ISRAEL AT WAR 5787: Time and Again

Terror on flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv-

flydubai Flight FZ1073 miracles! THANK YOU HASHEM!

flydubai Flight FZ1073 miracles! THANK YOU HASHEM!

flydubai Flight FZ1073 miracles! THANK YOU HASHEM!


Rabbi Shalom Arush-Breslev English-tweet-1October2026-flydubai Flight FZ1073 THANK YOU HASHEM
Many experts have come forward, all with the same message:flydubai

The fact that the tail, or wings, of the airplane didn’t rip off trying to pull out of that nose-dive is unheard of. Every other plane in history when faced with anything even close ripped apart mid-air and crashed

Even more, the one who started pulling that plane up was no less than Yaniv – an Israeli hero with no experience flying! The entire initial sequence to attempt to come out such a dive wasn’t started until the backup pilot took over

It’s nice for President Trump to congratulate Boeing on a “job well done” for building that plane – but the one who really deserves the praise is Hashem!

This is in addition to the miracle of the dying, severely injured pilot managing to open the door, and that the Israeli heroes were able to subdue the terrorist and get him out of the way in just one minute, with only 90 seconds to go before hitting the ground

Telling this story without God is like saying that the Red Sea split due to “a strong east wind.”

The fact that the plane landed and all passengers are alive is literally open miracles and wonders! And while immense credit is due to the people who stepped forward without hesitation, first and foremost, credit must be given to God Almighty!

THANK YOU HASHEM!

Everyone should say lots and lots of Psalm 100 – A Psalm of Thanksgiving – today and through the rest of Sukkot!
Israel MyChannel-tweet-30September2026-flydubai miracles
Truly Incredible…

Retired Navy pilot Matthew ‘Whiz’ Buckley revealed today that the hijacked flydubai flight exceeded its maximum operating speed by a staggering 100 knots while plunging 20,000 feet in just 30 seconds.

But just how extreme is that?
What is 100 knots? It’s exactly 185 km/h (115 mph). This means the Boeing 737 MAX 8 was flying 115 mph OVER its absolute structural red-line limit!

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫: Commercial jets are built tough, but they aren’t fighter jets. Exceeding max speed by this much causes “flutter”—violent aerodynamic vibrations that can literally rip the wings or tail right off the fuselage mid-air.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐥𝐞: Surviving a dive this steep and fast without the airframe snapping apart under the extreme G-forces is virtually unheard of.

The fact that the passengers and crew managed to subdue the attacker and pull the plane out of this violent dive before it disintegrated in the sky is an absolute miracle.

“For He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.” — Psalm 91:11-12

Thank God for His protection today! 🙏💙

Rabbi Shalom Arush-Breslev English-tweet-1October2026-flydubai Flight FZ1073 THANK YOU HASHEM

Rabbi Shalom Arush-Breslev English-tweet-1October2026-flydubai Flight FZ1073 THANK YOU HASHEM

Israel MyChannel-tweet-30September2026-flydubai miracles

Israel MyChannel-tweet-30September2026-flydubai miracles

 

 

He was attempting a 9/11 style attack inside of Israel.


Mossad Commentary-tweet-4October2026-9-11 COPYCAT ATTACK
🚨 9/11 COPYCAT ATTACK?
The flydubai co-pilot accused of trying to seize the aircraft allegedly planned to crash it into Tel Aviv’s Azrieli Towers in a 9/11-style attack.

According to senior Emirati official, Israeli Mossad personnel and aviation experts have joined the UAE-led investigation alongside Saudi, Omani and U.S. officials.

The 29-year-old co-pilot reportedly had previously been fired by Oman Air over extremist views and barred from flying there.

UAE authorities are reportedly expected to seek the death penalty.

Mossad Commentary-tweet-4October2026-9/11 COPYCAT ATTACK?

Mossad Commentary-tweet-4October2026-9/11 COPYCAT ATTACK?

 

 


David M Friedman-tweet-4October2026-9/11 attack inside of Israel
What everyone suspected has now been established: the Omani pilot for FlyDubai was attempting a 9/11 style attack inside of Israel.

I shudder to think of the suffering, grief and geopolitical consequences had he succeeded. The world would be a very different place today.

This is a wake up call to all the nations harboring radical Islamists — and there are many, especially in the West: get your act together! Do a better job of vetting everyone getting near a commercial airplane — from pilots to crew to caterers to maintenance staff. The world may not be this lucky and blessed if there is a next time.

David M Friedman-tweet-4October2026-9/11 attack inside of Israel

David M Friedman-tweet-4October2026-9/11 attack inside of Israel

 

TOP

Psalm 100 ‘Psalm of Thanksgiving’


Rabbi Shalom Arush-English-tweet-13June2025-Hope to God strengthen your heart
Hope to God, strengthen your heart, and Hope to God!
Do not be afraid for God goes before you, to smite your enemies
Repeat Psalm 121 “A Song of Ascents” over and over until you’re not afraid
Repeat Psalm 100 A Psalm of Thanks for how He has protected us with miracles until now!
Rabbi Shalom Arush-English-tweet-14June2025-Also Psalm 100
HERE IS ANOTHER ONE!
KEEP IT GOING!!!
Singing and dancing and thanking Hashem!
Also Psalm 100 “Psalm of Thanksgiving” for Hashem protecting us until now!
BETTER AND BETTER!
“and we’ll be safer and safer, safer and safer!”

Rabbi Shalom Arush-English-tweet-13June2025-Hope to God strengthen your heart

Rabbi Shalom Arush-English-tweet-13June2025-Hope to God strengthen your heart

Rabbi Shalom Arush-English-tweet-14June2025-Also Psalm 100

Rabbi Shalom Arush-English-tweet-14June2025-Also Psalm 100

Psalms 100 Thanksgiving

Psalms 100 Thanksgiving

תהילים פרק ק

א מִזְמ֥וֹר לְתוֹדָ֑ה הָרִ֥יעוּ לַֽ֝יהוָ֗ה כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

ב עִבְד֣וּ אֶת־יְהוָ֣ה בְּשִׂמְחָ֑ה בֹּ֥אוּ לְ֝פָנָ֗יו בִּרְנָנָֽה׃

ג דְּע֗וּ כִּֽי־יְהוָה֮ ה֤וּא אֱלֹ֫הִ֥ים הֽוּא־עָ֭שָׂנוּ וְל֣וֹ אֲנַ֑חְנוּ עַ֝מּ֗וֹ וְצֹ֣אן מַרְעִיתֽוֹ׃

ד בֹּ֤אוּ שְׁעָרָ֨יו ׀ בְּתוֹדָ֗ה חֲצֵֽרֹתָ֥יו בִּתְהִלָּ֑ה הֽוֹדוּ־ל֗֝וֹ בָּֽרְכ֥וּ שְׁמֽוֹ׃

ה כִּי־ט֣וֹב יְ֭הוָה לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּ֑וֹ וְעַד־דֹּ֥ר וָ֝דֹ֗ר אֱמֽוּנָתֽו

 

TOP

Psalm of Thanksgiving at the Kotel for flydubai Flight FZ1073 miracles


Israel National News-Arutz Sheva-tweet-1October2026-Psalm of Thanksgiving-Kotel-flydubai miracles
Following the miracle on the #Flydubai flight that was nearly hijacked, the Rabbi of the Western Wall led the Psalm of Thanksgiving during today’s mass holiday prayer at the site.

Israel National News-Arutz Sheva-tweet-1October2026-Psalm of Thanksgiving-Kotel-flydubai miracles

Israel National News-Arutz Sheva-tweet-1October2026-Psalm of Thanksgiving-Kotel-flydubai miracles

 

 

TOP

Terror on flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv-Arutz Sheva logo

Stabbed Flydubai hero stable after transfer From Saudi Arabia

Captain Smit Machchhar is stable after being transferred from Saudi Arabia to Abu Dhabi for further care, India’s ambassador to the UAE said.

Israel National News / 1October2026, 8:03 PM (GMT+3) / https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/433961

 

Captain Smit Machchhar

Captain Smit Machchhar

 

Captain Smit Machchhar, the pilot of Flydubai flight FZ1073 who was stabbed while fighting off his co-pilot who attempted to crash the aircraft, has been transferred from Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, to Abu Dhabi for continued medical attention and recovery.

 

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs stated that Captain Machchhar received initial treatment in Tabuk, where the plane had landed.

 

Speaking to Indian outlet Prasar Bharati, Ambassador Dr Deepak Mittal said he met Captain Machchhar and his family and found him to be stable and in good spirits, albeit in discomfort.

 

The Indian Ambassador to the UAE met Captain Machchhar in hospital and enquired about his well-being.

 

The Indian Embassy remains in continuous contact with UAE authorities and will ensure all possible assistance for his recovery.

 

The External Affairs Ministry concluded its statement: “We once again salute Captain Smit Machchhar’s valour and courage. We also convey our deep appreciation for the admiration and support he has received from across the world for his act of gallantry.”

 

Machchhar was injured in the serious incident aboard the Flydubai flight from Dubai to Israel after his co-pilot stabbed him. Passengers and crew members overpowered the attacker, while Machchhar received initial medical treatment until the plane landed in Saudi Arabia.

 

Dr. Shota Musayev, a dentist who was among the passengers on the flight and helped subdue the attacker, later recounted how he treated the injured pilot and stopped the severe bleeding he was suffering from until the plane landed in Saudi Arabia.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said following the incident that the pilot who carried out the stabbing had apparently attempted to crash the plane with everyone on board.

 

TOP

jns-org-logo

Heroic Israelis avert a new 9/11

Passengers aboard a flydubai flight fought back before another pilot took control of the plunging aircraft and flew it to safety.

Fiamma Nirenstein https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/fiamma-nirenstein/a-new-9-11-in-the-skies-was-narrowly-averted

 

Fiamma Nirenstein

Fiamma Nirenstein is an Italian-Israeli journalist, author and senior research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA). An adviser on antisemitism to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, she served in the Italian Parliament (2008-2013) as vice president of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A founding member of the Friends of Israel Initiative, she has written 15 books, including October 7, Antisemitism and the War on the West, and is a leading voice on Israel, the Middle East, Europe and the fight against antisemitism.

 

(Sept. 30, 2026 / JNS) If there had not been ordinary Israelis on vacation aboard that plane, with their determined and well-organized will to survive, the world today might have been facing a new 9/11 in Tel Aviv: an aircraft turned into a jihadist weapon and smashed into the ground with its 174 passengers—men, women and children, most of them Israelis.

 

The plane plunged 17,000 feet and continued losing altitude when it was only about 350 kilometers from Tel Aviv. The distance is crucial: The aircraft was already approaching what may have been the intended target when the Omani co-pilot allegedly attacked the captain and apparently sought to seize control of the plane.

 

According to some accounts, he shouted “Allahu Akbar” and recited the shahada, the Islamic declaration of faith often recited at the approach of death, before stabbing the captain and allegedly setting in motion what Israeli authorities suspect was a plan for a mass-casualty terrorist attack.

 

What happened next may be almost unprecedented in the history of attempted aircraft hijackings: The passengers themselves fought back, with the courageous help of the Emirati cabin crew.

 

A handful of Israeli passengers confronted and overpowered the alleged attacker. Photographs and videos show some of them covered in blood as they tended to the seriously wounded captain.

 

Crucially, another flight crew happened to be aboard as part of a routine crew arrangement. After the captain was wounded, two pilots from that crew entered the cockpit, took control of the aircraft and flew it to safety.

 

The aircraft was damaged during the violent jolts, and sheer luck—or perhaps a miracle—prevented an unimaginable catastrophe.

 

But it was a miracle made possible by people who acted.

 

Every Israeli knows to watch his back and to react when necessary, whether on the battlefield or amid the difficult circumstances of everyday life. On this flight, ordinary Israelis suddenly found themselves facing an extraordinary threat and became the heroes who may have prevented another Sept. 11.

 

The jungle of baggage and document checks, the labyrinth travelers have faced at airports around the world for decades, has its own long history of terrorism. The 1972 Lod Airport massacre, in which 26 people were killed, was one of the attacks that demonstrated how vulnerable civilian aviation had become.

 

It is extraordinarily difficult to prevent mass-suicide terrorism conceived in the mind of a fanatic or a disturbed individual. In 1999, EgyptAir Flight 990 plunged into the Atlantic with 217 people aboard. U.S. investigators concluded that relief first officer Gameel Al-Batouti deliberately caused the crash, repeatedly uttering words translated as “I rely on God,” although Egyptian authorities rejected that conclusion.

 

There have been other cases of madness, fanaticism or unexplained catastrophe. Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz deliberately crashed an Airbus into the French Alps in 2015, killing all 150 people aboard. In 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared with 239 people aboard, its fate still the subject of investigation and debate.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had warned—while being criticized, as usual, by the opposition—of the possibility of unusual acts of aggression during these days.

 

Unfortunately, the backdrop is now twofold.

 

On the one hand, there are warnings of possible attacks against Jews and Israelis traveling abroad during the Sukkot holiday. Iran continually threatens Israelis and Jews around the world, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has reinforced that message in recent days.

 

And now, amid rampant antisemitism, there is also the unpredictability of radicalized individuals who have come to believe that attacking Jews is an act of political or religious purity, or even of justice.

 

Israel is on alert. Saudi Arabia, where the Israeli survivors waited after their emergency landing, did not permit Israeli aircraft to enter to collect them and is holding those responsible for the incident.

 

There is another striking symbolism here.

 

The alleged attacker was Omani. Oman has close relations with Iran, which maintains a strategic interest in the country because of its position overlooking the Strait of Hormuz and the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

 

The captain he allegedly attacked, by contrast, is a citizen of the United Arab Emirates—a friendly Arab country that signed the Abraham Accords with Israel.

 

And this was a flydubai flight linking Dubai and Tel Aviv, itself an everyday expression of the new relationship between Israel and part of the Arab world.

 

On that aircraft, the contrast could hardly have been sharper: an alleged attacker apparently seeking destruction and an Emirati crew working alongside Israeli passengers to save lives. The passengers fought. The cabin crew helped them. Other pilots took control. Arabs and Israelis together prevented catastrophe.

