in the energy sector has made Turkey one of NATO’s most influential members.

The question facing decision makers in Europe and Washington is no longer whether Ankara will continue to gain influence, but how cooperation with Turkey can be preserved without undermining the alliance’s unity and values.

Above all, the Ankara summit marked a change in perception. Turkey has moved from being a difficult partner whose periodic crises must be managed to a strategic player that cannot be ignored.

The author is CEO of Radios 100FM, an honorary consul, vice dean of the Consular Diplomatic Corps and president of the Israel Radio Communications Association. He previously served as a monitor for Army Radio and as a television correspondent for NBC.

This post was originally published on here. 

A Yashar party election billboard in Cyprus featuring former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot was vandalized on Friday after unidentified individuals sprayed it with the colors of the Palestinian flag and covered Eisenkot’s face with blood red paint, the Cyprus Mail reported.

The billboard was placed near Larnaca Airport as part of the party’s campaign ahead of Israel’s Knesset election. The incident came days after the signs sparked public controversy in Cyprus and prompted local politicians to call for foreign countries to be barred from conducting political campaigns in the country.

The vandalized billboard was one of two signs placed near the airport as part of Eisenkot’s campaign. One faces Israelis arriving in Cyprus and reads, “Israelis, enjoy yourselves! You deserve it,” while the other, located on the road leading back to the airport, tells them, “Come back and win.”

The billboards had already sparked controversy in Cyprus earlier in the week, according to the newspaper. Independent member of the European Parliament Fidias Panayiotou strongly criticized the presence of a foreign country’s election campaign in Cyprus and called for legislation that would prohibit political advertising by countries that are not members of the European Union.

The signs also prompted debate on social media and within the Cypriot political establishment over the impact of the growing Israeli presence on the island.

Cypriot politician and European Parliament member Fidias Panayiotou condemns foreign election advertising

Cypriot politician and European Parliament member Fidias Panayiotou expressed concern about the billboards in a post on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday.

“This photo was not taken in Israel, but in my country, Cyprus. This time it is political propaganda, but it is also becoming increasingly common to see billboards advertising real estate in Hebrew across the island.”

“This is simply not right. We must defend Cyprus’s sovereignty,” Panayiotou concluded.

This photo was not taken in Israel, but in my country, Cyprus.

This time is political propaganda, but it is also becoming increasingly common to see billboards advertising real estate in Hebrew across the island.

This is simply not right. We must defend Cyprus’s sovereignty. pic.twitter.com/wGTBjC1Qaw

— Fidias Panayiotou (@Fidias0) July 26, 2026

Cypriot law currently does not prohibit a foreign political party from purchasing advertising space in the country. However, according to the report, this is the first known case in Cyprus in which a foreign political party has conducted an election campaign using billboards in the country.

The unprecedented nature of the campaign made the issue particularly sensitive, and the vandalism now appears to represent a protest against the signs.

Eisenkot’s campaign is expected to expand into other countries throughout the summer

Eisenkot’s office informed The Jerusalem Post that the campaign is expected to expand into other countries throughout the summer. They emphasized that the initiative aims to convey a positive message to Israelis about achieving victory in the elections.

Israel’s elections are slated for October 27.

Shoshana Baker and Keshet Neev contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

The IDF will not withdraw from the current Yellow Line in the Gaza Strip without the full disarmament of Hamas, a diplomatic source reiterated to The Jerusalem Post on Friday. 

This follows the announcement of a Board of Peace framework for the implementation of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan, which several sources familiar with the details told the Post includes all Hamas weaponry being placed in storage and dismantled. 

The storage facilities will be controlled by NCAG police officers, each of whom will undergo Shin Bet security vetting, while the multinational force will provide oversight. 

Gaza residents may still obtain a license for a handgun under Palestinian law. 

Once the process begins, Israel will halt its fire, the sources told the Post. There is currently a two-week ceasefire to finalize the details of the process. However, if Hamas does not begin the process, this will be considered a violation of the ceasefire and will bring it to an end.

Israel’s withdrawal from the Yellow Line will take place only once the process is complete and full demilitarization has been achieved, the sources said. 

Hamas demands full withdrawal, Palestinian statehood

In a public statement on Friday, Hamas said it would not be disarming without the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the “disbanding of the armed gangs and militias formed by the occupation.”

Additionally, Hamas specified that there must be a guarantee of the Palestinians’ right to establish an independent state in the Gaza Strip. 

This post was originally published on here. 

The Board of Peace on Friday released the full text of a roadmap for completing the implementation of US President Donald Trump’s comprehensive peace plan in Gaza. 

The full text of the roadmap is included below in its original form. 

Principles:

1. All parties reaffirm their commitment to President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to achieve peace in Gaza, which constitutes, together with the UN Security Council Resolution no. 2803 (2025), the agreed-upon international framework guiding the implementation of this process. Through this process, the parties aim at ending the cycle of destruction, securing the complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza Strip, restoring normal life, enabling Palestinian governance, reconstruction, security, recovery and economic development, rehabilitating damaged sectors and facilitate launching a credible political path that achieves self-determination and Statehood.

2. Israel shall fully complete, without delay, all remaining commitments under Sharm Sheikh Protocol, particularly the cessation of military operations as detailed in annex (1). Hamas and the Palestinian factions shall complete the cessation of all military operations in accordance with Sharm Sheikh Protocol and the Peace Plan. In parallel, the timetable and implementation mechanisms of this Roadmap (“Implementation of Phase 2”) shall be prepared within 14 days after all parties approve the Roadmap, which could be extended by a decision by the International Verification Committee (IVC). Upon the completion of the timetable and implementation mechanisms, the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) shall enter the Strip and start to assume its responsibilities. The IVC, that shall be established by the Board of Peace (BoP), comprising representatives from the guarantors, BoP and the International Stabilization Force (ISF), shall certify that both parties fulfill their commitments under the Roadmap before proceeding to the implementation of Phase 2.

3. Progression from one phase to the following one shall be contingent on the verified completion of the commitments of the previous phase. This verification shall be done by the IVC, which shall also observe any violations by either party through an enhanced monitoring mechanism.

4. Hamas and other factions agree that all civilian governance and security functions in Gaza shall be handed over to NCAG in accordance with President Trump’s Comprehensive Peace Plan in Gaza. They also assert that NCAG shall enjoy full independence in carrying out its responsibilities and that the factions shall not interfere in NCAG affairs during the transitional period, in accordance with UNSC Resolution 2803 (2025).

5. Upon fully assuming its responsibilities in Gaza, NCAG shall maintain the continuity of civilian institutions and public services.

All civil servants shall be treated lawfully, fairly, and with dignity with respect to their rights. Those whose services are terminated or who are retired during the transitional period shall receive their rights in accordance with the Palestinian law.

With international support, NCAG shall carry out a comprehensive audit of the financial and administrative affairs in Gaza, and protect, recover and administer public assets and resources.

NCAG shall seek to assess the legitimate commitments to suppliers, contractors and other parties – up to a total amount of no more than $400M USD – and address them.

The implementation of these measures will be undertaken gradually, within three years, in accordance with priorities determined by the NCAG.

Any unresolved financial rights, liabilities or claims shall be addressed within the context of a wider national process later, and in accordance with the relevant Palestinian law.

Security: 

6. Gaza shall be governed according to the principle of One Authority, One Law, One Weapon. NCAG shall operate in accordance with Palestinian laws, relevant international standards and the principles of good governance.

7. Newly-trained police personnel shall be incorporated into existing police structures. All police personnel shall undergo a comprehensive vetting. Those who do not meet the required standards of vetting shall be offered alternative civilian roles consistent with their earlier experience or retire in accordance with the Palestinian law. None of those shall be deprived of their financial rights, particularly due to political affiliation. All police weapons shall be transferred to the responsibility and authority of NCAG upon its entry into Gaza and the assumption of its missions.

8. A process to decommission and store heavy weapons, military production sites, depots of weapons, and tunnels, shall begin after completing the remaining commitments under Sharm Sheikh Protocol, the entry of NCAG and deployment of ISF.

This process shall be administered and implemented by NCAG in a gradual, sequential and time-bound manner according to an implementation timetable that shall be completed within 14 days after all parties approve the Roadmap, which could be extended by a decision by IVC.

This process shall be linked to an Israeli withdrawal, in phases, from the areas under its control in Gaza and the decommissioning of armed militias in accordance with article 10 of this Roadmap.

This process shall be monitored and verified by IVC and supported by ISF.

The Palestinian factions shall take part in this process, and no weapons shall be transferred or handed to Israel or non-Palestinian parties.

At the end of the process mentioned in articles 7 – 10 of this Roadmap, only NCAG shall hold, store or control weapons in Gaza.

The implementation of this Roadmap, including the issue of weapons and other articles of the comprehensive peace plan, shall create appropriate conditions for a credible pathway towards achieving Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

9. Personal weapons in Gaza shall be subject to the regulations of relevant Palestinian laws. As the transitional authority in the Strip, NCAG shall be the sole authority to register weapons, issue and revoke licenses, and enforce the law, including through reintegration and social support. All factions, clans and components of the Palestinian society in Gaza shall cooperate with NCAG in this process.

10. Weapons of the militias shall be decommissioned and stored under NCAG authority according to an agreed upon timetable. Members of those militias shall not be integrated in the security and police services. IVC shall be responsible for certifying the implementation of this issue.

11. A Social Peace Agreement shall be signed in accordance with Palestinian norms and laws. It shall include commitments to immediately end internal violence, avoid reprisals, shows of force, military parades and armed demonstrations.

International Stabilization Force (ISF) and withdrawal of Israeli forces:

12. The temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) shall be deployed in Gaza Strip to separate the Israeli forces from NCAG-controlled areas. ISF shall not perform any police mission or missions related to the Palestinian society. Furthermore, it shall monitor compliance by all parties with the ceasefire, train the Palestinian police, secure the protection and delivery of humanitarian assistance and essential supplies into Gaza Strip, and support the NCAG, at its request, in any other non-policing mission.

13. Israeli forces shall complete their phased withdrawal from Gaza Strip according to an agreed upon timetable, consistent with article “8” of the Roadmap and in accordance with President Trump’s Comprehensive Peace Plan, which includes a commitment not to force anyone to leave the Strip.

14. NCAG shall be responsible for handling internal security incidents.

Reconstruction

15. Implementation of the reconstruction of Gaza Strip and the provision of necessary resources and financing shall take place according to a plan and timetable prepared and supervised by BoP and NCAG in accordance with relevant laws and international standards.

This post was originally published on here. 

Wooly mammoths were a favorite hunting target for Ice Age people in Eurasia and North America for many reasons. A single animal would provide a large amount of meat and fat. Its hide could be used for clothing. Its bones and tusks could be shaped into tools, weapons and art. And the largest bones could be used as building material for shelters or other structures.

New research shows that these prehistoric people were highly selective in the mammoths they hunted.

Using genetic data from bones accumulated by people at 11 sites in Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany and Russia, scientists have discovered that they mainly killed female mammoths.

Some 70% of the mammoths whose bones were studied from these accumulation sites were females, with 30% males. In comparison, 66% of mammoth bones recovered from natural settings were from males, and 34% females.

The researchers used ancient DNA from 521 mammoths spanning approximately the past 50,000 years across Eurasia and North America, including 100 mammoths from 10 bone accumulation sites in Central and Eastern Europe as well as one in Siberia, alongside 421 mammoths from natural settings.

What accounts for this sex disparity?

“That’s a great question, and one we’re still actively investigating,” said Hannah Moots, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Palaeogenetics, a collaboration between Stockholm University and the Swedish Museum of Natural History, and lead author of the study published in the journal Current Biology.

“One possibility is that if wooly mammoths lived in female-led herds like modern elephants, those groups may have moved across the landscape in more predictable, seasonal ways. Today, female elephant herds have relatively stable home ranges and movement patterns, whereas adult males are more solitary and often roam much more widely. That predictability may have made female-led herds easier for Ice Age people to locate repeatedly,” Moots said.

The herds were most likely matriarchal, comprising adult females, plus juveniles of both sexes.

“One could also speculate that it would have been easier to pin down a herd with juveniles, where the females would have been reluctant to run away,” Centre for Palaeogenetics evolutionary geneticist and study co-senior author Love Dalén said.

Dalén noted that female mammoths generally were smaller than males and perhaps somewhat easier to kill. An adult male weighed up to about 6 tons and stood up to about 11 feet (3.4 meters) tall at the shoulder, compared to about 4 tons and about 9.5 feet (2.9 meters) for an adult female.

The people who inhabited the mammoth regions were nomadic hunter-gatherers who collected edible plants and hunted various Ice Age mammals, also including wooly rhinoceroses, caribou, bison, deer and others. Some of the mammoth bones from the accumulation sites had projectile points embedded in them.

Hunting tactics

The landscape itself may have been used against the mammoths, with hunters driving them into traps or natural hazards such as cliffs or swampland.

“I think ancient humans likely hunted mammoths by using terrain to their advantage. For example, I could imagine them using landscape features such as mud or bogs to help immobilize the animals before attacking them using spears, darts or arrows,” Centre for Palaeogenetics evolutionary geneticist and study co-senior author David Díez-del-Molino said.

The largest mammoth-hunting site in the study was called Kraków Spadzista in southern Poland, dating to about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. It contains the remains of more than 100 mammoths, stone tools and evidence of mammoth butchery.

Mammoths vanished in mainland North America and Eurasia some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago at the end of the Ice Age, when the climate warmed rapidly and the open grasslands where mammoths had found food were replaced by forests and wet tundra. The role of humans in their extinction is a matter of debate.

The very last mammoths inhabited Wrangel Island, a lonely outpost off the coast of Siberia, before finally disappearing around 4,000 years ago. Other research showed that despite its small size and high inbreeding levels, this population was stable until right before its extinction.

In the new study, the researchers identified one Wrangel Island mammoth with a genetic condition called “X0/XX mosaicism,” possessing a sex chromosome combination that made it neither biologically female nor biologically male. In humans, this is called Turner syndrome.

“It’s unclear whether this X0/XX mosaicism is related in any way to the small size of the Wrangel Island population, or whether it is simply a developmental event that could have occurred in any mammoth population,” Moots said.

This post was originally published on here. 

The first test flight of a new AI-powered, anti-fire VTOL & APUS 25 drone was launched on Wednesday, amid growing extreme heat and fire concerns.

The drone was launched by a joint project of five organizations: the National Security Ministry, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), the Technion, Israel Innovation Authority, and the Fire and Rescue Authority.

With a series of trials to follow, the test flight was designed to evaluate the system’s capabilities in various operational scenarios and changing field conditions. 

The project will enable the real-time detection and pinpointing of fire outbreaks, both at day and at night, using advanced algorithms and artificial intelligence, while transmitting alerts to the Fire and Rescue Authority’s command center.

This comes as Israel Meteorological Service forecast a record high heatwave and strong, dry winds for this weekend, peaking at 47°C in the Galilee region and posing a high risk for wildfires. 

The recent increase in extreme weather and global warming has led to a significant rise in the scale and intensity of forest fires. Rapidly spreading fires endanger human life, communities, infrastructure, and open areas, presenting a growing challenge for emergency response agencies who strive to detect fire outbreaks early on. 

According to the IAI, the core challenge lies in sustaining an up-to-date operational picture in real time and reacting swiftly as a fire spreads, especially across vast, remote, or hard-to-access terrain. 

Agencies collaborate on real-time fire identification, location

In response to the crisis, the National Security Ministry, the Israel Innovation Authority, IAI, Technion, and the Fire and Rescue Authority collaborated on devising a solution for identifying and locating fires in real time, within minutes of its ignition. 

As part of the project, a dedicated system was developed and installed on IAI’s APUS 25 platform, an advanced tactical drone with vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capability. 

The VTOL capability enables operation from any terrain without the need for a dedicated runway, supports high-altitude flight, and maintains exceptionally long endurance.

The scanning technology features day and night vision imaging with infrared capabilities that detect fire sources, even in darkness, and is also able to penetrate thick smoke.

The system leverages spectral algorithms for image analysis, AI for real-time data analysis, anomaly detection, locating of fire source, and extraction of the fire’s precise location, even from high altitudes. Alongside advanced scanning, the drone transmits immediate alerts to the Fire and Rescue Authority’s command center.  

Even with the drone’s advanced technology capabilities, the drone’s weight or mission requirement does not compromise its endurance or range. 

Integrating the VTOL technology with a APUS 25 platform, the system contains an internal combustion engine with no electric motors or batteries, preserving its flight endurance. Prior to launch, the drone will be operated by a firefighter, who will define the scanning area by marking a polygon on the map. 

After takeoff, the drone operates autonomously, positions itself at the optimal scanning point and then conducts a continuous scan of the area for four to five hours. The scan generates a real-time operational picture for emergency forces on the ground, facilitating decision-making, incident management, and efficient and precise employment of forces. 

Drones, AI, data processing key tools for future fire detection

“This project represents a further step in advancing sophisticated technological capabilities for security and emergency response agencies,” said Yaron Shein, Head of Technological R&D, Office of the Chief Scientist at the National Security Ministry. 

“Combining drones, artificial intelligence, and advanced data-processing capabilities may in the future enable earlier fire detection, an improved operational picture, and shorter response times in the field.

“The collaboration between all the bodies involved reflects the importance we place on connecting operational need with Israeli innovation, in order to develop solutions that will help protect human life, property, and the natural resources of the State of Israel,” Shein added. 

“We are working to advance innovative technologies that will enable early detection, advanced control, and rapid response to large-scale fire incidents. This historic collaboration with the Israel Innovation Authority, IAI, and the Technion aims to drive the development of advanced operational capabilities and will significantly improve our operational control and monitoring capabilities; it will also help to contain the spread of fires already in their earliest stages,” said Maj.-Gen. Eyal Caspi, commissioner of the Fire and Rescue Authority. 

“This is a first strategic step in building an innovative, smart, and advanced firefighting system that will, in the future, strengthen the protection of human life, communities, and the natural resources of the State of Israel,” he said. 

This post was originally published on here. 

Ultra-Orthodox (haredi) demonstrators in Jerusalem harassed IDF soldiers and Border Police officers in two separate instances on Thursday night, according to footage shared on social media. 