 

Anyone can board a plane. Anyone can enter and leave. The skies are vast, difficult to control and dangerous—and not only for Israel.

 

The jihadist target has never been Israel alone. The West has repeatedly been a target, and civilian aviation offers terrorists a uniquely horrifying weapon.

 

Mohamed Atta, one of the planners and perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, was an educated young man who had lived and studied in Germany. Nothing about an ordinary outward appearance reveals what may be taking shape inside a radicalized mind.

 

The Houthis, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the malign influences emanating from Iran and elsewhere are filling the skies with clouds.

 

But this time, disaster did not strike.

This time, ordinary Israelis refused to become victims. Together with an Arab crew from a country that chose peace with Israel, they fought back—and a new 9/11 was averted.

 

TOP

nypost-com-logo

Crew of hijacked flydubai plane clashed with heroic Israeli passengers, demanded tied-up terror pilot be freed

 

By David Spector Published 3October2026, 9:21 a.m. ET https://nypost.com/2026/10/03/us-news/crew-of-hijacked-flydubai-plane-fought-with-israeli-passengers-to-free-the-terrorist/

 

The crew of the hijacked flydubai plane shockingly clashed with heroic Israeli passengers who subdued the ax-wielding co-pilot after he attacked the pilot — demanding he be freed, two men who helped secure the terror suspect told The Post in exclusive interviews.

 

“They were asking us to untie the terrorist — we had no idea why,” said banking executive Tzvika Manes, one of the three civilians who took down the would-be hijacker.

 

“They were saying to free the terrorist — we got instantly suspicious of them,” said real estate professional Daniel Schlichter, who was sitting in the second row, close to the cockpit .

 

Tzvika Manes helped subdue the terrorist who attempted to crash the flydubai plane. CNN

Tzvika Manes helped subdue the terrorist who attempted to crash the flydubai plane. CNN

 

Manes, 40, was traveling with his wife and three daughters aged 11, 7, and 6, after a family vacation in Japan, when the co-pilot, identified by The Wall Street Journal as an Omani national Hamam al-Hammami, began hacking at the Indian pilot, Capt. Smit Machchhar, with a crash ax.

 

The seriously injured Machchhar managed to open the cockpit door. Manes, along with plumber Yaniv Hayoun and Asaf Rajuan, rushed to confront the attacker and overpowered him.

 

Hayoun, a plumber, then managed to stabilize the nosediving plane using techniques he learned from the TV show “Air Disasters.

 

But after the three Israelis subdued the pilot and restrained him face-down with his hands tied behind his back — first with zip ties, then using headphone wires that Schlicter gathered from passengers.

 

As he was subdued, Hayoun heard the terrorist cry, “Kill me, kill me” — apparently because he failed in his Jihadist mission, Manes said.

 

Yet some crew members began demanding that he be freed.

 

An argument ensued and the Israeli trio shot back that under no circumstances would the suspected terrorist be released.

 

“They said, ‘You are not God, you are not going to kill him,’” Manes recalled. “We didn’t want to kill him, we just wanted him not to kill us.”

 

Flydubai Captain Smit Machchhar was repeatedly stabbed by the terrorist would-be hijacker. e2w

Flydubai Captain Smit Machchhar was repeatedly stabbed by the terrorist would-be hijacker. e2w

 

Schlichter, 59, who was also returning from a vacation in Japan with his wife, and Manes both said that the Israelis even gave the wounded terrorist an oxygen mask.

 

“We wanted him to live so he could be investigated,” Schlichter said.

 

A power play ensued with the crewmembers insisting that they were in charge of the plane and needed to remain alone in the area directly in front of the cockpit.

 

The Israelis, fearing the crew could be involved in the pilot’s plot, ordered the stewards to leave the cockpit area and to take seats in the middle of the plane.

 

Daniel Schlichter said that he was fully prepared to die. AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean

Daniel Schlichter said that he was fully prepared to die. AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean

 

“We told them, “Now the policy is we’re in charge and you do what we say,’ ” Manes said.

 

“We didn’t know what to think, we were in a suspicious mode for every steward.”

 

A group of passengers, Schlichter among them, escorted the crew members to seats in the fifth or sixth row, away from the cockpit.

 

“We shouted at them and told them to sit down,” said Schlichter, who has two children and two granddaughters.

 

The trio then enlisted a “big guy” to guard the cockpit and prevent anyone from entering, Manes said.

 

Flydubai passenger Yaniv Hayun steadied the plane with techniques he learned from Air Disasters. @aviationbrk/X

Flydubai passenger Yaniv Hayun steadied the plane with techniques he learned from Air Disasters. @aviationbrk/X

 

Reserve pilots seated on the back of the plane had at that point already entered the cockpit and taken over the control of the aircraft.

 

After the crew was seated, they began to “understand that this was a special case,” Schlichter said, and they started tending to the traumatized passengers, providing them with blankets and water.

 

The crew has not been accused of conspiring with the bloodthirsty co-pilot.

 

When asked by The Post about the crew’s behavior, flydubai said it could not comment on a matter under investigation. “We remain fully committed to supporting the ongoing investigation and are in close coordination with the relevant government authorities and regulators,” it said in a statement.

 

“I stayed with the terrorist until we landed safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. After that I hugged my daughters and told them they were going to be OK, and that they are heroes,” Manes said.

 

The heroic trio said the crew of the plane tried to get them to free the terrorist. via REUTERS

The heroic trio said the crew of the plane tried to get them to free the terrorist. via REUTERS

 

Once the plane landed, the adrenaline began to wear off and passengers started processing what they had just survived.

 

Some had panic attacks while others broke down crying, Manes said.

 

“They didn’t want to fly back to Israel on another flydubai flight. Many wouldn’t step foot on the plane until they were personally told by the Mossad that the pilots had been cleared,” he said.

 

The self-described “regular finance guy” never dreamed he would one day be the center of a movie-like life-or-death midair battle.

 

The plane nosedived 17,000 feet. East2West

The plane nosedived 17,000 feet. East2West

 

His only thought was saving his family.

 

“When I heard my daughters crying ‘Father I don’t want to die’ — that was the trigger for me to run and fight, I wasn’t thinking of anything, it was just fight or flight,” Manes said.

 

The pilot fought the three men viciously.

 

“Punches were flying, we were kicking him, we didn’t know if he still had his knife, we couldn’t see it,” Manes said. “None of us were fighters or heroes, we were just normal guys who wanted to save our families.”

 

Manes said he is a regular guy who just wanted to save his family. Anadolu via Getty Images

Manes said he is a regular guy who just wanted to save his family. Anadolu via Getty Images

 

“It was sounds you only hear in a movie,” Schlichter said.

 

Manes, the CEO of Barak Capital Underwriting, Israel’s largest investment bank, said he has bruises all over his body.

 

“The G-Force was like something I never felt like in my life, it felt like everything was soaking, it was a crazy feeling,” he said.

 

Schlichter said that he was fully prepared to die as the plane nosedived 17,000 feet in moments.

 

“It was the longest minute I’ll ever have in my life, I remember everything, I remember clearly thinking about 9/11, then I thought about my children, my family, how awful it would be for them to hear what happened,” he said.

 

Daniel Schlichter poses with his family arriving at Ben Gurion airport. Courtesy of Daniel Schlichter

Daniel Schlichter poses with his family arriving at Ben Gurion airport. Courtesy of Daniel Schlichter

 

Both men said they were overwhelmed by the number of things that had to go right for everyone aboard to survive.

 

“Statistically this kind of miracle can not be happening, the chance that each one of us, especially would be on the same second where they had to be, I can’t even fathom how unlikely it is,” Schlichter said.

 

TOP

A Flight Attendant explains what happened on flydubai Flight FZ1073


Mor Edge Insight-tweet-2October2026-simple explanation flydubai Flight FZ1073
Well you see, @mtgreenee, that’s because you’re an idiot.

Here’s a really simple explanation that even some mentally challenged such as yourself can possibly understand
Marjorie Taylor Greene-tweet-2October2026-
I thought oxygen masks come out when planes suddenly nosedive 14,000 feet.
Like in this picture.

Mor Edge Insight-tweet-2October2026-simple explanation flydubai Flight FZ1073

Mor Edge Insight-tweet-2October2026-simple explanation flydubai Flight FZ1073

 

 

TOP

$250,000 for each flydubai passenger


Mossad Commentary-tweet-5October2026-250,000 for each flydubai passenger
$250,000 FOR EACH PASSENGER?

The 174 passengers aboard the flydubai flight targeted in last week’s attempted hijacking and crash could each be eligible for compensation of around $250,000, according to aviation-law experts cited by Ynet.

The passengers escaped without major physical injuries, but lawyers say compensation may still be available for psychological trauma, anxiety and PTSD.

Under the Montreal Convention, terror incidents aboard aircraft can potentially qualify as an “accident,” while Israeli precedent has recognized purely psychological injury as compensable in certain aviation cases.

A U.S. aviation-litigation firm is now examining potential claims.

The final amount is not automatic and would depend on proving the damage and its connection to the incident.

Mossad Commentary-tweet-5October2026-$250,000 for each flydubai passenger

Mossad Commentary-tweet-5October2026-$250,000 for each flydubai passenger

 

TOP

Terror on flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv-Arutz Sheva logo

A history of Palestinian Arab plane hijacking.

The Palestinian Arabs are unique pioneers in plane hijackings. Op-ed.

Barry Shaw / Sep 30, 2026, 5:48 PM (GMT+3) / https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/433898<

Barry Shaw is with the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. He is author of Israel Reclaiming the Narrative. Fighting Hamas, BDS, and Anti-Semitism. BDS for Idiots. 1917 From Palestine to the Land of Israel, A Tale of Love and Destiny. His substack is The View from Israel.

 

Palestinian Arab militant groups carried out 28 recorded aircraft hijackings and attacks between 1968 and 1996, primarily using the tactic to draw global attention to their cause and force the release of imprisoned terrorists.

 

On July 23, 1968, members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked El Al Flight 426 from Rome to Tel Aviv, diverting it to Algiers. This marked the first politically motivated aviation hijacking in history and initiated a wave of similar attacks.

 

December 26, 1968: The El Al Flight 253 attack was an attack on a grounded plane in Athens by the PFLP. Two Palestinians, Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad and Naheb H. Suleiman, opened fire with submachine guns and hand grenades while the plane was preparing for takeoff. One male passenger was killed, and two female passengers were injured. Both terrorists survived.

 

February 18, 1969: El Al Flight 432, A Boeing 720 on a stopover from Amsterdam to Tel Aviv via Zürich, was attacked on the ground in Zurich International Airport. Four armed Palestinians from PFLP attacked the aircraft with AK-47 rifles and grenades. The leader of the terrorists were killed by an armed Israeli security guard onboard the aircraft. One crew member was shot and later died of his wounds, and several passengers were injured.

 

August 29, 1969: TWA Flight 840 was a Trans World Airlines flight from Leonardo da Vinci International Airport in Rome, Italy, to Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel, that was hijacked on 29 August 1969 by two members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). There were no fatalities, although the aircraft was significantly damaged, and two hostages were held for two months.

 

February 21, 1970: Swissair Flight 330 from Zurich-Kloten Airport to Kai Tak Airport, British Hong Kong, via Tel Aviv-Lod International Airport, crashed nine minutes after take-off when a bomb exploded. The attackers have never been conclusively identified, but have been alleged to have been members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). All 38 passengers and 9 crew were killed. The same day another bomb exploded aboard an Austrian Airlines Caravelle bound for Vienna. The Austrian Airlines plane landed safely.

 

July 22, 1970: Olympic Airways Flight 255, six PFLP terrorists hijacked a Boeing 727 out of Athens, Greece to Beirut, Lebanon. Greek authorities complied with the hijackers’ demands and released seven Palestinian Arab terrorists.

 

In September 1970, the PFLP coordinated the simultaneous hijackings of multiple international airliners, flying three of them (belonging to TWA, Swissair, and BOAC) to a remote desert airstrip in Jordan known as Dawson’s Field. After releasing most of the 300+ hostages, the PFLP blew up the empty aircraft, triggering the Black September crisis in Jordan. This became the name of yet another Palestinian Arab terror unit.

 

September 6, 1970: As part of the Dawson’s Field hijackings by PFLP members, the hijacking of El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam (a Boeing 707) was foiled: hijacker Patrick Argüello was shot and killed, and his partner Leila Khaled was subdued and turned over to British authorities in London.

 

As part of the Dawson’s Field hijackings by PFLP members, two hijackers who were prevented from boarding the El Al flight, hijacked Pan Am Flight 93, a Boeing 747, instead diverting the large plane first to Beirut and then to Cairo, rather than to the small Jordanian airstrip.

February 22, 1972: Lufthansa Flight 649, a Boeing 747-200 from Tokyo to Frankfurt, was hijacked by a group commandeered by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) during the Delhi-Athens leg and forced to divert to Aden, where all 182 passengers and crew were released the next day in exchange for a $5 million ransom.

 

May 8, 1972: Four members of the Black September Organization hijacked a Sabena flight to Lod Airport (now Ben Gurion Airport) in Israel, demanding the release of imprisoned Palestinian Arabs. Israeli Sayeret Matkal commandos, disguised as maintenance technicians led by Ehud Barak, stormed the aircraft and rescued the hostages, Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, then a fighter in an elite commando unit participated in the raid into the plane, was shot and still carries the scar of this operation on his face.

Two of the hijackers were killed along with one female passenger.

 

October 29, 1972: Lufthansa Flight 615, a Boeing 727, from Beirut to Frankfurt, piloted by Capt. Walter Claussen, was hijacked by three men and flown to Zagreb, asking for the liberation of the three surviving perpetrators of the Munich Massacre on 5 September that year. After boarding the three liberated men, the plane was redirected to Tripoli, Libya where all hostages were finally released.