In the first incident, footage shows a group of Border Police officers walking through Jerusalem were chased by a haredi mob, made up of both adults and children. 

According to the footage, boxes were thrown at the officers as demonstrators called them “Nazis,” while shouting for them to get out of the area. 

“נאצים החוצה”: עשרות חרדים קיצוניים תקפו לוחמי מג”ב בירושלים – והשליכו לעברם חפצים@eli_hirschmann

צילום: Doovidel pic.twitter.com/MO54bW7CEB

— החדשות – N12 (@N12News) July 30, 2026

Footage of the second incident, also shared across social media, appears to show three soldiers also being chased after by a haredi mob, who are shouting and throwing objects at them. 

Israeli media reported that the three soldiers serve in the IDF’s haredi Netzah Yehuda Battalion. 

שלושה חיילים חרדים המשרתים בגדוד “נצח יהודה” נקלעו לאזור שבו התקיימה קבלת הפנים ל”פורעי סולברג”, והותקפו על ידי ההמון במקום.

המפגינים השליכו לעבר החיילים בקבוקים ורדפו אחריהם, השלושה הצליחו להימלט מהמקום ללא פגע. pic.twitter.com/IThA3urExZ

— יעקב הרשקוביץ | Yaakov hershkowitz (@yaakov_hershko) July 30, 2026

Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman condemned the incident in a post to X/Twitter on Thursday night. 

“Don’t be surprised if you don’t hear a single condemnation from the October Massacre government,” he wrote. “They’re in the pocket of those same draft dodgers who attack soldiers in the streets of Jerusalem and call them ‘Nazis.'”

Protest over arrest of 63 draft dodgers

According to Ynet, the two incidents come on the tail end of a haredi car procession and march from Beit Shemesh to Kikar Hashabbat in Jerusalem, protesting the detention of 63 draft dodgers. 

The 63 were reportedly arrested over their suspected involvement in the violent protest outside of the home of Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg in early June. 

Protesters in the demonstration held signs reading “We will never serve in the enemy’s army,” Ynet reported on Thursday evening.

This post was originally published on here. 

Israeli security forces killed Ahmed Hussein Mohammed Kafina, a commander in the Mujahideen Brigades who kidnapped two Israeli hostages on October 7, in a targeted air strike on Tuesday, the military confirmed on Friday.

The Mujahideen Brigades is a Gaza-based Islamist terror group, distinct from Hamas and from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. 

Kafina was among those who invaded Israel during the October 7 Massacre, leading a group of terrorists under his command.

He participated in the kidnapping of Avinatan Or and Noa Argamani, and directed others in the kidnapping of Sudthisak Rinthalak, according to the IDF. 

Kafina continued his work throughout the war and more recently, advancing terror plans to harm IDF troops and Israeli civilians, the military added. 

Several Palestinians wounded in Israeli airstrike hours after disarmament deal announced, Gazans say

The strike which killed Kafina occured days before US President Donald Trump announced a deal on Hamas disarmament. However, Gazan sources told Reuters that another strike occured after the announcement on Friday, wounding several Palestinians. The IDF has not confirmed this claim. 

Reuters contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

One of the great tragedies in the history of the Jewish people is the sin of the Golden Calf. After the revelation at Mount Sinai, Moses ascended the mountain to receive the Tablets of the Covenant, upon which the Ten Commandments and the foundations of the Torah were written. 

However, after 40 days, the Israelites were led astray by a deceptive vision presented to them by Satan. They believed that Moses would not return and sought a tangible form of leadership. To this end, they fashioned a golden calf and proclaimed it their god.

When Moses descended from the mountain and saw the people dancing around the calf, he understood how deeply they had been drawn toward idolatry. He threw the Tablets from his hands and shattered them.

After an extended period of prayer and supplication, the Jewish people were given another opportunity. On Rosh Hodesh Elul, Moses once again ascended Mount Sinai, and after 40 days – on Yom Kippur – the sin was forgiven, and he descended with the second set of Tablets.

Regarding Moses’ decision to shatter the Tablets, the Torah states in our parasha:

“And I will write on the Tablets the words that were on the first Tablets, which you shattered, and you shall place them in the Ark.” (Deuteronomy 10:2)

Regarding the words “which you shattered,” our Sages taught:

“The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘Which you shattered’ – your strength for having shattered them. This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, approved of his decision to shatter the Tablets.” (Talmud, Shabbat 87a)

God approved of Moses’s decision to shatter the Tablets

Moses had not been instructed to shatter the Tablets. These were heavenly Tablets that he had brought down from the mountain, and he could have chosen not to give them to the people, or even not to descend with them at all, as God had suggested to him. Nevertheless, he chose to shatter them, and God approved of his action.

Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk explains (Meshech Chochma, Exodus 32:19) that the sin of the Golden Calf stemmed from the desire to replace Moses with a tangible, physical leader. By shattering the Tablets, Moses taught a fundamental principle: There is no inherent holiness in a physical object, even if it is a set of Tablets written by the finger of God. If the people who use the object are unworthy and do not follow the path of God, the object’s existence itself has no significance. For this, God praised him.

God’s approval is also reflected in the wording of the verse: “which you shattered, and you shall place them in the Ark.” Regarding this, our Sages taught:

“Rab Yosef taught: This teaches that both the Tablets and the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark. From here we learn that a Torah scholar who has forgotten his learning due to circumstances beyond his control must not be treated disrespectfully.” (Talmud, Menachot 99a)

The Ramban (Shabbat 87a) explains that the very fact that the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark alongside the second Tablets demonstrates that God approved of Moses’ actions. Had the breaking of the Tablets been a sin, there would have been no reason to place their fragments in the Ark of the Covenant, for the principle is that “the accuser cannot become the defender.” The fact that they were preserved there demonstrates that their breaking was acceptable in God’s eyes.

Yet a question still arises. The first Tablets were shattered and can no longer be used. Moreover, our Sages teach that had they not been broken, the Torah would have been engraved upon the Jewish people in such a way that it would never have been forgotten.

If so, their shattering also represents a great loss. Why, then, were the fragments preserved in the Holy Ark? What is the significance of fragments that can no longer fulfill their original purpose?

The answer emerges from the words of Yosef, who forgot his learning, while his students reminded him of what he had once studied. In the modern world, we often evaluate a person primarily according to their present abilities and practical contributions.

However, our Sages teach that a person’s spiritual past and the effort they invested do not disappear, even when circumstances no longer allow them to express those qualities as they once did.

Here we are taught a profound distinction. In the physical world, something that is broken or lost ceases to fulfill its purpose. In the spiritual world, however, true achievements do not disappear. Even when they can no longer be realized in practice, their inner value continues to exist.

So too with the first Tablets. Although they were shattered, they brought about a spiritual reality that was not erased. In the future, when the world reaches its ultimate perfection, the virtues they brought with them will be revealed anew.

Broken fragments placed in Ark of the Covenant to symbolize powerful message

That is why the fragments of the Tablets were placed alongside the second Tablets – to teach us that even something that appears broken and lost continues to carry meaning and influence.

This is also the message regarding an elderly person who has forgotten their Torah learning. The respect we show such a person does not stem only from what they are capable of doing today, but from who they are, from the journey they have traveled, and from the spiritual world they built throughout their life.

This idea also explains the teaching of our Sages (Jerusalem Talmud, Shekalim 15b) that two Arks accompanied the Jewish people in the wilderness: one contained the Tablets of the Covenant, while the other contained the fragments of the Tablets.

It was specifically the Ark containing the fragments that went out with the people to war, teaching that the struggle is also a struggle for the spirit – and for the desire to restore the world to its original state, a world of wholeness without corruption.

Perhaps the message is that in times of trial, it is not enough to remember our successes. The fragments, failures, and crises are also part of our identity. They remind us of our ability to rise again, to repair, and to continue moving forward.

We often wish to leave our crises behind, to conceal them, or to erase them from our memory. The fragments of the Tablets placed in the Ark teach us that the past – even when it is painful and broken – is not something of which to be ashamed. It is an inseparable part of the journey. 

Those who know how to carry their fragments with them, learn from them, and continue moving forward often discover that these very fragments become a source of resilience, meaning, and success.

The writer is rabbi of the Western Wall and Holy Sites.

This post was originally published on here. 

In a post-October 7 reality, the needs of the younger generation – many of whom were on the ground, impacted by the devastation of the massacre, and served in the ensuing war – have become a central issue in the upcoming elections.

Yonatan Shalev, 23, has aimed to bring those concerns of the younger generation to the Knesset. Expected to be placed high on former prime minister Naftali Bennett’s Together Party list after joining, he would become Israel’s youngest-ever lawmaker if he enters parliament.

Shalev laid out his vision for joining the Knesset in a recent interview with The Jerusalem Post, stating that he aims to be the voice for the younger generation and help shape the country’s future in the aftermath of October 7.

Together is a core party in the opposition bloc seeking to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming elections, set for October 27.

“The younger generation isn’t looking to finger-point. It is looking for solutions. It is looking to live in the most promising country there is in the Middle East,” Shalev told the Post.

Before entering the political realm, he co-founded Shoulder to Shoulder, an organization that represents young Israelis and reservists serving in the IDF.

Who is Yonatan Shalev, reservist activist? 

Shalev said that the loss of his close friend in the military during the war had pushed him to found the organization. “When he was murdered, I understood that I wanted to do something big.”

“I understood that it’s the time for the younger generation to shine. I really believe in the younger generation and also in young people’s innovations,” he said.

The organization advocates for universal conscription and legislation to enforce haredi (ultra-Orthodox) enlistment. Shalev has been a vocal critic of the legislation advanced by Netanyahu’s coalition, which critics argue encourages draft evasion amid the IDF’s severe staffing shortage.

Why Yonatan Shalev believes in young people’s ability to change Israel

Shalev explained that he believed putting young people in politics would lead to more solutions in the country.

“Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of young Israeli Jews who are not represented in the Knesset, which is crazy,” he said, noting that the current youngest member of Knesset was nearly 40.

“The generation that jumped, saved Israel, fought for [the country] over two and a half years – this is one that truly understands our needs.”

Shalev explained that someone young needed to be inside the political arena and enter the Knesset “to make the right decisions in order for us to live in a promising country.”

“Young people carry the world. They have invented some of the most important innovations in modern history, so why can’t the younger generation in Israel, who had to fight in order to not only keep Israel safe but to save Israel, do so?”

Speaking on why he chose to join Bennett’s list, Shalev first said that the younger generation has been looking for solutions, and that he believed Bennett best represented the country’s youth.

“Bennett is the youngest candidate of them all. And he was an amazing prime minister.”

Shalev described the government led by Bennett as able to place the entire country in a different reality, one that is less divided. 

“[The country] wasn’t in flames all the time, and it wasn’t as polarized,” he noted.

Bennett had served as prime minister in 2021 after forming a rotation government with Yair Lapid. His Together Party merged with Lapid’s Yesh Atid to run in the October 27 elections in an alliance that places Bennett in a leading position on the list.

Shalev expressed his belief in Bennett’s ability to lead and bring together both the right-wing and the left-wing population, along with the secular and the religious, so that they can “live together in this country, which is a very difficult mission.”

“He’s also a bridge between the older and younger generations. He’s in his 50s. He was the second youngest prime minister of all time.”

Shalev said Bennett’s experience working with Israelis from different communities had further strengthened his ability to bridge political and social divides.

“Bennett brought up this new covenant with a lot of new bills and reforms that he wants to bring in the next upcoming coalition.”

Shalev added that Bennett had the ability to adapt to the times and shifting environments.

“That’s what he does best. He adapts, and he’s doing it as well right now with him and Lapid working together and bringing something that I think most Israelis were looking for – this alliance,” Shalev said.

Why Shalev thinks the Bennett-Lapid party can fix Israel’s problems

Bennett’s and  Lapid’s Together alliance had been polling in the past months as the largest party in the opposition bloc. In recent weeks, however, it was overtaken by the Yashar Party, led by Gadi Eisenkot. Together has, meanwhile, seen a decline in recent polls.

Shalev expressed his belief that the alliance between Bennett and Lapid was still necessary and beneficial to the party.

“Lapid brings with him the best parliament members in the Knesset by far,” he said.

“I mean, the opposition in Israel during the war dealt with a lot of situations because no one stayed in the opposition. Most of the politicians left politics.”

“Lapid is the only one who stayed in the political arena. He’s the only one who had to deal with true opposition against Netanyahu. And Lapid is a man of his word. He’s also a man who always puts Israel in front of his ego.”

Further, Shalev said the party was not worried about the decline in the polls and expressed confidence in its campaign plan.

“The campaign is amazing. I mean, it’s all about who’s the person best suited to fix [the problems].”

“I still think the same things I thought at the beginning – that Naftali is the best person to fix Israel, the polarization, the higher prices of living, everything going on with the service dodging, and the issues surrounding the monthly stipends that the ultra-Orthodox receive.”

Additionally, Shalev noted that there was still “a long way” to the elections, and that a lot could shift in the polls until then.

He said that Eisenkot would “be a partner in any situation,” and that the Yashar leader offered “a lot of things that Israelis are looking for.”

Shalev said he could have chosen either Bennett’s or Eisenkot’s list, but he believed deeply in the plans Bennett had set for the country.

“I believe in his skill set. I believe in the person he is. I believe in the leader he is.”

Shalev said Bennett had spent the past couple of years developing a comprehensive plan for the next government, with measures ready to be enacted immediately upon taking office as well as broader reforms intended for the longer term.

“He’s really planning things out. There was nothing like that in the history of Israel: A prime minister, who finished his term, left the political arena, decided to come back, and for the next two years, sat down with the most important research facilities, and wrote down true reforms and how to fix Israel.”

Shalev said that every party member would have a specific role in advancing the plans.

He broke down the different aspects of the work that he would be doing as a member of Knesset in Bennett’s party, stating that his central focus would be to ensure that there was legislation enacted to enforce haredi conscription.

“We’re going to pass a new law, which is called the service law, and we’re going to tilt the pyramid.”

“We’re going to put the ones who serve first. Right now, dodging service costs Israel each year 60 billion shekels.”

Shalev explained that the state would invest in those who serve, granting them state benefits for numerous areas of life.

“We’re going to help the ones who didn’t buy their first apartment to purchase their first apartment.”

“We’re going to make reservists equal again to anyone in society. We’re going to make them have the best and most. We’re going to we’re going to help them succeed.”

Shalev added that the second core aspect of the plan would be to cut state funding entirely to those who evade service.

He said that the plan also included working closely with the military and the ultra-Orthodox community to ensure haredi integration into units.

What is the Together party’s platform?

Other plans laid out by Shalev to be done through the Together Party included conducting a state commission of inquiry into government failures on October 7. He said that this would be done immediately on Bennett’s first day in office.

Larger policies that Shalev explained would be pursued included opening the possibility of civil marriage in the country.

“Anyone in Israel should be allowed to marry one another … we’re going to see how we do it and [make sure] we do it correctly.”

Shalev said that Bennett would, under no circumstances, allow for a Palestinian state: “We’re not going to pass Israeli territory to anyone.”

Regarding the West Bank, Shalev said that the government was currently creating tensions in the area and that the spike in Jewish settler violence was problematic.

“We’re going to deter terrorism. We’re going to have settlements [according to the military’s needs],” he said. “We’re going to lower the flames over there, because right now, there is violence going on, which Jews also lead.”

Shalev said he believed a government led by Bennett would also encourage Diaspora Jews to make aliyah.

“This country is going to be the best. This is your home, and this is the only home we have,” Shalev said.

Shalev added that under Bennett’s leadership, he would work to make Israel “the best place suited for us.”

“We’re going to pivot the coalition to make the right moves in order for our generation to thrive. This country can thrive if we lead it that way.”

This post was originally published on here. 

The 14 members of the Givati Brigade’s Tzabar Battalion who led the mass walkout on the Sde Teiman military base on Thursday were sentenced on Friday to 30 days in military prison and removal from combat service, according to the military. 

The roughly 80 other soldiers who took part in the walkout have since returned to the base and will remain there over the weekend to undergo an “educational process to strengthen the discipline, values, and norms expected of IDF combat soldiers,” the IDF said.

According to soldiers in the brigade, senior commanders decided to destroy and remove insignias that had been displayed in the battalion’s companies, with the battalion commander reportedly insisting that the insignias be removed despite opposition from the soldiers.

These insignias were actually memorials to fallen soldiers, the battalion members told KAN News’ Itay Blumenthal. The IDF, however, made no mention of memorials. 

“One of the commanders used a five-kilogram hammer to destroy one of the insignias,” one of the people serving in the unit told Walla.

Soldiers return to base under threat of severe disciplinary action

After the soldiers departed, battalion commanders contacted them through a WhatsApp group that also included their parents. The commanders said that anyone who returned by 4 p.m. would not face severe punishment.

מרד בחטיבת גבעתי: לוחמים מגדוד צבר השאירו את נשקיהם ועזבו את בסיס שדה תימן שבו היו בימים האחרונים אחרי שיצאו מלבנון. מרד החל לאחר שמפקד הגדוד, שניתץ בפטיש סמלים בפלוגה, אותם דרש להסיר.

תגובת דובר צה״ל: “לפני זמן קצר מספר חיילים בגדוד לוחם החלו לצאת מבסיסם ללא אישור מפקדיהם; זאת… pic.twitter.com/oUTOSb2yoe

— איתי בלומנטל 🇮🇱 Itay Blumental (@ItayBlumental) July 30, 2026

Givati soldiers told their parents that videos showing commanders destroying the insignias with a hammer had prompted the insubordination.

“What pushed the soldiers over the edge were the videos. Seeing how their insignias were being destroyed with a hammer. It was humiliating. Damage to everything they have been through in recent years. Without understanding, but this is serious harm.”

Givati Brigade had just returned from prolonged combat in southern Lebanon

The Givati Brigade recently completed a prolonged and complex period of combat in southern Lebanon, achieving significant operational successes, including the capture of the Beaufort Ridge, Bint Jbeil, and other locations. Sources said that some of the soldiers have since been more emotional and prone to outbreaks.

The troops are preparing for redeployment to the Yellow Line in Gaza.