 

July 20, 1973: Japan Airlines Flight 404 was a Boeing 747-246B hijacked just after takeoff from Schiphol Airport en route to Tokyo. The hijackers were four Palestinian Arabs associated with Wadie Haddad, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations (PFLP-GC) and a member of the Japanese Red Army.[38] The plane flew to Dubai, then Damascus before ending in Libya. All passengers and crew were released after 89 hours, but the aircraft was destroyed on the ground in Benghazi, Libya.

 

October 18, 1973: Danielle Cravenne, the second wife of French film producer Georges Cravenne, was shot dead by a police sniper at Marignane airport. Danielle, who was mentally unstable, had tried to hijack 1973 Paris-Nice flight to protest against the release of the film The Mad Adventures of Rabbi Jacob which was being promoted by Cravenne and which she considered “anti-Palestinian”, especially in the midst of the Yom Kippur War.

 

November 25, 1973: A KLM Boeing 747, “Mississippi”, was hijacked by three young Arabs over Iraqi airspace on a scheduled Amsterdam-Tokyo flight with 247 passengers on board. After the hijackers threatened to blow up the plane when no country would grant landing permission, the plane landed in Malta. Most of the passengers and the eight flight attendants were released after negotiations with the Maltese PM Dom Mintoff who argued with the hijackers that the plane could not possibly take off with both the passengers and the 27,000 gallons of fuel they had demanded, given the (then) short runway. With 11 passengers on board, the jumbo jet left Malta to Dubai where the incident ended without fatalities.

 

December 17, 1973: 1973 Rome airport attacks and hijacking. Five heavily armed Palestinian Arab members of PLO invaded Rome-Fiumicino Airport and killed two people while making their way to Pan Am Flight 110 which was preparing to leave the gate. The destroyed the airplane and killed 30 passengers and crew. Then they hijacked Lufthansa Flight 303 and flew to Athens where one passenger was killed. They refueled and flew on to Damascus in Syria, where they again refueled. The final stop was Kuwait where all hostages was released, after the terrorists negotiated a free passage for themselves.

 

Israel September 8, 1974: TWA Flight 841 (1974) from Tel Aviv-Lod International Airport to New York City via Athens and Rome, crashed into the Ionian Sea killing all 88 passengers and crew. The cause of the crash was a bomb in the cargo hold, believed to have been planted by the “National Arab Youth Organization for the Liberation of Palestine”, a group associated with the Abu Nidal Organization.

 

June 27,1976: An Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris was hijacked and diverted to Entebbe, Uganda, by PFLP and German Revolutionary Cells militants. Israeli commandos carried out a rescue operation, freeing the hostages. Yoni Netanyahu, who led the raid to the terminal, was shot and killed as he led his men to the terminal building.

 

October 13, 1977: Lufthansa Flight 181 (also known as the Landshut) was hijacked by Palestinian hijackers on a flight from Palma de Mallorca to Frankfurt. The ordeal ended in Mogadishu, Somalia when GSG 9 commandos stormed the plane. Three hijackers were killed and 86 hostages were freed. The pilot was killed before the raid. The hand of West Germany’s Red Army Faction was suspected.

 

August 11, 1982: Pan Am Flight 830 was en route to Los Angeles, California via Hawaii when a bomb planted on the aircraft exploded. The bomb had been planted by Mohammed Rashed, a Jordanian-born Palestinian Arab linked to the 15 May Organization. One passenger was killed by the blast, but the pilot was able to land the plane safely at Honolulu International Airport.The bomber spent more than 20 years in prison, and was released in 2016.

 

September 23, 1983: Gulf Air Flight 771 blew up in mid-flight after a bomb exploded in the baggage compartment. The plane was en route from Karachi to Abu Dhabi. 112 passengers and crew died. The bomb was planted by the militant Palestinian Arab Abu Nidal Organization in an attempt to pressure Saudi Arabia to pay protection money to avoid attacks on their own soil.

 

November 23, 1985: Three Palestinian Arab members of the Abu Nidal Organization hijacked EgyptAir Flight 648 on its Athens to Cairo route, and demanded that it fly to Malta. All together, 60 people died, most of them when Egyptian commandos stormed the aircraft.

 

April 2, 1986: On TWA Flight 840, a Boeing 727-231 from Los Angeles to Cairo, via New York City, Rome and Athens, a bomb exploded shortly before landing in Athens. It blasted a hole in the airplane’s starboard side and four passengers died after being blown out. The aircraft made a successful emergency landing. A group called Izzeddin Qassam unit of the Arab Revolutionary Cells, linked to the Palestinian Arab Abu Nidal Organization, claimed responsibility.

 

September 5, 1986: 22 people were killed when Pakistani security forces stormed Pan Am Flight 73, a Boeing 747-121 carrying 360 passengers and crew, at Karachi after a 16-hour siege. The flight was en route to Frankfurt from Mumbai, India, when the flight was hijacked on the ground in Karachi by four armed terrorists of the Abu Nidal Organization. In 2023, the movie Hijacked: Flight 73, based on this hijacking, was released.

 

September 3, 1996: A Tupolev Tu-154 operating as Hemus Air Flight 7081 was hijacked by the Palestinian Arab Hazem Salah Abdallah, flying from Beirut to Varna. The hijacker demanded that the aircraft be refueled and given passage to Oslo, Norway after landing at Varna Airport. All of the 150 passengers were freed at Varna; afterwards the crew continued the flight to Oslo, where the hijacker surrendered and asked for political asylum.

 

The Palestinian Arabs and those who sympathize with them have a unique hold on plane hijackings.

Although the attempted Fly Dubai hijacking of a plane from the UAE to Israel today, 30 September 2026 was undertaken by an Islamic airline pilot, it was inspired by the Palestinian Arab aerial history of death targeting Israelis and Jews.

 

TOP

jns-org-logo

‘Short and forceful’: The IDF’s war plan if Palestinian Authority forces turn their guns on Israel

Former Israeli defense officials assess the risks behind the defense minister’s directive ordering the IDF to prepare for a possible armed clash with the P.A.

Yaakov Lappin https://www.jns.org/analysis/short-and-forceful-the-idfs-war-plan-if-palestinian-authority-forces-turn-their-guns-on-israel

 

Palestinian police take part in a military parade in Nablus marking the 31st anniversary of the founding of the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, July 1, 2025. Photo by Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90.

Palestinian police take part in a military parade in Nablus marking the 31st anniversary of the founding of the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, July 1, 2025. Photo by Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90.

Yaakov Lappin

Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He is the in-house analyst at the Miryam Institute; a research associate at the Alma Research and Education Center; and a research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. He is a frequent guest commentator on international television news networks, including Sky News and i24 News. Lappin is the author of Virtual Caliphate: Exposing the Islamist State on the Internet. Follow him at: www.patreon.com/yaakovlappin.

 

(Oct. 13, 2026 / JNS) The Israel Defense Forces have been ordered to prepare for a scenario in which Palestinian Authority security forces and the Fatah-affiliated Tanzim organization “turn their guns” against Israeli civilians and IDF troops in Judea and Samaria, a move that would trigger a full-scale Israeli offensive, Defense Minister Israel Katz told ministers at the weekly Cabinet meeting last week.

 

“In such a case, war would be declared against the Palestinian Authority, and the IDF would launch a comprehensive offensive in accordance with a detailed plan formulated and approved by Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and by me,” Katz said, adding that the campaign “would be short and forceful” and modeled on the Gaza and Lebanon campaigns.

 

Shalom Arbel, a former senior member of the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet) who served from 1988 to 2013 in roles involving human intelligence recruitment and operations, and before that as a major in the IDF reserves in Lebanon, Gaza and Judea and Samaria, told JNS that Katz’s directive “should have come a long time ago” and that the threat has been building for “a year, two years, three years at least.”

 

Arbel, a research fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security, pointed to the scale of the Palestinian security forces’ buildup.

 

“This is the growth, recruitment, a very significant additional buildup of Palestinian soldiers, policemen in the West Bank, to the point where, as I understand it, the numbers reach 60,000 to 70,000 people,” he said. He described that figure as a direct violation of the Oslo Accords.

 

“In my assessment, the limitation there was in the direction of 20,000 policemen with very specific weapons, and those are roughly the numbers, and I think Israel is in a very big problem here,” Arbel said.

 

The former Shin Bet officer said he does not believe the P.A. is planning an imminent attack but suspects covert contingency planning at the leadership level for a major triggering event.

 

“I personally don’t think the Palestinian Authority is preparing in the short term some force order to fight Israel immediately,” Arbel said. “I think there is a thought that isn’t open, it’s covert, very secret, let’s call it that, only at the leadership level, to prepare forces of this magnitude in case of a major event,” he added, citing scenarios such as Operation Guardian of the Walls in 2021 or a second Al-Aqsa Intifada triggered by “some intensive conduct by Israel, some operational accident that causes the killing of Palestinians.”

 

“The lesson from Oct. 7 is that you don’t need intelligence about everything,” Arbel said, drawing an analogy to Hamas training videos.

 

“There was Hamas training on the other side, speaking about killing Jews, training in shooting at mock structures with Israeli flags and dolls of Jews, so we did not need a warning that Hamas will one day attack us,” he said. “Likewise, I don’t need a warning that the 60,000 to 70,000 armed policemen, one day maybe given an event, will attack us back. This requires treatment today.”

 

He called for an ultimatum demanding that the P.A. disarm down to Oslo-mandated levels, “including under threat,” with legal and operational sanctions against anyone holding unauthorized weapons.

 

On security coordination with the P.A., Arbel was categorical in his opposition.

 

“They’re all terror organizations, Fatah is no better than Hamas,” he said, recalling how Yasser Arafat used to detain Hamas operatives briefly under what he called “protective custody” before releasing them.

 

“No security coordination with an enemy. I don’t see it. It’s as logical as security coordination with Iran,” Arbel said.

 

Lt. Col. (res.) Amit Yagur, former deputy head of the Palestinian arena at the IDF Planning Branch and a former naval intelligence officer, pointed to P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas’s repeated postponement of elections and the P.A.’s collapsing public image as key underlying factors.

 

“Hamas is strong and getting stronger, and according to every public opinion poll conducted both during the war and now, including Palestinian polls, Hamas takes first place quite easily,” Yagur said, describing the P.A.’s reputation among its own people as one of “very deep corruption” and stagnation.

 

Yagur said the Palestinian population no longer accepts the P.A.’s narrative despite the extensive foreign funding it has received.

 

“The Palestinians are one of the groups that received quite a lot of money over the years, from Arab states, from European states, and tax money from Israel. They only received money, they don’t see that money translated on the ground. The people, after all these years, have taken notice,” Yagur said.

 

Yagur said he does not foresee an organized mass popular uprising, citing fears among Palestinian residents in Judea and Samaria of paying the price that Gaza has paid.

 

“I don’t see a popular intifada erupting in the style of 1987 or the 2000s. They’re afraid of the costs, and the war hasn’t ended yet. It’s better for them than a situation like Gaza, and they see that,” Yagur said.

 

He said a more plausible risk is that individual P.A. security personnel could turn to terrorism if their salaries stop.

 

“It can very much be that they’ll think, what do we do? One option is to resign, a second is to wait, a third is to say, fine, I’m turning my weapon, I’m going to carry out an attack, because I’ve lost hope anyway,” Yagur said.

 

A coordinated mass defection of P.A. security forces, Yagur argued, would amount to institutional suicide.

 

“This would be an event that requires direction from above, and it’s what’s called the official declaration of the death of the Oslo process,” Yagur said. “The Palestinian Authority understands that the moment it does such a thing, there’s nothing left to fight for control over, because Israel will simply take everything in such a case.”

 

He noted that the P.A., unlike Hezbollah, was not founded on ideological opposition to Israel and depends heavily on international funding to survive.

 

Yagur proposed an alternative long-term framework modeled on localized Gulf-style governance rather than a two-state solution.

 

“I think Sykes-Picot is the number one cause of failure that produced a long line of failed states, and it needs to be replaced with the Abraham Accords, with something else entirely,” Yagur said.

 

TOP

https://www.jpost.com/

“Israel has shifted from a concept of containment to a concept of decisive victory”

The Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF) held its “From Disaster to Victory” security conference yesterday, at which seven fundamental insights concerning national security were presented

 

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
OCTOBER 12, 2026 15:03 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-911437

 

Three years after the October 7 disaster, the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF) held its “From Disaster to Victory” security conference yesterday, at which seven fundamental insights concerning national security were presented.

 

Senior figures from the defense establishment, defense industries, local government, and the public sphere are participating in the conference, which centers on the changes in Israel’s security doctrine since October 7 and the challenges that will accompany Israel in the coming years. The various discussions addressed military and technological strength, Israel’s diplomatic standing, national resilience, internal security, the threat of delegitimization, and the battle for our home.

 

Participants in the conference included Prof. Yuval Steinitz, chairman of Rafael; India’s Ambassador to Israel, Jitender Pal Singh; Brig. Gen. (Res.) Erez Winner, chairman of IDSF; Col. (Res.) Dr. Ronen Itzik, the IDSF CEO; Lt. Col. (Res.) Itamar Eitam; Col. (Res.) Ilan Dickstein; Gabi Naaman, head of the Shlomi Local Council; entrepreneur and philanthropist Yossi Hollander; and Dov Oster, father of the late Capt. Eitan Oster.

 

Prof. Steinitz addressed Israel’s military and technological strength: “Within 36 hours, the Air Force achieved decisive air superiority over Iran, even though our closest partners in the world did not believe we would succeed in achieving this for many months. This achievement was made possible, among other things, thanks to Rafael’s unique munitions, some of which are still classified.”

 

*A profound shift in the concept*
India’s Ambassador to Israel, Jitender Pal Singh, paid tribute to the victims of the October 7 terrorist attack and expressed solidarity with the affected families.

 

He reiterated India’s steadfast commitment to combating terrorism.

 

IDSF chairman Brig. Gen. (Res.) Erez Winner said in his closing address at the conference: “We are currently in a state of victory. We will not be – we are winning today. Israel has shifted from a concept of containment to a concept of decisive victory, from an enemy firing and us responding to a situation in which we act to prevent it from building the threat in the first place. Today, when people discuss a strike in Tehran, they no longer ask how and why – they ask when. This is a profound shift in Israel’s security doctrine.”