The brigade’s soldiers were selected for some of the most challenging missions and received praise from the IDF General Staff. The IDF Operations Directorate subsequently decided to rotate the forces, sending some soldiers for training and assigning others to operations in different arenas.

This post was originally published on here. 

The choreography surrounding the Netanyahu-Trump meeting has fueled speculation about a widening rift, but the more important question is whether Israel and the US remain coordinated on Iran

On Tuesday night, just hours after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met US President Donald Trump in the White House, Iran launched five ballistic missiles directly at a major US airbase in Jordan.

The missiles were intercepted, causing no infrastructure damage or harm to US personnel.

America’s response was not long in coming. Just hours after the attack, the US and Saudi Arabia conducted joint airstrikes in Iraq against Iran-aligned militias, killing at least 20. 

And then on Wednesday night, as Trump had pledged earlier in the day, the US carried out a wave of strikes in Iran, targeting dozens of sites, including command and control centers and missile and drone facilities.

What the Iranians did with what was termed a “surprise attack” on the US base was hand Netanyahu an unexpected reprieve. 

Because for days preceding his visit, and during interviews while in the US, the narrative being advanced was that the prime minister had come to the US, just as he had a couple of weeks before the joint Israel-US attack in February, to press Trump to take up military action against the Islamic Republic.

The second question in an ABC interview with Linsey Davis on Wednesday dealt exactly with that narrative: “When you met with President Trump at the White House, did you try to persuade him to resume attacks on Iran?”

Netanyahu’s response: “Actually, no. That is a caricature – a cartoon picture. It is not true.”

The Iranians proved his point. Trump did not need Netanyahu to convince him to resume attacks on Iran; the Iranians did that themselves by resuming attacks on US troops.

Nevertheless, that framing is gaining traction: that the wily Israeli prime minister lured what critics portray as a feckless US president into a disastrous war with Iran. Versions of it can be heard from the Democratic Socialist Left to the Tucker Carlson Right.

Much of what is being portrayed as a sharp rift between Netanyahu and Trump, or between the US and Israel, needs to be viewed, therefore, through the prism of countering that narrative. 

It is politically damaging to both leaders. To Trump, because it is bad optics for him to be seen as doing Israel’s bidding, and to Netanyahu, because it is politically damaging for him to be portrayed as being in Trump’s pocket, unable to make decisions affecting Israel’s national security based solely on Israel’s interests. Or, as opposition head Yair Lapid often says, “turning Israel into a vassal state.”

Why the Netanyahu-Trump rift narrative benefits both leaders

“Earlier this month, President Trump said in an interview that, in his relationship with you, you know who the boss is, meaning that he is the one calling the shots,” ABC’s Davis asked Netanyahu. “Do you see it that way?”

Netanyahu replied by noting the irony that while in America the critics say Trump does everything Netanyahu tells him to do, in Israel the reverse is true: “They often say that I do everything he tells me to do.”

And the truth, he said, “is that we are partners. We are allies.”

Then he added a comment that was obviously important for his host: “He is the senior partner. It is the United States of America – let us not forget that – and I am the junior partner.”

Netanyahu, it turns out, has learned on the job. Thirty years ago this month, he held his first meeting with then-US president Bill Clinton in the Oval Office, a tense meeting dealing with the Oslo Accords that did not go well. 

How do we know? Because afterward, according to accounts of the meeting, Clinton fumed in a private conversation, “Who the f**k does he think he is? Who’s the f***ing superpower here?”

Netanyahu was clearly determined not to repeat that mistake, at least not with this president. In the ABC interview, Netanyahu showed that he knew how to read the room. He was careful to leave no doubt about who, in his view, was the senior partner.

Trump has been just as careful in crafting his own public message.

His repeated public put-downs of Netanyahu over the last few months fit that pattern. He has called him “f***ing crazy,” said he had no “f***ing judgment,” declared that he, Trump, is the boss, and, on the eve of their meeting, told reporters that he neither needed Netanyahu to come to Washington to provide intel about the nuclear facility at Pickaxe Mountain nor would be told by him whether the US could sell F-35s to Turkey.

Taken together, those remarks can best be understood as an effort to puncture a narrative that is politically damaging to Trump: that he is allowing the Israeli prime minister to dictate American policy – not exactly America First – and is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.

Yet, Netanyahu, acutely aware of how this plays at home, then quickly added in the interview, “But I am the prime minister of Israel. When I have to stand up for the interests and security of my country, I do so.”

That, in many ways, is the balancing act both leaders are now performing. Trump needs to demonstrate to Americans that no foreign leader dictates US policy. 

Netanyahu needs to reassure Israelis that, however close the alliance with Washington, Israel’s security decisions are ultimately made in Jerusalem.

That balancing act was reflected not only in what was said, but also in how the visit itself was carefully choreographed.

The White House deliberately kept the meeting low-key. Netanyahu was not greeted by Trump on the North Portico, where presidents generally welcome visiting foreign leaders. 

There was no Oval Office photo opportunity with reporters firing questions, nor was there the extended public display of warmth that characterized some of their previous meetings.

Netanyahu entered through a side entrance, and the meeting, which included other officials rather than being one-on-one, lasted less than 90 minutes, details that drew considerable attention in the Israeli media.

None of that was accidental. At a moment when Trump wants to deflate the notion that Netanyahu is somehow leading him, there was little political upside for the White House in turning the visit into a made-for-television embrace.

On the other hand, perspective here is needed. This was Netanyahu’s seventh summit with Trump since he returned to the White House – eighth if one includes their meeting after the election but before the inauguration.

Does every visit require a red-carpet welcome and an Oval Office media spectacle? Probably not. Routine meetings between leaders who see each other this often – and who talk as often as they do on the telephone – eventually become just that: routine.

Which raises the obvious question: If so much of the public messaging is aimed at domestic audiences, how much of the reported rift is real?

Where Netanyahu and Trump really differ on Iran

Here, it is important to distinguish between a rift and a rupture. A rift is a disagreement within a relationship. A rupture is the relationship itself breaking down.

There are, to be sure, real policy differences between Netanyahu and the Trump administration regarding Iran. Both sides want to ensure that Iran can never develop nuclear weapons.

But whereas Israel would like to prioritize regime change as a goal in the war, the administration’s aims at this time are more limited: opening the Strait of Hormuz and restoring stability to the Gulf.

There is also a difference over how to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear capability. Netanyahu made clear in the ABC interview that he has little faith in diplomacy because of what he described as the Iranian regime’s modus operandi.

“They always lie, they always cheat, and they always play for time,” he said.

Trump, by contrast, has repeatedly left the door open to a negotiated solution if one can be reached.

Those are real differences. They are, however, not evidence of a rupture.

This distinction is not just a matter of semantics. In Israel’s overheated political environment, turning every disagreement with Washington into proof that the alliance is falling apart reinforces a broader political narrative that Netanyahu has fundamentally damaged relations with Israel’s most important ally.

But disagreements between allies are not unusual. The more relevant questions are whether the close coordination on Iran continues and where to go from here. One of the purposes of this meeting was to address both.

Whether that happened behind closed doors is difficult to ascertain. Netanyahu emerged from the meeting calling it one of the best he has ever had with Trump – a notable assessment considering how many times the two men have met over the years. Then again, he was hardly likely to emerge from the Oval Office declaring the talks a failure.

With so little concrete information about what actually transpired in the room, the safest conclusion is probably also the simplest: when it comes to US-Israel relations, things are rarely as good – or as bad – as the public rhetoric would have one believe.

A good rule of thumb is not to judge the health of the alliance by public barbs, carefully choreographed optics, or sound bites surrounding a White House meeting. Those are often aimed as much at domestic audiences as at each other.

The real test lies elsewhere: whether Washington and Jerusalem continue to coordinate on the issues that matter most. Despite all the background noise, this week’s meeting suggests that they do.

This post was originally published on here. 

Iran is suspected of being behind a cyberattack targeting over 30 municipal water systems in Minnesota this week, The Washington Post reported on Friday, citing unnamed US officials.

The attack took place on Sunday and Monday, according to Minnesota IT Services, prompting a response from government and municipal agencies, but no instructions from affected cities for residents’ drinking water use.

Later that week, on Thursday, the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned that it had noticed “a significant increase in cyber threat actors targeting programmable logic controllers (PLCs) in the Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS) Sector.”

Joe Slowik, director of threat research for Dataminr, told the Post that similar attacks have occurred in water and energy systems across the United States since the beginning of the war with Iran.

“It is not a secret that these things have been taking place since the spring,” he said. “There have been disruptions in multiple critical infrastructure sectors. It’s a big deal.”

Kurt Gaudette, head of intelligence for Dragos, noted that the cyberattacks had generally been against “very low-hanging fruit” – vulnerable systems such as small utilities which used default passwords and whose controllers were open to the internet.

Iranian hackers aiming for psychological effects, not destruction

Iran’s goal, Alex Orleans, head of threat intelligence at Sublime Security, told the Post, seemed to be the psychological effect rather than outright sabotage and destruction, with two main targets in their sights.

The first target, Orleans said, was the American people, “to make us freak out and to turn sentiment against the war by making it look like it’s not worth the costs, when in reality our systems are pretty resilient.”