 

The IDSF chairman further warns: “The most significant threat is the threat from within. The Palestinian Authority has tens of thousands of armed men, and at the same time there are enormous quantities of illegal weapons and serious crime in the Israeli Arab sector. The potential of this threat is not October 7 – but ‘October 7,000.’ If we ignore the threat as it is being built, we may encounter it once it has already materialized.”

 

During the conference, a certificate of appreciation was awarded to Meital Bergman, who joined as the organization’s 60,000th member. With this, IDSF surpassed the threshold of 60,000 female and male members.

 

TOP

Israfan-com-logo

IDF and Shin Bet Expose Terror Fronts Posing as Charities

What the raids found inside Addameer and the Yatta orphan fund, and why the IDF chief is sending a division to Judea and Samaria.

15October2026 • https://israfan.com/p/idf-and-shin-bet-expose-terror-fronts-posing-as-charities

 

The IDF and the Shin Bet raided the offices of the Addameer Charity Association in Ramallah on Tuesday, The Jerusalem Post reports, and the military confirmed on Wednesday that forces also hit the Islamic Association for the Care of Orphans in Yatta, near Hebron. According to the military, both groups acted as fronts for Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Five terrorist collaborators were arrested. Forces seized computers, documents and checkbooks bearing markers associated with Hamas.

 

Addameer presents itself as a prisoner rights association, The Jewish Edition reports. The IDF said it receives terrorist funding and provides legal assistance to imprisoned PFLP terrorists. Its history is dark. A previous Israeli government report identified Samer Arbeed, a former Addameer accountant, as the commander of the PFLP cell behind the August 23, 2019 bombing at Ein Dani Spring, near Dolev. That attack murdered 17-year-old Rina Shnerb and wounded her father and brother. In October 2021, then-Defense Minister Benny Gantz designated Addameer and five other organizations as terrorist organizations over their PFLP ties, and he made the designation permanent in August 2022. Israeli authorities also reported that the network received funding from European governments and international organizations.

 

The Yatta raid came in recent weeks, with soldiers acting on Shin Bet intelligence, The Jewish Edition reports. The military said the orphan association served as an organizational hub and financial arm of Hamas, moving money directly to the terrorist organization and to family members of Hamas terrorists. In the military’s words, it “serves as infrastructure for entrenching the Hamas terrorist organization’s standing in Yatta, while exploiting its purportedly civilian activities.” Its director and other senior officials have been imprisoned in the past.

 

Ynetnews reports that the Yatta raid also turned up findings bearing signs of declared Hamas funds. The detainees and the seized materials were handed over for further investigation.

 

Meanwhile, IDF Chief of the General Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir toured Judea and Samaria with Central Command chief Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth and approved plans for continued operations in the area, the Post reports. He is sending the 98th Division there to “strengthen security and stability in the area.” Zamir said: “The IDF is at a high level of readiness to launch extensive offensive operations against anyone who attempts to harm Israeli civilians.”

 

What it means: a group that pays lawyers for PFLP prisoners, and a fund that pays the families of Hamas terrorists, are part of the terror machine too. Cutting off the money is part of cutting off the terror, and Israel is doing it with records in hand.

 

The Jerusalem Post reports that terrorists who took part in the 2019 bombing that murdered Rina Shnerb were working at Addameer at the time of the raid. The Jewish Edition adds that Samer Arbeed worked for the group until April 2017, and that the government report tied another former employee to the same cell. The Defense Ministry said the designated organizations operated as branches of the PFLP, using humanitarian work to hide terrorist financing, recruitment and organizational activity. The IDF said both groups had been declared unlawful and were being used to advance terrorist activity throughout Judea and Samaria.

 

Zamir’s warning came out of a situational assessment with Bluth and senior Central Command officers, in which he reviewed the operational challenges in the area, the Post reports. He said the IDF must stay vigilant on every front and move fast to stop threats. In his words, “In light of the increased number of alerts across all fronts and the sensitivity of this period, the potential for escalation has grown.”

 

Sources: The Jerusalem Post, Ynetnews, The Jewish Edition
Photo: Israel Defense Forces (CC BY-SA 2.0), via Wikimedia Commons

 

TOP

Aish-Logo-Full

The World Says You’re a Jew. Now What?

 

by Rabbi Raphael Shore October 4, 2026 https://aish.com/the-world-says-youre-a-jew-now-what/

 

At NYU, my nephew took a stand and lost friends overnight. He knew why he was targeted but no one ever explained to him why being Jewish was worth it.

 

On the morning of October 7, 2023, my nephew, a student at NYU, woke up and reached for his phone. His feed was already flooded with posts attacking Israel. He didn’t yet know what had happened there.

 

Only after scrolling through post after post did he piece together what had happened hours earlier. Hamas terrorists had crossed into Israel, murdered some 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and dragged 251 hostages into Gaza.

 

Like many Jewish college students, he had a Jewish life, but it wasn’t the center of his identity. He attended Jewish events and the occasional Shabbaton, and moved easily between his Jewish and non-Jewish worlds. Being Jewish was part of who he was. He just never assumed it was how other people saw him.

 

That changed quickly, as other people began drawing the line for him. Within days, posters went up around campus with the faces of the hostages: grandparents, mothers, teenagers, and dozens of children, some of them babies, taken from their homes and held in tunnels under Gaza by Hamas.

 

The posters appealed to a basic human instinct: whatever anyone thought about the Middle East, surely no one could look at the photograph of a kidnapped four-year-old and feel nothing.

“His response triggered a deluge of hate messages, many of them from people he knew and had thought were his friends.”

Yet the posters were torn down, again and again. When the university suspended a student for ripping them off the walls, my nephew posted that the school had made the right call.

 

His response triggered a deluge of hate messages, many of them from people he knew and had thought were his friends. They defended the student who had torn the posters down and called my nephew Islamophobic, as though what bothered him was the student’s religion rather than the sight of kidnapped Jews being stripped off the walls. Many of those friendships ended right there, and the campus environment became so toxic for him that he went abroad the next semester.

Singled Out for Being a Jew

When I talked with him afterward, what struck me most was how well he held up. He didn’t fold, and he didn’t quietly wonder whether the crowd had a point. He was shocked that so many educated people had lost the ability to tell right from wrong on something so plain.

“He was singled out because he was a Jew. But he had no sense of what being a Jew is for, and why it might be worth everything it was suddenly costing him.”

He knew he had been singled out because he was a Jew. But no one had given him a sense of what being a Jew is for, and why it might be worth everything it was suddenly costing him.

 

This encapsulates the story of a generation.

 

The world has spent the last three years telling Jews, loudly and clearly, that they are Jews. But what is less clear is who gets to decide what it means, the people shouting at them or the Jews themselves? How we answer that question will shape the Jewish future more than any campus policy or election.

Simmering Antisemitism

For decades after the Holocaust, many Jews, especially in the West, believed that antisemitism had been pushed to the margins. It was ugly and it still existed, but it belonged to cranks and to history. Respectable people didn’t go there.

 

Then came October 7. Before Israel had buried its dead, and before a single soldier had entered Gaza, crowds were in the streets of major cities, and they had not come to mourn. The old hatred hadn’t disappeared after all; it simply found new expression – in the language of human rights, anti-colonialism and social justice, and with it a new respectability on campuses, in newsrooms and across professional life.

 

But what it said to Jews was very old. It didn’t matter whether you had ever been to Israel, voted there, or held any opinion about its government. No one asks Chinese-American students to denounce Beijing’s treatment of the Uyghurs before they are welcome at the lunch table, yet Jewish students were expected to disavow the Jewish state as the price of belonging. It has often been said that Israel has become the Jew among the nations; the reverse is just as true, and every Jew is now treated as Israel’s ambassador, whether he signed up for the job or not.

“People who had given little thought to what it means to be Jewish were suddenly being asked to account for it by classmates, colleagues and strangers.”

One of the stranger results of these three years is that people who had given little thought to what it means to be Jewish were suddenly being asked to account for it by classmates, colleagues and strangers, and every one of them has had to decide what to do about it.

Who Gets to Define a Jew?

In 1946, in the book published in English as Anti-Semite and Jew, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote that “the Jew is one whom other men consider a Jew.” He meant it as part of an attack on antisemitism, and his argument was that the antisemite, in effect, creates the Jew. For a secular Jew, that can feel uncomfortably accurate: you are Jewish because the world won’t let you forget it.

 

It is also a trap, and Sartre himself came to see it. His account, for all its good intentions, left the Jews nothing of their own, no history, faith or purpose beyond being hated. Late in life, in conversations with his secretary Benny Lévy, who was returning to Judaism, Sartre acknowledged that the Jews have a real history and hope of their own, one no antisemite wrote for them.

“If your identity is whatever your enemies say it is, you have handed them the pen.”

If your identity is whatever your enemies say it is, you have handed them the pen. To a large degree that is what has happened for the past two generations. Much of Diaspora Jewish identity has been built on the Holocaust and on the fight against antisemitism. Remembering is a sacred duty, but when the story you tell your children is mainly about the people who hated you, you have in effect let them write it. A Jewishness built on being hated has little positive to teach your children, and little to offer them except a reason to walk away.

 

Jewish tradition makes the opposite claim. When the prophet Bilaam was hired to curse Israel, he looked at the people and said instead: Am levadad yishkon, “a nation that dwells alone” (Numbers 23:9). What was meant as a curse came out as a blessing, describing not a people cut off from the world but one whose sense of itself doesn’t depend on the world’s approval.

What the Jews of Shushan Did

An earlier generation went through something similar. The Jews of Persia in the Purim story were comfortable, hobnobbing with the non-Jews in the capital Shushan as they attended the king’s feast. Then Haman described them to the king as “a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the nations, whose laws are different” (Esther 3:8), and a decree for genocide went out to kill “all the Jews, young and old” (3:13). Haman made no distinction between the observant and the assimilated; to him, a Jew was a Jew.

 

The Talmud (Shabbat 88a) makes a remarkable claim about what happened next. At Sinai, the Jewish people had accepted the Torah under a kind of compulsion, but now in the days of Purim and Achashverosh they accepted it again, freely. This is the meaning of the phrase in the Megillah, kiymu v’kiblu (Esther 9:27), “they upheld and accepted,” which the Talmud reads to mean that they now upheld with love what they had long before accepted more from a sense of fear.

‘The generation that finally embraced the Torah with a full heart was the very one that had just been told by the most powerful empire on earth that they were Jews and would die for it.’

Consider this: the generation that finally embraced the Torah with a full heart was the very one that had just been told by the most powerful empire on earth that they were Jews and would die for it. They could have treated their Jewishness as a liability to be minimized; instead, they answered by defining themselves.

The Choice in Front of Us

October 7 provoked three distinct responses amongst Jews.

 

Some Jews have distanced themselves. This is the familiar “As a Jew” declaration, assuring the world that they are not that kind of Jew. Privately, it may be nothing more dramatic than a necklace tucked beneath a shirt or silence in the group chat.

 

I don’t judge anyone who is afraid, but distance buys less than it promises because the people demanding it rarely stop at the first concession.

 

Others, like my nephew, have stood their ground. That takes real courage, but resistance alone is still reactive. It may carry you through a hostile semester; it is harder to build a Jewish life on, much less pass one to your children.

 

And some Jews have gone deeper. They stopped asking, “Why do they hate us?” and began asking, ”What is it about being Jewish that has been worth carrying for all these centuries?” They opened a page of Torah or a book of Jewish history, came to a Shabbat table, and went to Israel to stand with family Jews who never thought of themselves as religious are lighting Shabbat candles, baking challah, signing up for classes and turning up at shul for the first time in years. This is the response of Shushan, taking an identity the world forced on us and choosing it for ourselves.

 

This response lasts because it is built on who you are rather than on who hates you. That identity is yours to create, and every Jew who chooses to learn, to celebrate, to show up, becomes part of a story that has outlasted every enemy who tried to end it.

 

TOP

Birthrate vs. GDP per Capita: Where Israel Stands


Saul Sadka-tweet-17October2026-Birthrate vs GDP per Capita
You can hate Israel, or you can come and learn why it’s the only nation on earth that manages to be rich without effectively sterilising itself.

This, not climate change or AI, is going to be the world’s main problem for the rest of this century. Israel alone has the answer.
Saul Sadka-tweet-16October2026-Shabbat Shalom from Tel Aviv
Sinwar and all his followers are dead forever—they chose death and were defeated—but the victors, the people of Israel live: “Am Yisrael Chai.” 🇮🇱

Shabbat Shalom from Tel Aviv.

Saul Sadka-tweet-17October2026-Birthrate vs GDP per Capita

Saul Sadka-tweet-17October2026-Birthrate vs GDP per Capita

 

 

Birthrate vs. GDP per Capita: Where Israel Stands

Birthrate vs. GDP per Capita:
Where Israel Stands

 

TOP

jns-org-logo

What the hostages’ return means to Israel

Bringing my brother-in-law and the others home became much more than rescuing individuals. It became a test of repairing a covenant.

Moshe Emilio Lavi https://www.jns.org/opinion/moshe-emilio-lavi/what-the-hostages-return-means-to-israel

 

Lishay Miran, wife of Israeli hostage Omri Miran, attends a Constitution, Law and Justice Committee meeting at the Knesset in Jerusalem on June 9, 2025. Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90.

Lishay Miran, wife of Israeli hostage Omri Miran, attends a Constitution, Law and Justice Committee meeting at the Knesset in Jerusalem on June 9, 2025. Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90.

 

Moshe Emilio Lavi

Moshe Emilio Lavi is a native of Sderot, Israel. He is a former captain of the Israel Defense Forces and now works as a management consultant in New York City. His brother-in-law, Omri Miran, was taken hostage by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023 and released on Oct. 13, 2025.

 

(Oct. 13, 2026 / JNS) A year ago, on Oct. 13, my brother-in-law, Omri Miran, returned to Israel after 738 days as a hostage of Hamas.

 

For my family, that day’s significance is clear. My sister Lishay got her husband back, and their daughters, Roni and Alma, got their father back. Parents, spouses, siblings, family and friends recovered someone whose absence had dictated nearly every aspect of their lives for two years.

 

A year later, I find myself asking not only what Omri’s return means to us, but what the return of the hostages means to Israel: what it has repaired in our society, what it could not repair and what obligations remain now that the struggle to bring them home is over.

 

For two years after Oct. 7, the hostages were the most painful expression of a violation of the duties owed by the Israeli state to its citizens. States exist, at the most elemental level, to protect the people who entrust them with power. Israel failed catastrophically in that obligation on Oct. 7, when Omri was taken from his home in Kibbutz Nahal Oz in front of his wife and their young daughters.

 

Bringing him and the others home therefore became about more than rescuing individuals. It became a test of whether they could repair that covenant.

 

Jewish tradition has an old phrase for the obligation beneath that covenant: Kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh—“All Israel are responsible for one another.”

 

For two years, Israelis disagreed fiercely about what that responsibility required. Some believed military pressure alone was essential to securing the hostages’ release. Others believed the war itself endangered them or that military pressure had to serve a diplomatic outcome, and ultimately, a negotiated deal.

 

Families marched against their government, soldiers entered Gaza believing they were fighting for those same families, negotiators moved between capitals, and volunteers who had never met a hostage reorganized their lives around people whose photographs they had learned by heart.

 

The late Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote: “In a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

 

The arguments were bitter precisely because the underlying obligation was so deeply shared. Whatever else Israelis disagreed about, the country could not simply move on while its people remained captive underground.

 

As a member of a hostage family, I saw that mobilization from close range. For much of those two years, I served as an international envoy for the hostage families, advocating alongside family members, captivity survivors and extraordinary volunteers in governments, diplomatic missions and international organizations. All those meetings were underpinned by a simple demand: See these people, and don’t let the world or our own government forget them.

 

In the final year of that effort, we also found extraordinary engagement from the Trump administration. From the U.S. president on down, senior officials listened to the families closely, met with us repeatedly, allowed us into rooms where decisions were being shaped and treated the hostage crisis not as an abstract foreign-policy problem, but as an urgent human one.

 

They did not give up on finding a solution, and they stayed engaged until the mission was complete and every hostage, living or deceased, had been brought home. Our family will always carry profound gratitude for that.

 

When Omri and the other living hostages returned, followed in the months after by the bodies of those who had been killed, until Master Sgt. Ran Gvili, the last hostage, was brought home on Jan. 26, something fundamental was restored. The state had failed to prevent their abduction, and nothing about their return can erase that failure. Yet Israeli society had also refused to make peace with their absence—and that refusal mattered.

 

That is also why I hesitate to describe Oct. 13 as closure.

 

A husband returned to his wife and a father to daughters who had grown while he was gone. But the dead remained dead; the failures that produced Oct. 7 remained unresolved; and trust in institutions did not magically reappear when the hostages crossed back into Israel.

 

The late Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote: “In a free society, some are guilty, but all are responsible.”

 

Hamas, other Palestinian terrorists and those who assisted it are guilty of abducting Omri and holding him captive. But the end of the hostage crisis does not release Israeli institutions from examining how Oct. 7 happened or Israeli society from asking what two years of trauma did to us.

 

At Passover this year, I wrote in an article that the Israelites left Egypt quickly, but learning to live as free people took far longer. The same is true of societies emerging from trauma. Israel brought its hostages home, but it has not yet fully answered what kind of country they came home to.

 

That requires an independent national commission of inquiry into the failures of Oct. 7. It requires rebuilding trust between citizens and those entrusted with their security. It requires a political culture in which disagreement does not automatically become betrayal and in which national solidarity is not rediscovered only in moments of catastrophe.

 

National resilience is measured not only by the ability to survive war, but also by the ability to preserve a shared civic life afterward. The return of the hostages proved that the covenant had not disappeared. Israelis could still argue, protest, fight, negotiate and disagree while remaining bound by the conviction that their fellow citizens could not be abandoned.

 

A year later, the question is whether we can preserve that sense of responsibility now that no hostages remain to force us to remember it.

 

Omri came home. What Israel builds from that return is now up to us.

 

TOP

Fox News logo

Israeli combat medicine slashes IDF deaths after Oct 7, draws US military interest

The IDF says the mortality rate during the 2006 war against Hezbollah was 15% compared to 7.1% in 2023

By Benjamin Weinthal Fox News
Published October 10, 2026 1:00pm EDT https://www.foxnews.com/world/israeli-combat-medicine-slashes-idf-deaths-after-oct-7-draws-us-military-interest

 

JERUSALEM — A growing number of Israeli army battlefield life-saving measures have emerged during the Iranian regime-backed multi-front war against the Jewish state, and those new technologies are helping the U.S. too.

Fox News Digital was briefed on the most current insights and data on Israel’s success rate in saving soldiers’ lives from a senior Israel Defense Forces (IDF) medical specialist in battlefield medicine.

 

The grueling Israeli ground offensive against the U.S.-designated terrorist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip, which started in October 2023, after the organization’s invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, introduced cutting-edge medical tactics to the battlefield.

Hamas brutally murdered over 1,200 people in southern Israel, including more than 40 Americans, and kidnapped 251 people.

 

An IDF spokesman laid out the new advances, saying, “The IDF Medical Corps adapted its operational capabilities during the war, including casualty evacuation, innovative medical technologies and providing treatment under fire in a challenging terrain.”

 

The IDF medical specialist told Fox News Digital that during “the Second War in Lebanon [in 2006 against the Lebanese-based terrorist group Hezbollah] it took 15 to 20 minutes for advanced life support to reach a casualty. Now, advanced life support can reach a casualty immediately or within four minutes.”

 

The placement of “medical personnel on the battlefield, including a doctor in every company, allows the IDF to make critical decisions early on during the care process,” the IDF medical specialist said.

 

The use of helicopters to deliver seriously wounded soldiers to medical facilities, as seen in video footage provided to Fox News Digital, plays a critical role in preventing death.

 

The second advance is, according to the IDF medical specialist, “rapid evacuation,” which means “we can evacuate casualties to Israeli hospitals rapidly.”

 

There has been “an emphasis on the use of blood products since 2013 on stopping bleeding,” the IDF medical specialist said. He added that the IDF is the first medical organization that “used plasma on the point of injury instead of salt and water.”

 

He noted the IDF implemented a sophisticated rapid-fire system for providing blood to injured soldiers. A telling example: Blood was placed on the back of first responders in coolers to stop bleeding and control the hemorrhaging. The method “saved significant numbers” of injured soldiers.

 

An additional improvement in lifesaving first response medicine in the war zone involves an “advanced system of learning and the collection of data that transmits the data over technical networks so that every provider can see patient data.”

 

The IDF specialist said that “every relevant medical officer on the chain can see the patient data. This system had very good results.”

 

The case mortality rate is the best index for quantifying care, the IDF medical specialist said. The results have been dramatic. According to IDF data, the mortality rate during the 2006 war against Hezbollah was 15% in contrast to 7.1% during 2023.

 

The IDF medical specialist said Israel’s military medicine apparatus has relied on the bedrock 2012 U.S. study, “Death on the battlefield (2001–2011): Implications for the future of combat casualty care,” which covered American medical aid during the war in Iraq.

 

Dr. Marc Siegel, senior medical analyst for Fox News, told Fox News Digital, “Battlefield advances based on the latest technologies that have been developed in Israel, including surgical techniques as well as the latest burn treatment NexoBrid, help not just today’s wounded but fuel medical and surgical advances around the world.”

 

Siegel’s latest book “The Angels Among Us: How God’s Messengers Play a Role in Healing,” features a chapter involving a medical rescue during the Gaza war.

 

The U.S. Army and the IDF have been cooperating in how to advance battlefield medicine for years.

 

According to an April 2026 U.S. military report, “Israeli Defense Force Medical Lessons Learned,” the American military authors explained in the 78-page study the pressing need to absorb Israel’s advances from the start of the Swords of Iron War campaign in 2023.

 

The U.S. Army wrote, “In the fields of operational health and force readiness, the IDF executed proactive public health measures — including robust bio-surveillance, forward-positioned preventive medicine teams and stringent food safety protocols — to mitigate health threats and maintain operational readiness.”

 

The U.S. Army warned, “Despite Israel’s preparations, it had to undergo a painful process of transformation in contact that the U.S. now has the opportunity to avoid. The time for preparation is now. Simply possessing clinical and tactical skills is insufficient.”

 

An IDF spokesman told Fox News Digital the U.S. Army study of Israel’s emergency health care providers during the wars” was a joint collaboration, and American officers came to learn from the IDF.”

 

TOP

Map-Farm Initiative 2026


Mossad Commentary-tweet-13September2026-Map-Farm Initiative 2026
🚨 NEW MAP HIGHLIGHTS SCALE OF ISRAELI AGRICULTURAL PRESENCE IN AREA C

A new map published by the Farm Initiative claims Israeli farms now cover roughly 1.1 million dunams in Area C, compared with about 200,000 dunams under settlement control.

Area C itself spans approximately 3.51 million dunams.

The map highlights how agriculture has become a major factor in the contest over land use and territorial control across Judea and Samaria.

The numbers make one thing clear: the struggle over Area C is not only about communities and construction — it is increasingly about who is physically present on the land.

Mossad Commentary-tweet-13September2026-Map-Farm Initiative 2026

Mossad Commentary-tweet-13September2026-Map-Farm Initiative 2026

 

Map-Farm Initiative 2026

Map-Farm Initiative 2026

 

TOP

ISRAEL UNVEILS FIRST-EVER 25-YEAR NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY PLAN


Mossad Commentary-tweet-7September2026-Israel unveils first-ever 25-year national food security plan
🇮🇱 ISRAEL UNVEILS FIRST-EVER 25-YEAR NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY PLAN

Israel’s Agriculture Ministry has unveiled a landmark plan to strengthen the country’s food independence amid climate change, population growth and supply-chain disruptions.

The blueprint targets a 33% increase in Israeli agricultural production by 2035 and 65% by 2050, while reducing food waste, expanding agricultural innovation and diversifying import sources.

Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter:

“Whatever we can produce in Israel, we will produce here, and whatever we cannot produce, we will import.”

The initiative began in 2022 but accelerated after the war against Hamas exposed vulnerabilities created by Israel’s growing reliance on imported food.

Mossad Commentary-tweet-7September2026-Israel unveils first-ever 25-year national food security plan

Mossad Commentary-tweet-7September2026-Israel unveils first-ever 25-year national food security plan

 

TOP

NAZA

Honest Reporting New Logo

The Real “NAZA”: Edited Quotes, Mystery ICC Cases & Unexplained Gaza Footage

Did Israeli intelligence really make ICC cases disappear? Why did “NAZA” selectively edit Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s remarks? And why is The Guardian waiting until late November to make the film freely available? A forensic examination of the award-winning documentary uncovers startling omissions, misleading editing and explosive allegations that remain unsubstantiated.

 

By 8October2026  https://honestreporting.com/the-real-naza-edited-quotes-mystery-icc-cases-unexplained-gaza-footage/

 

NAZA_ The Real Story

NAZA_ The Real Story

 

Key Takeaways:

  • Explosive allegations, glaring evidence gaps. From ICC cases to civilian deaths, “NAZA” leaves its most serious accusations unsubstantiated.
  • Selective editing, leading questions, distorted conclusions. The filmmakers omit crucial context and push interpretations beyond what their witnesses establish.
  • Awards are no substitute for evidence. Despite The Guardian’s claims of rigorous verification, “NAZA” leaves fundamental questions unanswered.

Why did the filmmakers behind “NAZA,” a documentary effectively accusing Israel’s military of genocide, fail to submit their allegations to the IDF for a response before its release?

 

Why is its producer, The Guardian, waiting until late November to stream the documentary free on its website, after its theatrical run?

 

And why, despite boasting of more than 100 sources, classified documents and extensive corroboration, has the news organization provided so little publicly verifiable evidence for some of the film’s most incendiary allegations?

 

These are serious questions for a documentary that has already enjoyed a record-breaking standing ovation at Venice, collected the festival’s Special Jury Prize and been celebrated internationally as an extraordinary exposé of Israeli wrongdoing during the war in Gaza.

 


HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-1 of 6-NAZA-PR stunt
1/6
The most revealing clip from “NAZA”… isn’t even in the film.

Venice director Alberto Barbera checks his watch until the ovation breaks the festival record. Then he’s done.

PR stunt? Maybe.

But the story being sold is far bigger: genocide.

And it ends at The Hague. 🧵
HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-2 of 6-NAZA-the court of public opinion
2/6
At Venice, Yuval Abraham stressed how “important” it is for Israelis to watch “NAZA.”

Except they can’t.

Neither, apparently, could the IDF.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said he hadn’t seen the film. The military has literally ASKED the filmmakers for a screening so it could respond properly.

The effect is obvious: let the court of public opinion reach its verdict before any meaningful counterargument can even be heard.
HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-3 of 6-NAZA-The right people did get to see it
3/6
The right people did get to see it: celebrities at Venice and a media ecosystem primed to applaud.

Variety: a “devastating exposé” of Israeli “genocidal policy.”

Hollywood Reporter: a “bombshell exposé.”

The Guardian? It PRODUCED “NAZA” – then covered it, reviewed it and interviewed its directors.
HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-4 of 6-NAZA-No target identified publicly
4/6
Behind all that certainty?

24 anonymous sources and countless claims that can’t be independently verified.

One says Israel once approved a strike with 500 anticipated civilian casualties.

No target identified publicly. No date. No authorization document. No publicly identified corroborating witness.

The IDF flatly denies it.
HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-5 of 6-NAZA
5/6
And this is “NAZA’s” key inversion.

Israel assesses expected civilian harm before striking military targets. That’s part of complying with the laws of war: distinction, proportionality and precautions to protect civilians.

“NAZA” takes evidence of that process and twists it into evidence that Israel was indiscriminately bombing civilians.

That matters because genocide requires specific INTENT.

And where genocidal intent is inferred from conduct, the International Court of Justice says it must be the only reasonable inference.

Which brings us to the legal fight at The Hague.