The second, Orleans claimed, was the Iranian regime itself. “They want to show their bosses that they’re contributing to the war effort.’’

This post was originally published on here. 

Police arrested Avraham Hadi, a Ramat Gan man in his 40s, on Thursday on suspicion of smashing the glass entrance doors of the Channel 12 News building in Tel Aviv and leaving a threatening letter at the newsroom entrance.

The arrest came two days after the attack and followed a joint investigation by the Tel Aviv District Central Unit, the Shin Bet, and the Ayalon District Crime Fighting Unit. Police announced the development after details of the investigation were cleared for publication.

The incident occurred overnight between Monday and Tuesday. Early Tuesday morning, police officers patrolling the area discovered that the entrance doors to the building on Sderot HaHaskala Street in Tel Aviv had been smashed.

Investigators find threatening letter at the crime scene

A few meters away, officers found an unusual threatening letter targeting media figures and public officials.

“Until you apologize for the Sde Teiman affair, I am not stopping. Next time, the brick will be aimed at one of your sharks, male or female. Even an apology without sincerity is fine. Treat this letter with due gravity and complete seriousness. It would be a shame if someone ends up dying,” Hadi wrote.

Hadi then listed numerous senior figures from Israel’s defense establishment, judiciary, and media. They included former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, former IDF chief of staff Herzi Halevi, Maj.-Gen. Avi Bluth, Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, Yair Golan, former military advocate-general Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, the Haaretz newspaper, and others.

The letter ended with the words, “God’s judgment will exact punishment from all of you.”

Police suspect that Hadi threw stones at the building’s doors, shattered the glass, and fled the scene after leaving the threatening letter behind.

Unusual incidents targeting Israeli media organizations

In recent days, investigators from the Tel Aviv District Central Unit, working with the Ayalon District Crime Fighting Unit and the Shin Bet, used a range of intelligence and investigative measures that led to the Hadi’s identification. He was arrested Thursday and taken in for questioning.

The arrest follows a series of unusual incidents targeting Israeli media organizations. Earlier this month, the entrance doors to the same building were smashed after security cameras recorded an unidentified person throwing a brick at the glass and fleeing the scene. Despite the footage, no arrests were made at the time.

Stones were also thrown at the offices of Haaretz. Due to the severity of the incidents, the Shin Bet joined the investigation led by the Tel Aviv District Central Unit.

Investigators are now trying to determine whether the suspect was responsible only for the latest incident or was connected to the series of attacks against media organizations over the past month.

This post was originally published on here. 

The war of words just grew deadlier. The Palestinians have not just coined a new word; they’ve created an entirely new narrative.

As noted by Mathilda Heller in this paper last week, the Arab League’s Permanent Arab Committee for Human Rights has “called for the adoption of a new word – ‘wholocide’ – to describe Israel’s actions against Palestinians.

“The committee argued that Israel’s actions are so extreme that the word ‘genocide’ is no longer strong enough.”

If you missed the similar sound of the word “wholocide” and “Holocaust,” you have missed the point. As Itamar Marcus, founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), pointed out: “The new term also includes the Arabic word ‘ahwal,’ meaning ‘horrors.’”

PMW noted the attempt is to create an internationally recognized historical concept parallel to the Holocaust, with its own terminology, commemorative events, academic literature, and annual Remembrance Day.

The message is: Israelis are not the new Nazis; they’re worse than the Nazis. Neither the message nor the method are subtle, but they’re pervasive and increasingly persuasive.

“Wholocide” lies are killing Jews everywhere 

“The Big Lie” was Hitler’s preferred propaganda technique of repeating an outrageous falsehood against the Jews enough times for it to become accepted. It has morphed into “libelocide,” an attempt to erase the Jewish state’s right to exist through repetition of the “genocide” blood libel. And make no mistake, Jewish blood is already being spilled worldwide because of these lies and falsehoods.

There has been a progression of inversions – perversions of the truth. The Palestinians and their supporters claim that there wasn’t a Holocaust and yet use Holocaust-evocative imagery against the Jews. In their telling, there was no invasion by five Arab armies of the nascent Jewish state in 1948, just the Nakba (the “Catastrophe” of Israel’s creation). No Jews were murdered or displaced in the 1948 war launched by the Arab world; only “Palestinians” became refugees (although the term “Palestinian” at that point referred to the Jews; that’s another semantic twist).

In the Palestinian narrative, sorry is definitely the hardest word. There was no October 7, 2023, when Iranian-sponsored terrorists from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other movements invaded southern Israel, murdering, raping, and mutilating victims, and burning down entire communities. Thirty children were among the 1,200 murdered that day; 251 people were abducted to Gaza. Apparently, they don’t count.

For the Palestinians, there is only October 17, 2023, which “Palestine’s Permanent Representative to the League of Arab States,” Muhannad al-Aklouk, declared should be designated annual “Wholocide” Memorial Day. Maybe there should be a new word for it: “Hollowcaust,” to reflect the obscene trivialization.

Marcus points out that the date is based on another blood libel, marking the explosion of a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket in the parking lot of Gaza City’s al-Ahli Baptist Hospital. Hamas immediately created a hugely inflated death toll and blamed Israel. The world media swallowed the lie whole.

In a world under constant threat of global jihad, blaming the Jews remains reliable and familiar. The real genocide – the Hamas-led assault on Israel; Iran’s missiles, drones, and terrorist proxies; the Houthis with their flag declaring “Death to America, Death to Israel” – has been either ignored or accepted.

Palestine Square in central Tehran sported a countdown clock, ticking away the days to Israel’s predicted demise in 2040. Last June, Israeli pilots reportedly knocked out the clock and set the ayatollahs’ plans back. Central Tel Aviv features graffiti calling for peace and many gay pride flags. Which city flaunts its genocidal intent, and which celebrates human rights and freedom?

In a particularly pertinent example of how perverted the libeling of Israel has become, there was an effort by 63 anti-Israel groups to block the Israeli ambassador from attending this week’s Holocaust memorial in the Dutch city of Rotterdam – because, you know, the Holocaust isn’t about Jews who perished (often with the cooperation of locals); Holocaust remembrance is about the Palestinians.

In many places, local politics focus far from home. Forget garbage collection in Birmingham or public safety in New York; it’s Israel’s perceived crimes in Gaza that matter.

As Heller noted, “The linguistic progression is not merely semantic. Each successive term carries a stronger moral and legal charge, moving from a description of territorial control (‘occupation’) to allegations of discriminatory governance (‘apartheid’), forced demographic shifts (‘ethnic cleansing’), the most severe crime under international law (‘genocide’), and now a newly coined term (‘wholocide’) intended to signify a crime exceeding even genocide.”

Delegitimization has turned into demonization and efforts to turn Israel into a pariah state. Attempts to erase Jewish ties to Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria are part of this endeavor. On Tisha B’Av, the date when Jews commemorate the destruction of the First and Second Temples, news stories referred to “thousands of Jewish extremists who stormed Jerusalem’s most sensitive holy site on Thursday,” to quote The Guardian.

To be clear: Thousands of Jews (who are not automatically extremist) peacefully ascended Judaism’s holiest site to commemorate the devastating events that occurred there in 586 BCE and 70 CE. It might be extraordinary for an indigenous people to have a collective memory that stretches back across the millennia, but it’s not a crime.

Then there are the soft sob stories like the one in The Guardian titled: “Reclaiming stolen childhoods: swimming classes resume in Gaza after three years of war.” Similar stories appear in other news outlets, the vast majority of them focusing on the children of Gaza – as if Israeli children haven’t also been through three years of war, rocket attacks, disrupted schooling, uncertainty at home (and in thousands of cases, displacement). Israeli children have also suffered bereavement and trauma. Israeli children also feel fear.

The childhoods of millions, in Israel and in Gaza, have been stolen – by Hamas and other terrorist organizations. News coverage rarely mentions that Gaza shares a border with Egypt, but authorities in Cairo keep it closed, afraid of the impact of Hamas, an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. It is the jihadists, not Jews, who threaten world peace.

There are still some Righteous Gentiles (to use an appropriate Holocaust-related term) who, mercifully, haven’t fallen for the Palestinian narrative – who see the lies and blood libels, and are willing, often at considerable personal and professional risk, to call them out. 

This week, British singer Boy George refused to be silenced, releasing a reggae-style song called “We Will Dance Again” (a reference to the slogan of the October 7 Supernova music festival massacre survivors). It opens with the lyrics: “You say genocide, I say war / When you’re attacked, that’s what the army’s for.”

How are jihadist myths killing Israel’s credibility abroad?

When new British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting declared last week, without evidence, that Israel has “fallen short” of the UK’s military standards during its war in Gaza, retired British Army veteran Col. Richard Kemp leaped to Israel’s defense, writing: “If he is talking about minimizing harm to non-combatants, they… exceeded all other armies’ precautions.”

I recommend reading the essay on Substack by another retired British officer, Andrew Fox, titled: “Collapse of the blood libels: Every pillar of the genocide accusation against Israel has crumbled. The institutions that built it have suddenly lost their voices.”

He notes the inflated casualty rates produced by Hamas (including the thousands supposedly buried under rubble, who never emerged). Even UNRWA admitted that some staff members were involved in the October 7 attack and abductions; Hamas has acknowledged some of the dead “journalists” as members of the terrorist organization; ditto, some healthcare workers.

Meanwhile, the famine that never was continues to feed blood libels and wholocide claims. Just last week, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification analysis admitted the improvement in food supplies to Gaza – but warned of a “possible famine” later this year. It was reminiscent of the dire warnings by UN official Tom Fletcher on the BBC last year that “14,000 babies could die in Gaza in the next 48 hours.” They didn’t.

Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories actually facilitated the administration of more than 1 million polio vaccinations to children across the Gaza Strip, and by November 2024, at the height of the war, had provided enough polio vaccine vials for more than 4,800,000 civilians, even though Gaza’s population remains about 2 million.

It just doesn’t add up: Israelis are genocidal failures. But instead of the whole truth, we have the wholocide lie and libelocide.

This post was originally published on here. 

As we stood poised to enter Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), Moses looked toward the future with apprehension. We were about to leave the sheltered environment of the desert and enter a new land, surrounded by unfamiliar cultures and powerful influences.

To prepare us for this transition, Moses restated the Torah, carefully reviewing both the turbulent history of the wilderness and the mitzvot that would guide national life.

He also renewed the covenant between God and His people. In fact, twice in the final book of the Torah, Moses reminds us that we stand in a covenantal relationship with God. If we remain faithful to His will, we can expect peace and prosperity in Israel. If we abandon that covenant, we will face hardship and exile.

The first of these covenants appears in Parshat Eikev and is introduced by the word that gives the parsha its name. In the context of a covenant, Eikev means “as a consequence of.” The blessings promised by the Torah are presented as the consequence of faithful observance.

That meaning, however, grows out of the word’s literal sense. Literally, Eikev refers to the heel of the foot. Just as our footsteps leave a trail behind us, this word Eikev came to denote what follows an action – its consequence.

Building upon the image of the heel, our Sages uncovered a deeper meaning in the word, and in the covenant. They explain that Eikev refers to those mitzvot that people “trample under their heels” because they regard them as insignificant or simply overlook them.

Moses reminds us that no mitzvah is too small to matter. The Torah asks us to pay as much attention to the ordinary mitzvot as to its larger ideals. 

Ideas and habits 

There is a natural tendency to think that what is lofty is important and what is detailed is secondary. The Torah insists that great ideals are lived through ordinary actions. They are not an afterthought. 

Religion must be a delicate blend of belief and action. It offers sweeping ideas about God, human identity, morality, history, and destiny.

These grand visions inspire us, giving life meaning and purpose. Yet lofty ideals can never stand on their own. They must be translated into action, and those actions often become remarkably detailed. 

For some, the broad ideas are inspiring, while the details feel far less compelling. It is easier to embrace a vision than to pay careful attention to the countless small acts through which that vision is expressed. Great ideals only change us when they are translated into concrete behavior. 

Shabbat and prayer

Shabbat is a perfect example. At its broadest level, it reminds us that the world was created by one God and that human beings are not masters of creation. It provides a weekly opportunity for spiritual renewal, family, and community. These are compelling and inspiring ideals.

Yet Shabbat also descends into remarkable detail. For 25 hours, we become mindful of nearly every activity we perform, carefully avoiding those acts that the Torah defines as Shabbat violations. For some, the larger ideas are deeply attractive, while the detailed restrictions can seem meticulous or even burdensome.

It is precisely these details that transform lofty ideals into a lived reality. They create fixed points that prevent our values from gradually slipping into abstraction or neglect. Without them, Shabbat could easily become a vague spiritual sentiment or be reduced to a few meaningful hours in the synagogue. Through its many details, Shabbat accompanies us throughout the day rather than remaining confined to moments of inspiration.

The details of religious life also shape the way we experience mitzvot. They create an atmosphere that lends our experiences a fuller meaning, reminding us of where we stand. Take prayer, for example.

At its core, prayer is our opportunity to stand before God, open our hearts, and present our hopes, fears, and requests. Yet not every prayer is equally heartfelt or focused. Our minds wander, distractions intrude, and some days we simply struggle to concentrate.

Judaism never assumed that prayer depends only upon inner feeling. The setting and the conduct surrounding prayer also matter. Prayer is not an ordinary conversation but an encounter with the Divine.

Treating the synagogue with reverence, refraining from conversation during the service, dressing appropriately, and conducting ourselves with dignity all reinforce that awareness. These practices do not replace kavanah, but they help cultivate it, even when our concentration falls short.

Public morality 

The value of details alongside big ideas extends well beyond religion. The importance of details applies just as forcefully to our moral and public lives.

Modern culture places enormous emphasis on grand moral causes. We are drawn to sweeping visions of justice, equality, human rights, and social change, and we often judge ourselves and others by the ideals we champion. Those causes deserve our passion. But they can also distract us from the ordinary ways we treat the people around us, where moral character is often revealed.

When people become deeply invested in an important cause, they tend to excuse forms of behavior they would otherwise reject. Winning the argument becomes more important than treating opponents with fairness.

The urgency of the goal can justify harsh language, personal attacks, or simple discourtesy. Yet the Torah insists that lofty ideals never lessen our obligation to act with honesty, patience, respect, and kindness. If anything, they make those obligations even greater.

Ideological heels

We are experiencing a similar phenomenon in Israel today. As Moses repeatedly reminds us, we are a stubborn people. We hold our convictions deeply and defend them passionately. We do not easily give ground or cede our positions. When issues touch our deepest values, disagreement quickly becomes intense.

What once appeared to be an election centered primarily on foreign affairs increasingly seems likely to revolve around domestic questions, foremost among them judicial reform and the ongoing debate over haredi military service. These questions touch fundamental issues of identity, equality, democracy, Torah, and national responsibility.

In our pursuit of these great ideals, we too often allow the heel of ideology to trample the ordinary decencies on which every healthy society depends. These are consequential issues that deserve serious public discussion. Yet the quality of our public conversation has steadily deteriorated. 

Too often, principled disagreement gives way to personal attacks, caricatures, sarcasm, and demagoguery. When we become deeply invested in an important cause, we can begin to excuse forms of behavior we would ordinarily reject.

That is why Moses chose the image of the heel. The greatest threats to religious life do not usually come from rejecting our ideals.

They begin when we stop paying attention to the ordinary practices that sustain them. It is often there, in the ordinary demands we scarcely notice, that our deepest commitments are put to the test.

The writer is a rabbi and educator at Yeshivat Har Etzion (Gush). Find his latest book, Reclaiming Redemption, Vol. II: Faith, Identity, Peoplehood, and the Storms of War, at mtaraginbooks.com

This post was originally published on here. 

How is a news outlet supposed to report on war casualties? This question is particularly worth asking when it comes to a news outlet that promises its readers journalistic professionalism “without fear or favor”, and even defines itself as “a newspaper of record”, or a media outlet whose information archive is supposed to serve as a reliable historical reference. 

It matters because casualties in Gaza became a central topic in the discourse around the October 7 war. This discourse influenced global public opinion, as well as commercial, academic, scientific and cultural circles, and of course leaders and their policies toward Israel. Despite never having been convicted, Israel was accused of genocide at the ICC as early as December 2023, in a lawsuit filed by South Africa which was suspected of being funded by Iran. Yet few are familiar with the details, and many young people on social media believe that Israel did indeed commit genocide in Gaza, and that every Israeli or Jew who supports Israel is complicit.

We all know that in the post-truth era, many ride on narratives whose connection to reality is tenuous, at best. So amid the information chaos, someone needs to take responsibility for reporting as accurately as possible and serve as a reliable source, right? That was the incentive for examining the way casualties in Gaza were reported over two years, in the news outlet that considers itself the most professional in the world.

The New York Times covered the October 7 war with 6,696 headlines between October 7, 2023 and October 10, 2025 – approximately 7% of all headlines published during that period, and reflecting the editorial significance of the topic. 19.5% of the war headlines dealt with death and killing: 1,305 in total. Of these, 709 dealt with Palestinian casualties, and of those, 653 headlines dealt specifically with Palestinians in Gaza and not elsewhere (such as the West Bank). These are the relevant headlines we analyzed.

Doubts about IDF but not about Gazan sources

When it comes to war casualties, there are three main aspects that need to be addressed. The first is the overall scope of casualties. The second is the internal breakdown – primarily between civilians and combatants. The third is who bears responsibility for the casualties. So let’s see how the New York Times reported on casualties in Gaza over two full years of war.

The cumulative number of casualties in Gaza (10,000, 25,000, 30,000, etc.) was published in 11 headlines and subheadlines throughout the war. None of them distinguished between combatants and civilians, or mentioned that the number includes Hamas fighters, as well as casualties from failed rockets fired by terrorist organizations or by internal executions. In other words, one could only conclude that all the casualties were civilians.

In all 11 headlines, the Times raised no reservations about its source. One headline noted that the total number is probably higher than reported. One headline did cite a reservation regarding the numbers but from former President Joe Biden, since it was published around the time of the false report about the explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital, in which the death toll figures were fabricated. By contrast, the IDF’s assessment of the number of terrorists killed was published in only one headline throughout the war – and the Times questioned its reliability.