Elliot Kaufman-tweet-14September2026-
🚨 The ICJ is poised to drastically lower the legal threshold for genocide.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-icjs-pernicious-plan-to-redefine-genocide-6a207ccc

HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-6 of 6-NAZA-effort to make the genocide charge stick
6/6
In The Gambia v. Myanmar, intervening states have urged the ICJ to take a more expansive approach to inferring genocidal intent, which would weaken the Court’s existing standard.

Any ruling would undoubtedly influence South Africa’s case against Israel.

This is bigger than one film.

“NAZA” is part of a wider effort to make the genocide lie against Israel feel like established fact.

At The Hague, states are simultaneously pushing for a broader way to infer genocidal intent.

One builds the accusation in public. The other could make it easier to establish in law.

Different arenas. Same effort to make the genocide charge stick.

https://honestreporting.com/naza-a-record-venice-ovation-idf-condemnation-and-the-genocide-fabrication/

HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-1-3 of 6-NAZA-PR stunt

HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-1-3 of 6-NAZA-PR stunt

HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-4-6 of 6-NAZA-No target identified publicly

HonestReporting-tweet-16September2026-4-6 of 6-NAZA-No target identified publicly

 

But strip away the acclaim, the anonymity and the emotionally charged presentation, and a far more troubling picture emerges.

 

HonestReporting has examined the documentary in detail. What we found goes considerably beyond the flaws already identified by the IDF and other critics: sweeping allegations unsupported by identifiable incidents, selective quotations, leading questions, questionable calculations and conclusions that go well beyond what the film’s own witnesses establish.

 

This is not simply a documentary presenting one side of a controversial war. It is a film asking audiences to accept some of the gravest accusations imaginable while withholding essential information needed to scrutinize them.

 

HonestReporting has put “NAZA”’s most explosive allegations under the microscope. What follows is a forensic examination of the claims, contradictions and omissions that strike at the very heart of the documentary’s credibility and serve to unravel its entire narrative.

 

Did Israel Secretly Make ICC Cases Disappear?

One of NAZA’s most extraordinary allegations comes just over an hour into the documentary, when filmmaker Yuval Abraham suggests that Israeli intelligence operations successfully forced cases against Israel to be withdrawn from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

 

An anonymous intelligence operative claims that his unit worked to thwart Palestinians’ petitions to the court in The Hague, principally by finding compromising information about those making the allegations.

 

Abraham then asks whether he knows of cases that were withdrawn because of operations in which he personally participated.

 

“Definitely,” the interviewee replies.

 

It is an astonishing allegation: that Israeli intelligence did not merely monitor Palestinians seeking international accountability, but successfully prevented cases from proceeding through the world’s permanent international criminal court.

 

Yet the film identifies not a single case supposedly withdrawn, nor any complainant, date, court record or documented connection to an intelligence operation.

 

What makes this especially noteworthy is that Abraham himself co-authored a May 2024 investigation for +972 Magazine, published in partnership with The Guardian and Local Call, alleging a years-long Israeli intelligence campaign targeting the ICC.

 

That investigation, said to be based on interviews with more than two dozen sources, alleged surveillance of prosecutors, Palestinian human rights organizations and individuals supplying evidence to the court. It also described attempts to discredit Palestinian allegations and obtain compromising information about former ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

 

But there is a crucial difference between those allegations and the claim made in NAZA: Abraham’s earlier investigation did not identify a single ICC case that had been withdrawn as a result of Israeli intelligence operations.

 

Indeed, the earlier report described Israel’s efforts to prevent the court from opening a formal investigation, an effort that ultimately failed. The ICC opened its Palestine investigation on March 3, 2021, and subsequently issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant on November 21, 2024.

 

Neither development rules out interference with particular witnesses or submissions. But they certainly do not demonstrate that Israel made cases disappear.

 

There is also a fundamental legal problem with the documentary’s terminology.

 

According to the ICC’s own procedures, individuals and organizations can submit information about alleged crimes through Article 15 communications. These are assessed by the Office of the Prosecutor. They are not necessarily individual court cases that complainants can simply withdraw or terminate.

 

The court also distinguishes between evidence submissions, applications by victims to participate in proceedings, investigations into situations and formal prosecutions against specific defendants.

 

These are not interchangeable.

 

And the ICC explicitly states that documents submitted to its prosecutor are retained by the office. A witness withdrawing cooperation does not automatically erase evidence already provided or close a criminal investigation.

 

So what precisely was supposedly withdrawn? Was an individual persuaded not to testify? Was an evidence submission abandoned before it reached the court? Or did an actual ICC proceeding come to an end?

 

Abraham’s earlier investigation described Israel gathering intelligence about allegations presented to the ICC so its lawyers could challenge them, including through arguments about the court’s jurisdiction and the principle of complementarity, under which genuine national investigations can affect whether an ICC case is admissible.

 

There is a fundamental difference between allegations that Israeli intelligence gathered information to challenge accusations at the ICC and the far more serious claim that Israel intimidated witnesses, obstructed justice and caused cases to disappear. Yet Abraham blurs those distinctions, without identifying a single withdrawn case to substantiate his most explosive allegation.

 

The filmmakers have said publicly that they conducted extensive corroboration using additional sources and confidential documents. But they have not publicly identified which, if any, of those materials independently establish the alleged withdrawal of ICC cases.

 

Abraham spent years investigating Israel’s alleged efforts to undermine the ICC. He now presents a witness claiming those efforts successfully derailed cases, without showing viewers which cases they were.

 

For an allegation this serious, that is an extraordinary evidentiary gap.

 

Did Israeli President Isaac Herzog Say All Gazans Legitimate Targets?

Just ten minutes into “NAZA,” Israeli President Isaac Herzog appears on screen declaring: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true, this rhetoric about civilians were not aware, not involved, it’s absolutely not true.”

 

The clip immediately follows an anonymous interviewee claiming that the belief there were no innocent Palestinians in Gaza had spread throughout the Israeli military.

 

The message is unmistakable: even Israel’s president supposedly endorsed the indiscriminate treatment of Gazan civilians that the documentary goes on to portray as Israeli military policy.

 

But the filmmakers left out something rather important: Herzog explicitly rejected that very interpretation during the same press conference.

 

The remarks were made on October 12, 2023, just five days after Hamas’s October 7 massacre, as Israel was conducting airstrikes ahead of its ground offensive.

 

The original press conference tells a very different story from the carefully selected excerpt shown in “NAZA.”

 

Herzog expressly stated that Israel was operating according to international law. He defended Israel’s right to strike Hamas military infrastructure and acknowledged that innocent Palestinians lived in Gaza.

 

More importantly, a journalist from British television outlet Channel 4 directly challenged Herzog on the precise interpretation “NAZA” now encourages.

 

Did holding Gaza’s population responsible for failing to remove Hamas mean Palestinian civilians were legitimate military targets?

 

Herzog’s answer was clear: “No, I didn’t say that. I did not say that and I want to make it clear.”

 

He explained that Israel was defending itself against Hamas rockets launched from civilian areas, and later expressly acknowledged the existence of innocent Palestinians who opposed Hamas.

 

This was not a clarification issued months or years later in response to mounting criticism. It was part of the original press conference, openly available to journalists and filmmakers.

 

Indeed, when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer questioned Herzog about the remarks three days later, the president again rejected the suggestion that he had held all 2.3 million Gazans responsible for Hamas’s atrocities.

 

So why does “NAZA” present the accusation while excluding Herzog’s direct rebuttal?

 

The filmmakers omit the very words that challenge the interpretation they are constructing. It is selective editing with a profoundly misleading effect.

 

When the Interviewer Supplies the Accusations

One of the most revealing aspects of “NAZA” is not simply what its anonymous interviewees say, but what filmmaker Yuval Abraham attempts to get them to say.

 

In one particularly striking exchange, Abraham asks an intelligence officer whether he thought about the people inside buildings being bombed.

 

The witness replies that he did not.

 

“Because you don’t see them as humans?” Abraham presses.

 

“No, because we just wouldn’t talk about those things,” the witness responds.

 

The distinction could not be clearer. The interviewee describes emotional detachment from his work. Abraham introduces the far more damning accusation that he regarded Palestinians as less than human, only for the witness to explicitly reject it.

 

Yet this is far from the only instance in which Abraham’s questioning goes beyond what his interviewees have actually established.

 

When one witness claims an AI system used to identify suspected Hamas operatives was 85 percent accurate, Abraham immediately concludes that at least 15 percent of those flagged were not Hamas members. But without knowing how that accuracy figure was calculated, there is no basis for converting it into a verified false-positive rate among flagged individuals. The distinction between accuracy and precision is fundamental to evaluating machine-learning systems.

 

Elsewhere, Abraham takes an alleged allowance of 20 anticipated civilian casualties per Hamas operative, multiplies it by tens of thousands of potential targets and suggests the resulting figure could encompass Gaza’s entire population.

 

The calculation assumes every possible target was attacked, every strike resulted in the maximum anticipated civilian toll and no individuals were counted more than once.

 

And then there is Abraham’s question to another witness: “Are you saying that you participated in a genocide?”

 

The witness agrees, adopting the legal characterization introduced by the interviewer.

 

A witness’s agreement with Abraham’s terminology is not evidence that the legal requirements for genocide have been established. Yet the documentary repeatedly encourages viewers to move from descriptions of military operations to sweeping conclusions about intent and criminal responsibility.

 

The pattern is difficult to ignore. Abraham repeatedly supplies the most incendiary interpretations himself, encouraging interviewees to validate conclusions that their underlying testimony has not independently established.

 

How Much of “NAZA’s” Narrative Is Constructed Through Editing?

The documentary’s questionable editorial choices extend beyond its interviews.

 

In one sequence, “NAZA” presents a news report discussing Israeli proposals to encourage Palestinians to emigrate from Gaza. Almost immediately afterward, the film cuts to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing that Israel is stopping the entry of goods into the territory.

 

Placed together, the clips invite viewers to see the suspension of supplies as part of a deliberate policy to drive Palestinians out of Gaza.

 

But where is the evidence connecting the two?

 

Netanyahu’s announcement was made on March 2, 2025, immediately after the first phase of the ceasefire and hostage-release agreement expired. Israel explained that it was suspending the entry of goods to pressure Hamas into agreeing to a proposed extension of the ceasefire involving further hostage releases.

 

The brief suspension did occur. But the documentary’s juxtaposition supplies no government directive, operational instruction or other evidence establishing that the decision was intended to implement a Palestinian emigration policy.

 

Nor can the film simply treat proposals discussed in Israeli political circles as established government policy.

 

Consider the so-called Generals’ Plan, put forward by retired Israeli major general Giora Eiland. Presented to a Knesset committee in September 2024, it proposed evacuating civilians from northern Gaza before imposing a siege intended to force Hamas fighters to surrender.

 

But according to CNN’s reporting the following month, sources said Israel’s cabinet had declined to adopt the proposal. The IDF also denied implementing it.

 

Crucially, even a debate about such a proposal does not establish that the March 2025 suspension of supplies was intended to bring about permanent Palestinian emigration.

 

And this is the problem with the sequence in “NAZA.” Two independently significant developments are placed beside one another in a way that encourages viewers to draw a conclusion the documentary does not substantiate.

 

An Incomplete History of Palestinian Telecommunications

Early in the documentary, Abraham explains that after Israel occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, Palestinians were not permitted to establish their own communications infrastructure.

 

But the filmmakers conveniently dispense with the history of 1967 itself.

 

Israel gained control of those territories during the Six-Day War, following Egypt’s expulsion of UN peacekeepers, blockade of the Straits of Tiran and military buildup in Sinai. Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, while Jordan entered the fighting by shelling Israeli positions. Israel subsequently captured Gaza from Egyptian control and the West Bank from Jordan.

 

Under Article 36 of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, Israel explicitly recognized the Palestinian right to establish and operate separate, independent telecommunications networks, including telephone, television and radio infrastructure.

 

And by 2008, a World Bank assessment documented a functioning Palestinian telecommunications industry, including PalTel and its mobile subsidiary Jawwal.

 

The report also identified Israeli restrictions on frequencies and infrastructure, alongside Palestinian regulatory weaknesses and PalTel’s market dominance. But restrictions on a functioning telecommunications sector are hardly the same as Palestinians being prohibited from establishing infrastructure of their own.

 

The film compounds its sweeping account with an equally sweeping allegation about Israeli surveillance.

 

One anonymous witness recalls being taught that Israel monitored every Palestinian telephone conversation, text message and phone location.

 

Yet what independent evidence establishes surveillance of this magnitude?

 

But where is the evidence that Israel intercepted every Palestinian telephone call, text message and phone location?

 

Even Microsoft’s September 2025 investigation, which identified surveillance by the Israeli military and resulted in certain services being disabled, did not establish anything approaching such universal interception.

 

Indeed, Microsoft expressly acknowledged that it had never accessed the underlying customer communications, relying instead on internal business records. This means it could not independently verify whose communications had been intercepted, much less establish that Israel was monitoring every Palestinian phone call and text message, as “NAZA” suggests.

 

Does the Footage Actually Corroborate the Testimony?

One of the documentary’s most harrowing sequences comes near its conclusion, when an anonymous intelligence operative describes monitoring a Palestinian family’s communications before an Israeli airstrike.

 

The witness claims that approximately five families were inside the targeted home. He recounts listening to intercepted conversations afterward, including relatives apparently discussing the deaths of their mother and children.

 

The testimony is accompanied by distressing footage of rescue operations in Gaza, lending the account a powerful sense of immediacy and apparent corroboration.

 

But does the footage actually show the incident being described?

 

The documentary identifies neither the family nor the date or location of the alleged strike. More importantly, it does not establish that the accompanying rescue footage depicts the same incident.

 

No independently verifiable connection is demonstrated between the witness’s account and the images presented alongside it.

 

If the footage depicts the strike described by the witness, why not provide the details needed to establish that connection? And if it does not, why present it in a sequence that could encourage audiences to assume otherwise?

 

More Than 100 Sources. So Where Is the Evidence?

Following the IDF’s rejection of “NAZA,” The Guardian issued an emphatic defense of its documentary.

 

In an October 1 statement, the news organization claimed its investigation involved more than 100 sources familiar with Israeli military systems, including senior commanders directly involved in authorizing strikes.

 

It also maintained that the documentary’s allegations had undergone rigorous corroboration, including the examination of leaked classified documents and detailed verification of specific attacks.

 

These are substantial claims about the depth of the filmmakers’ investigation.

 

But if the evidence is so extensive, why does “NAZA” leave viewers unable to independently examine so many of its most sensational allegations?

 

Protecting confidential sources is a legitimate journalistic consideration. But protecting an interviewee’s identity is not the same as withholding virtually every independently checkable detail about the events being alleged.

 

The Guardian’s assurance that it examined classified documents is not a substitute for showing audiences what those documents establish, even in appropriately redacted or summarized form.

 

Nor does interviewing more than 100 people automatically corroborate every accusation made by the 24 anonymous participants appearing in the documentary.

 

The fundamental question remains: which of “NAZA’s” most serious allegations have been independently verified, and what evidence can the public actually examine?

 

 

Further Discrepancies That Cannot Be Ignored

Even beyond the examples examined here, “NAZA” contains striking instances where estimates and assumptions are presented in ways that suggest far more certainty than the underlying evidence warrants.

 

For example, in one exchange, an interviewee calculates that eight residential buildings, each containing eight apartments with approximately five occupants, would accommodate 320 people.

 

Assuming 25 percent remained after evacuation, he arrives at 80 people.

 

And suddenly those 80 estimated residents become “80 dead.”

 

No casualty records establish that those individuals were present during an attack, much less that all of them were killed.

 

Moreover, Israeli reserve intelligence officer Yair Miron, who has publicly challenged the film’s portrayal of military targeting, says the green designation on the evacuation maps referred to areas with anywhere between zero and 25 percent of residents remaining. That range would include completely evacuated buildings.

 

Even accepting the witness’s assumptions, the calculation establishes neither an actual occupancy figure nor a single confirmed death.

 

Elsewhere, the film moves between numbers of telephone records, suspected operatives, potential targets, anticipated civilian casualties and actual deaths without consistently establishing the relationship between them.

 

Throughout “NAZA,” the same questions repeatedly arise: Where are the identifiable incidents? Where are the operational records? Where is the evidence connecting the witnesses’ allegations to the sweeping conclusions the filmmakers encourage audiences to reach?

 

For a documentary celebrated as a groundbreaking investigation, “NAZA” leaves far too many of its most consequential claims beyond meaningful public scrutiny.

 

A standing ovation at Venice cannot answer those questions. Neither can a prestigious award or The Guardian’s assurances that the journalism was rigorous.

 

The filmmakers have made their accusations. The burden remains on them to substantiate them.

 

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

 

© Divuach Ne’eman R”A, 2025

 

Rachel O’Donoghue

Born in London, England, Rachel O’Donoghue moved to Israel in April 2021 after spending five years working at various national newspaper titles in the UK.

She studied law at the University of Law, London, and gained a master’s degree in multimedia journalism at the University of Kent.

 

TOP

jns-org-logo

Two screens, one choice: The lie of ‘NAZA’ and the truth of ‘Fauda’

While a libelous Israeli film was rewarded in Venice with a jury prize and a standing ovation, the popular TV series confronts viewers with the truth about Oct. 7.

Fiamma Nirenstein
https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/fiamma-nirenstein/two-screens-one-choice-the-lie-of-naza-and-the-truth-of-fauda

 

Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor pose with the Special Jury Prize for “NAZA” at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival in Italy, on Sept. 12, 2026. Photo by Stephane Cardinale/Corbis via Getty Images.

Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor pose with the Special Jury Prize for “NAZA” at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival in Italy, on Sept. 12, 2026. Photo by Stephane Cardinale/Corbis via Getty Images.

 

Fiamma Nirenstein

Fiamma Nirenstein is an Italian-Israeli journalist, author and senior research fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA). An adviser on antisemitism to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, she served in the Italian Parliament (2008-2013) as vice president of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A founding member of the Friends of Israel Initiative, she has written 15 books, including October 7, Antisemitism and the War on the West, and is a leading voice on Israel, the Middle East, Europe and the fight against antisemitism.

 

(Sept. 13, 2026 / JNS) I was there. And in a sense, I have been inside both films.

 

The first is “NAZA,” an Israeli movie that won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival and received an astonishing 25-minute standing ovation on Saturday.

 

Do not be deceived by the applause.

 

The creators are themselves Jews and Israelis. That creates a double deception: The film can be presented to international audiences not merely as an accusation against Israel, but as an accusation seemingly validated from within Israeli society itself.

 

Yet they employ against the Jews one of the oldest weapons in the arsenal of antisemitism: a blood libel.

 

I investigated the Israel Defense Forces’ war on the ground, including the deaths of civilians that “NAZA” depicts as the consequence of a deliberate policy of cruelty and extermination.

 

The truth is the opposite.

 

Then there is the second screen: Netflix, where millions of viewers around the world are watching the TV series “Fauda.” It is a magnificent series, and in its latest season, it confronts an international audience with something many people have never truly understood: the horror of Oct. 7, 2023.

 

In the aftermath of the Hamas massacre, I visited the burned-out kibbutzim. I walked through the homes of murdered young people and saw blood in kindergartens. I saw the dead piled up. I listened to parents and children and heard testimony about rape and other atrocities.

 

These are the two screens now before us: the lie and the truth.

 

The reception given to “NAZA” in Venice tells us something disturbing about a cultural milieu apparently eager to believe the worst accusations against the Jewish state. The anonymous voices in the film who claim that Israel made a decision to target civilians make accusations that my own experience contradicts. My witnesses are not anonymous.

 

At Tze’elim, I entered the high-tech command tents from which soldiers are directed building by building, house by house and tunnel by tunnel.

 

Asaf, a 51-year-old colonel, and other soldiers explained to me how instructions are issued in real time: Stop. Advance. Change route. Destroy. Avoid.

 

The purpose is twofold: to protect Israeli soldiers and to protect civilians.

 

That is the opposite of the picture presented by “NAZA.”

 

Indeed, the more I have investigated Israel’s conduct of this war, the more convinced I have become of something extraordinary: Never in the history of warfare has an army done so much to try to protect the civilian population of its enemy. Never.

 

I also met the lawyers whose job is to determine, according to international law, whether a threat to life emanating from a tower, an underground tunnel or even a hospital makes a target lawful.

 

War is terrible. Civilians die. Gaza has suffered enormously. But suffering does not prove an Israeli policy of deliberately killing civilians. To turn the tragedy of war into an accusation that Jews deliberately thirst for innocent blood is something much older and darker.

 

That is why the applause in Venice matters. Twenty-five minutes of applause for a blood libel.

 

And then there is “Fauda.”

 

In episodes seven and eight, viewers encounter the Oct. 7 massacre in a way that millions around the world have never seen it before.

 

Most of the public has never watched the 53 minutes of footage from the massacre that many journalists and officials have seen, much of it recorded by the Hamas terrorists themselves. Perhaps they should have.

 

After Oct. 7, I spoke with Avida. Trapped in a shelter with one leg severed, he saw his wife, Dana, and 15-year-old Carmel murdered. Carmel told him: “Dad, bury me with my surfboard.” Avida survived with 13-year-old Hadar.

 

I spoke with Nir, the father of 6-year-old Amit, who had been kidnapped.

 

“He’s a Juventus fan,” he told me. “He’s smart. You’ll see, he’ll make it through, and then I’ll take him to Italy.”

 

At the same time, the Bibas children were in the hands of Hamas. They, too, became symbols of what happened when the terrorists crossed into Israel on Oct. 7.

 

Now the world has two screens before it.

 

On one, “NAZA” receives a jury prize and prolonged applause in Venice for presenting Israel as a country that deliberately kills civilians.

 

On the other, “Fauda” brings millions of viewers face to face with the savagery that started this war.

 

Lie and truth.

 

Deuteronomy tells us: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.”

 

Perhaps it is time to choose.

 

And perhaps it is time to choose the truth.

 

TOP

The Lies of NAZA-Duvdevan response

The “500 killed” claim is completely false! The soldiers in the film did not get to watch it before it aired?

 


daniel hanuka-tweet-15September2026-The 500 killed claim is completely false
So now it gets interesting: some of the 24 anonymous sources appear to have fed Yuval Abraham false stories.

The “500 killed” claim is completely false, and it was serious enough for the IDF Chief of Staff to order an investigation and examine action against the filmmakers.
Honest Kafir-tweet-15September2026-
Also interesting: the soldiers in the film did not get to watch it before it aired!
And when Yuval Abraham was asked whether he got reactions from them afterwards, he didn’t want to answer…
Honest Kafir-tweet-15September2026-The soldiers in the film did not get to watch it before it aired
The soldiers in the film did not get to watch it before it aired???????

daniel hanuka-tweet-15September2026-The 500 killed claim is completely false

daniel hanuka-tweet-15September2026-The 500 killed claim is completely false

 

 

 

BEFORE NAZA: How Yuval Abraham repackaged a convicted Terrorist as a Gaza “coexistence” story


Regavim-tweet-15September2026-Before NAZA
🚨 BREAKING: YUVAL ABRAHAM, NAZA, AND THE TERRORIST HE ONCE SOLD AS A GAZA “COEXISTENCE” STORY.

Today, Yuval Abraham wants the world to trust his reporting on Gaza.

So Regavim is releasing a previously unpublished investigation into one of his earlier Gaza stories.

A few years ago, Abraham introduced Israeli audiences to Ahmad Al-Faleet, a convicted terrorist who ran a Hebrew school in Gaza.

Abraham said Al-Faleet had spent 20 years in prison for killing “a soldier his own age.”

Except the man he murdered, Shimon Biran, was an Israeli civilian on his way to work.

And it gets worse.

Al-Faleet later appeared publicly reenacting the murder, describing how he planned it for months and defending violent “resistance” with a stone, a knife or a gun.

He praised Hamas figures.
He celebrated the Shalit deal as his “rebirth.”
He glorified terrorists and prisoners.

This is the same Yuval Abraham now asking audiences to trust his framing, sourcing and judgment in NAZA.

Regavim investigated this story years ago.

The full investigation never saw the light of day.

Until now.

👇 Read the previously unreleased Regavim investigation into the story Yuval Abraham told, and the story he left out.

https://regavim.org/position_papers/before-naza-how-yuval-abraham-repackaged-a-convicted-terrorist-as-a-gaza-coexistence-story/

Read and share this insanity ‼️

Regavim-tweet-15September2026-Before NAZA

Regavim-tweet-15September2026-Before NAZA

 

BEFORE NAZA: How Yuval Abraham repackaged a convicted Terrorist as a Gaza "coexistence" story

BEFORE NAZA: How Yuval Abraham repackaged a convicted Terrorist as a Gaza “coexistence” story

Click to download PDF file Click to download PDF file Before_NAZA_Yuval_Abraham_Gaza_Coexistence_Investigation

 

Duvdevan response:

Support https://www.duvdevanus.org/

ABOUT THE UNIT

 

Founded in 1986, Duvdevan is one of the IDF’s most elite commando under cover units, specializing in complex counter-terror operations in dense and hostile environments.

 

Its fighters are trained to operate with precision, and discretion, often deep inside civilian surroundings, where every decision carries immediate consequences.

 

From the First Intifada to Operation Breakwater, from Jenin to Gaza, and from October 7th through the Iron Swords War, Duvdevan has stood at the front line of Israel’s most sensitive security challenges.

 

Behind the unit’s operational excellence is a legacy built on courage, sacrifice, brotherhood, and an unwavering commitment to protect the people of Israel. For nearly four decades, Duvdevan has remained more than a unit – it is a family, a mission, and a responsibility carried by every fighter who wears its pin.

 

 


Ori Gold-tweet-17September2026-Duvdevan response
This is the best video I’ve seen in recent years.

“Hi Yuval and Rachel,
We heard that you’re not entirely comfortable with the work we do.
So we wanted to tell you something.”

Credit: duvdevan.217.

F you and F NAZA.

Ori Gold-tweet-17September2026-Duvdevan response

Ori Gold-tweet-17September2026-Duvdevan response

 

 

TOP

idf-il-logo 01October2026 https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/idf-press-releases-israel-at-war/october-26-pr/idf-response-to-the-film-naza/
idf-press-release-banner
Press Release

IDF Response to the Film “NAZA”

01.10.26
IDF Spokesperson

 

IDF Response to the Film “NAZA”

The film “NAZA” presents a distorted, misleading, and disingenuous picture of the IDF’s target planning and striking process.

 

The film’s narrative is based on substantial factual errors stemming from a misrepresented and manipulative depiction of reality (see below for the IDF’s detailed responses to key claims in the film). It consists of testimonies of anonymous individuals who, generally, describe experiences from a limited and initial stage of a process that entails many more stages. The result is an incorrect and highly misleading description of reality. The filmmakers also omit context essential to understanding the war in Gaza and the IDF’s conduct during it, in order to fit the narrative the film promotes. The film deepens this distortion of reality through manipulative editing of interviews and alluding to historical atrocities, while falsely and baselessly attributing malicious intentions to the IDF that the purported “evidence” in the film does not substantiate. While interviewees raise serious dilemmas posed by asymmetric warfare, the film’s simplistic account does not treat them with the seriousness they deserve.

 

The film inverts reality in various ways, beginning with its title. “NAZA” is the acronym of the Hebrew term “Nezek Agavi” – “collateral damage” in English. This is a professional term commonly used by every law-abiding military worldwide, and has been used for many years in the IDF as well to describe incidental harm to civilians resulting from a strike on a military objective. Paradoxically, the film presents the exceptional effort and detail the IDF devotes to estimating such harm in strikes as evidence of indifference to civilian lives. In reality, assessing expected civilian harm in strikes is a requirement under international law. The IDF conducts that assessment so commanders can determine whether a strike is lawful, direct additional precautions, modify the strike plan or cancel it, all to mitigate the possibility of harm to civilians to the greatest extent feasible, as IDF commanders did many times during the war.