In terms of the internal breakdown, a very clear editorial pattern can be identified. Of 653 headlines, 231 (35%) stated that the casualties were civilians, and an additional 322 headlines did not specify who the dead were. In total, 553 headlines (85% of all casualty headlines) referred to civilians or simply to “Palestinians.”

Where did the fighters go?

Of 653 headlines about casualties in Gaza, 100 referenced Hamas members, but a further examination reveals a different picture. 86% of these headlines referred specifically to the elimination of one of Hamas’s leaders (Arouri, Deif, Sinwar, Haniyeh) specifically by name, and not to the killing of Hamas fighters on the battlefield. Each elimination generated many headlines – Sinwar’s killing, for example, was covered in 31 separate headlines.

But in practice, this means that of all the war headlines, only 14 referred to Hamas fighters other than Haniyeh, Deif, Sinwar or Arouri, Hamas terrorists killed on the battlefield in Gaza as a result of IDF operations, which targeted them primarily. This amounts to only 2% of all headlines about Palestinian casualties published in the Times throughout the entire war. It is fairly clear what impression emerges from such reporting – that Israel’s strikes on Gaza only kill civilians.

When you add to this the fact that headlines reporting on cumulative casualty figures never once mentioned that the figure includes terrorists; and the fact that Israel’s assessments of the number of terrorists killed were almost never published – it’s hard to refrain from understanding that this is precisely Hamas’s stated strategy.

Hamas makes no distinction between combatants and civilians. Time and again it is revealed in hindsight that journalists, teachers and doctors who were killed were in fact registered members of terrorist organizations. Hamas soldiers shed their uniforms during military confrontations and hide among civilians, as part of the organization’s human shield doctrine. The goal is to confuse the IDF, cause soldiers to hesitate before firing, and to report all deaths as civilian in order to exert international pressure on Israel to stop fighting.

In practice, the distortion is even more severe, because 7 headlines, half of the 14 headlines that did report on the terrorist casualties, presented the information as an Israeli claim whose credibility should be questioned. So only 7 out of 653 headlines dealing with Palestinian casualties constituted clear reporting on the death of combatants on the battlefield in Gaza. This represents a complete internalization of Hamas’s casualty-reporting strategy – in a Western news outlet that promises to help its readers understand the world.

Who is responsible here?

On the question of responsibility, there are two aspects: who is the party responsible for the casualties, and who is the source from which the data was drawn. These are particularly important questions in light of the false report about the explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, which occurred right at the start of the war on October 17, 2023, and caused the Times considerable embarrassment.

At the time, the Gaza Health Ministry reported 500 dead at the hospital as a result of an IDF airstrike. The Times presented the source as “Palestinians,” without mentioning that authorities in Gaza were appointed by Hamas and subordinate to its authority. The report was entirely false – the explosion was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in a parking lot and not in the hospital itself, and the number of casualties was far lower. Although the IDF quickly refuted the report, the Times waited five days before correcting the headline, and only after a harsh rebuke from the White House did it publish an unusual editor’s note. It included a promise not to rely on claims by Hamas in the future. But when it came to casualty reporting, the Times appears to have done just that.

The Gaza Health Ministry continued to serve as the primary source of information, usually without being acknowledged. Of 653 headlines dealing with casualties in Gaza, 448 (69%) cited no source at all for the data, presenting the information as fact. 89 headlines did attribute the information to official sources in Gaza, and an additional 82 headlines attributed the information to other sources such as the UN or rights organizations, which in practice were citing Health Ministry data. Only 4 headlines revealed that Hamas actually runs the Gaza Health Ministry. Hamas’s involvement was simply concealed.

Moreover, of all 653 headlines reporting on casualties in Gaza, only 18 expressed doubt or reservations about the source. The majority of these (8) questioned Israeli sources to which reports were attributed. Among the remaining headlines that expressed reservations, 3 presented conflicting reports — one from Gaza and one from Israel. 3 headlines expressed reservations about the Gaza figures, but on the grounds that the real number was probably higher than reported.

Of the only 3 headlines that genuinely expressed reservations about the Gaza data, 2 referred retroactively to that same false report about the hospital explosion, and only 1 headline expressed reservations about UN data, which had in fact published the Gaza Health Ministry’s own correction about a year into the war. The Ministry significantly reduced the proportion of women and children in the total casualty count, after claiming for a year that they constituted the majority of casualties.

In short, the Times rarely cited Israeli sources, yet questioned their reliability in 25% of the cases where it did cite them. By contrast, it never questioned its primary source from Gaza, despite the fact that it is run by Hamas. The fact that Hamas controls the Health Ministry and other official sources in Gaza, such as hospitals and media outlets, was onso not revealed in the headlines.

Innocent terrorist organizations

On the question of who is responsible for the casualties, the Times’ editorial line was entirely clear. Of 653 headlines dealing with casualties in Gaza, Israel was presented as responsible in 404 headlines (62%). In 246 headlines (37.5%), no party was identified as responsible. And in only three headlines were Hamas and Islamic Jihad presented as responsible – two of which were follow-up headlines to the false hospital explosion report. These are not reasonable proportions, and it is clear that the overall picture they project is distorted.

Returning to that false report from October 17, 2023, and the Times’s promise to henceforth question Hamas’s claims – it is fairly clear that this did not happen. The Times continued to cite the Gaza Health Ministry without revealing that it is a Hamas-controlled body. It questioned IDF assessments and rarely published them, while praising the credibility of the Gaza Health Ministry. So in hindsight — what did that editor’s note actually accomplish?

In November 2023, just one month after the false hospital report, the Times published another erroneous headline claiming that the rate of civilian killing in Gaza was unprecedented. In December 2023, it again published an incorrect headline claiming that casualties in Gaza were higher than in any Arab war in the past 40 years – ignoring over a million casualties in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen. A correction was issued again.

The accumulation of errors in itself points to an editorial line that can no longer be ignored – motivation to convict Israel of indiscriminate killing of civilians, and lack of motivation to assign minimal responsibility to Hamas.

The war is over, but this hasn’t really changed. Last week, the Times published yet another opinion piece from the genre that accuses Israel of genocide. The piece again cited questionable “facts.” CAMERA demanded that the Times correct the claim that over 1,000 Palestinians had been killed in Gaza since the ceasefire, without noting that many of them were terrorists. The Times did issue a correction, but did not call them terrorists or even combatants – instead referring to them as “people other than civilians.” It appears that the editorial team continues to insist on keeping Hamas invisible to the readers.

The op-ed also claimed that the IDF admitted to 70,000 casualties in Gaza, the majority of them civilians – but the IDF never confirmed this. When the IDF publishes its casualty assessments for Gaza, even if the overall number does not change, a clear distinction will be made between terrorists and civilians. It will noted that the number of dead most likely includes natural deaths, and thousands killed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s own failed rockets, as well as executions. It will also note that children under 18 include teenage boys recruited by Hamas as fighters – a fact the Times did not publish in a single headline. So is it truth and accuracy that drives the most important newspaper in the world — or is it perhaps the opportunity to repeatedly invoke the word “genocide”?

How did we do it?

We used Anthropic’s Claude Code AI tool, running on the Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Fable 5 models, for two defined tasks: collecting the data and coding it at scale under rules that we established.

All headlines and subheadlines published between October 7, 2023 and October 10, 2025 (the day the ceasefire took effect) were collected from The New York Times’ official archive. The unit of analysis is the headline and subheadline only (what most readers actually encounter) and not the body of the article. We formulated the coding questionnaire and the rules ourselves – who was killed, what was the source of information, were there reservations about the source – and spot-checked the findings in several rounds. The findings are expected to undergo further processing and validation ahead of academic publication, but can be considered highly reliable interim findings for an ongoing study in colaboration with Prof. Eytan Gilboa for Bar Ilan University. The work with Claude was carried out by Alon Giladi.

This post was originally published on here. 

A dual British-Azerbaijani national has been arrested in Cyprus on suspicion of spying on a British air base on the Mediterranean island and passing information to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, London police said on Friday.

Rashad Sultanov, 44, from Islington in north London, was arrested on July 17 by Cypriot authorities and is being held in custody as extradition proceedings progress, the Metropolitan Police said in a statement.

He was arrested as part of Britain’s first overseas National Security Act investigation, led by counter-terrorism police into incidents at Britain’s RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus between May 11 and June 22 last year, the statement said.

Sultanov allegedly conducted hostile surveillance on the base and is alleged to have then shared information with the IRGC, it added.

“This case shows we are able to use the National Security Act overseas when British military bases are allegedly targeted by hostile state activity,” Helen Flanagan, head of counter-terrorism policing in London, said in the statement.

IRGC threatens to attack British military bases

The IRGC threatened earlier this month to attack any British military bases used by US forces to launch attacks on Iran.

An Iranian-type Shahed drone caused slight damage on March 2 when it hit facilities at Akrotiri. Soon afterwards, Britain said the base would not be part of its defensive agreement with the United States over the use of UK bases.

Also in March, Iran was reported to have fired two ballistic missiles at a US-UK military base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, though neither hit the target.

Akrotiri is one of two bases Britain has retained in its former colony since independence in 1960. It has been used for past military operations in Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

This post was originally published on here.