 

The IDF is open to hearing genuine criticism of its conduct and attaches importance to learning from substantiated allegations and continually improving its practices. It is bound by and committed to international humanitarian law, its operational procedures are designed to implement those legal obligations, and it operates dedicated units and mechanisms to mitigate civilian harm. Suspected violations of the law or IDF orders are examined and, where warranted, addressed through disciplinary action, criminal investigation or other measures.

 

Contrary to accepted practice, the filmmakers did not submit their allegations to the IDF for examination and response before publication, and did not provide a copy of the film after its screening, although the IDF requested it. They also supplied no details that would enable the individual incidents alleged in the film to be identified. To assess the film’s contents, the IDF relied on a detailed account by a representative who attended a public screening, as well as other public accounts and the filmmakers’ own public statements.

 

This response has two parts: the first addresses overarching problems with the film’s content and production; the second addresses key allegations in the film. The list does not cover every false and distorted claim in the film.

 

Part I: Overarching Flaws in the Film and Its Production

1. Interviewees addressing matters beyond their knowledge and competence

The anonymous interviewees addressing the IDF’s targeting process are described as having served in intelligence roles. Their accounts generally focus on limited, initial stages dealing with intelligence, rather than the much broader process of planning and approving strikes, which is the responsibility of operational bodies that manage and conduct targeting rather than the IDF’s intelligence corps. The film treats these accounts as though they establish decisions ultimately made about strikes. Even assuming the interviewees served in these roles and intended to describe faithfully what they witnessed (or, more problematically, heard from others), many of their claims show insufficient knowledge or understanding of the later stages of the targeting process beyond their assignments. The result is substantial errors and misrepresentations of IDF targeting policy (specific examples follow in Part II).

 

For example, an interviewee may recall a general, preliminary estimate of civilians present in an area around a military objective considered for striking and mistakenly believe this was the final estimate on which a strike was carried out. But that figure does not account for precautions decided later in the process and does not establish how many civilians were expected to be harmed by the strike eventually planned. Focusing the strike on particular parts of the target, adjusting the weapon or timing, and obtaining updated information about civilian evacuation following IDF warnings can significantly change the assessment of how many civilians are at risk.

 

For each proposed strike, IDF procedures require commanders to assess proportionality in advance and ensure that expected incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects would not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. They must also direct feasible precautions to prevent or mitigate civilian harm. Professionals assess the scope and nature of expected harm and propose less harmful means and methods. Professionally independent military legal advisers provide legal review as part of the planning process and provide conditions and recommendations concerning strikes. During the war, commanders imposed further restrictions, changed strike plans, returned proposals for further planning or refused approval because of expected civilian harm, sometimes during planning and sometimes in real time, often after unexpected civilian presence was identified shortly before a strike.

 

Testimony confined to preliminary stages does not establish the final assessments on which commanders relied, the conditions they imposed, the precautions taken during execution, or the strike’s actual effects. Nor can the testimony of a working-level intelligence analyst reliably represent the IDF’s full targeting process, in which other professionals take part, or the IDF’s full targeting policies and directives, which are not an integral part of such analysts’ professional responsibility. Such testimonies therefore cannot be treated as a complete account of the policies at hand, the decisions made and what ultimately happened. Nevertheless, that is precisely the inference the film invites viewers to draw.

 

2. Major errors resulting from flaws in investigative methodology and fact-checking

The filmmakers could have identified and avoided the substantial errors apparent in the film had they conducted adequate verification and corroboration in good faith. The end result shows they did not. Beyond anonymous accounts by people whose precise roles and first-hand knowledge are unknown, they cite no military directives, contemporaneous records or other corroborating evidence. Accounts of alleged strikes identify no specific target, date, place or reported casualties, leaving the claims general and unverifiable. This also deprives viewers of the ability to check the claims independently. Contrary to accepted investigative journalistic practice, the filmmakers chose not to submit their allegations to the IDF before publication. That omission calls into question their willingness to test their narrative against explanations and evidence that might contradict it.

 

3. Downplaying context essential to assessing the IDF’s conduct

The film does not give due weight to context essential to assessing the IDF’s conduct in the war, including the October 7th Massacre, Hamas’s military embedment within Gaza’s civilian population and the steps the IDF took to protect civilians under those conditions.

 

a. The context of the October 7th Massacre is essential – not to balance the suffering of two sides, but to enable an uninformed viewer to understand the grave security threat Hamas posed to Israel, which materialized in that attack, and the security reasons for Israel’s subsequent military operations against Hamas in Gaza. The film does not give due weight to the October 7th Massacre and, consequently, its filmmakers completely mischaracterize Israel’s objectives in the war.

 

b. Hamas systematically and extensively embedded military operatives, weapons and military infrastructure within and beneath civilian areas, exploiting hospitals, UN facilities, schools and mosques for military purposes, as documented many times. Hamas used civilians to shield military activity, and its operatives conducted military activity in civilian clothing. This context is essential to understanding the issue that stands in the center of the film: the challenges of identifying military objectives concealed within civilian surroundings, determining where civilians are present and assessing how an attack on the enemy could affect them. It also explains why combat took place in urban areas and adversely affected civilians, as a result of Hamas’ choice, not Israel’s.

 

c. The film omits concrete steps the IDF took to mitigate civilian harm. To name only a few –many proposed strikes were cancelled or never approved because of the risk to civilians. Strikes were planned using methods and means intended to mitigate civilian harm to the greatest extent feasible. The IDF devoted substantial personnel and resources to civilian protection, including a dedicated Civilian Harm Mitigation Cell that issued warnings and monitored civilian presence across Gaza. The IDF employs many independent legal advisers to support compliance with the law. Through COGAT, Israel coordinated humanitarian activity and facilitated the entry of humanitarian supplies and civilian goods into Gaza (more than 3.9 million metric tons of food since October 2023). These actions refute the film’s portrayal of the IDF as indifferent to civilian harm.

 

Part II: Assessment of Key Allegations in the Film

The following responses address key allegations in the film and explain the relevant factual and legal context. This list does not cover every false and distorted claim in the film.

 

Claim: There was approval for 500 civilians to be killed in a single strike.

 

The IDF has never planned, approved or carried out a strike in Gaza in which 500 civilians, or anything close to that number, were expected to be killed. Nor has anyone seriously alleged that an IDF strike caused that number of deaths or anything close to it. The filmmakers prominently featured this allegation, including in the film’s official trailer, even though they necessarily could not have verified it and had no evidence to prove it.

 

Claim: Junior operatives listed in “Lavender” could be struck with up to 20 expected civilian casualties; for senior commanders, whole-neighborhood strikes with 200 expected civilian casualties.

 

This claim rests on at least two errors: it treats a general policy threshold requiring approval at a senior level as permission to strike, and a database as a list of targets. IDF regulations have never granted automatic authorization for strikes against targets that place a fixed number of civilians at risk.

 

Under IDF regulations, for each strike the commander deciding on it must assess individually whether it is expected to be proportionate under international humanitarian law – meaning, whether the expected civilian deaths and injuries and damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Depending on military considerations and changing circumstances, IDF regulations may allocate decision-making authority among different command levels and require higher approval where estimated civilian harm exceeds certain thresholds. This is standard practice in Western militaries, which usually incorporate additional layers of targeting regulation and oversight for strategic, operational and tactical reasons that are not necessarily legal in nature.

 

IDF regulations never relieve any commander of the duty to make an individual proportionality assessment. The interviewee appears to confuse an approval-authority threshold with actual approval of a strike (indeed, according to the filmmakers, he is an intelligence analyst, not an operational officer in charge of targeting). Such an authorization threshold is not a permitted number of civilian casualties; it determines only who has authority to approve a strike.

 

Specifically, no approval-authority threshold of 200 casualties for a strike against a military objective has ever applied or existed. Thresholds for striking military objectives under IDF regulations concern much lower numbers. No strike against such a target was approved or carried out in Gaza, and no credible claim has been made that a strike on any military objective caused a comparable number of casualties.

 

“Lavender” is not a list of targets approved to strike. As the IDF previously explained publicly, it is a database with the purpose of cross-referencing intelligence sources, in order to produce up-to-date layers of information on operatives in terror organizations in the Gaza Strip. A person’s inclusion in “Lavender” does not identify that person as a target, let alone authorize a strike against him. This mischaracterization also appears to stem from interviewees unfamiliar with the entire targeting process.

 

For further information on IDF targeting policy, see the IDF’s detailed response to The New York Times article published on January 26, 2025: “IDF Targeting Methods During the First Weeks of the Hamas-Israel War.”

 

Claim: The IDF “NAZA” count (collateral damage estimation) does not distinguish between adults and minors.

 

That is what international humanitarian law requires: a civilian is a civilian regardless of age, and no civilian life is assigned a lesser value. Collateral damage estimates are considered by commanders before deciding whether a strike may proceed, and throughout the war, the presence of different categories of civilians, and children in particular, led commanders to cancel, postpone or replan strikes.

 

Claim: Actual civilian casualties from strikes were not checked afterward.

 

Several IDF units review strike outcomes, including by monitoring reports of civilian harm. The interviewees, who according to the filmmakers served in certain intelligence units, do not appear to belong to those units and are not positioned to testify on this matter. Generally, IDF soldiers are not present near locations struck from the air, and the IDF’s ability to verify casualty reports or obtain complete information about them is limited. Within those limits, the IDF monitors open sources and, where necessary, uses other means. This review has prompted debriefs into hundreds of incidents during the hostilities and serves as a basis for lessons learned. Separately, every suspicion of a violation of the law or IDF directives must be reported, and these reports are examined. Depending on the findings, further fact-finding may follow. The Military Advocate General decides whether a criminal investigation or other action is warranted.

 

Claim: Artificial intelligence autonomously generated tens of thousands of human targets that were attacked.

 

In the IDF, artificial intelligence does not determine whether an object or a person is designated as a target, nor whether a target is struck. Intelligence-based targets are identified by human analysts under defined procedures and approved by at least one authorized intelligence officer. They then move to a broader strike planning and approval process involving additional officers from different professions, which results in a decision on the strike by an operational commander, subject to the rules of international humanitarian law. Data-processing tools are used at a sub-stage of target identification process, to assist in cross-referencing intelligence databases that intelligence analysts have previously gathered and assessed, in order to focus analysts on information likely to be relevant to their ongoing research. These tools cannot independently identify and select targets to strike in the IDF. Hamas maintains tens of thousands of military operatives and conceals its military assets within the civilian environment; that concealment requires a significant intelligence effort before a person or object can be determined to be a valid target to strike. The tools are intended to make that effort more precise, in line with international humanitarian law, not to replace human agents. The claim in the film may stem from the interviewees’ unfamiliarity with the full chain of approvals and the broader targeting process.

 

For further information on this topic, see the IDF’s published statement of June 18, 2024: “The IDF’s Use of Data Technologies in Intelligence Processing.”

 

Claim: Soldiers fired on civilians near humanitarian aid distribution sites.

 

IDF directives prohibit targeting civilians. Allegations of misconduct, including in relation to shooting incidents in proximity to aid distribution centers, were referred for inquiry. The IDF treats allegations of misconduct by its forces seriously: its procedures require an initial examination of every report, complaint, or credible allegation of misconduct it receives. Where the information raises a reasonable suspicion of misconduct warranting a criminal investigation, the Military Advocate General (MAG) orders a criminal investigation, and indictments are filed where the evidence so warrants.

 

Specifically, the rules of engagement conveyed to forces operating in the vicinity of aid distribution sites permitted fire only against military operatives and suspects posing an immediate threat. The IDF worked to allow and facilitate the operation of these distribution sites so that food would reach civilians, in line with international humanitarian law and humanitarian values. The sites operated in an active war zone, in which armed militants operated while deliberately blending in with the population, and IDF soldiers were exposed to risk.

 

In response to several tragic incidents involving civilian deaths in or around distribution centers, operational debriefs were conducted, lessons were learned and implemented, and additional instructions were issued. The IDF also employed various means to improve the operational environment near the sites, including marking its areas of operation, placing physical obstacles and signs to restrict access to combat zones, and opening additional access routes (IDF publication of June 30, 2025, with photographs of the signs, barriers and access routes). Reports of casualties near the sites do not, by themselves, establish who was responsible or how the casualties occurred. These questions require an examination of the evidence in each incident. Reported exceptional incidents were referred to the General Staff Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism (FFAM) for examination.

 

For further information on examination and investigation of exceptional incidents, see the IDF statement published on February 24, 2024 (and subsequently updated): “Addressing Alleged Misconduct in the Context of the War in Gaza.”

 

Claim: Buildings were bombed “according to the algorithm” in neighborhoods where a quarter of the residents remained, on the basis that previously they had been warned to leave.

 

The basis for IDF strikes is the identification of military objectives. IDF directives make clear that a warning does not permit civilian presence to be ignored when deciding on a strike and does not by itself authorize a strike. An algorithm has never decided on a strike. Estimating expected civilian harm begins only after a structure has been identified as a military objective; absent that identification no strike is planned, regardless of the proportion of civilians remaining. The extent to which residents had left an area was one factor, alongside intelligence and surveillance, in the assessment by relevant IDF personnel of civilian harm expected from a strike. Where civilians were expected to be affected, the rules of international humanitarian law prohibiting disproportionate attacks and requiring precautions to mitigate civilian harm were implemented.

 

The film’s description of attacks on ‘neighborhoods’ is misleading. There were cases in which Hamas used entire clusters of buildings, or significant parts of them, as combat compounds: some buildings held command posts, others weapons, others observation or anti-tank positions, and others tunnel shafts, while an underground tunnel network often connected the buildings to each other and to other locations. Each structure struck in such cases was required to be individually assessed and designated as a military objective. Even then, because the IDF was aware of civilian presence, each such strike was subject to a proportionality assessment, and the IDF worked to narrow and refine the area to be struck, in accordance with the law and beyond what it requires, to what was strictly necessary operationally, in order to mitigate civilian harm.

 

Claim: A belief spread in the IDF that there are no uninvolved civilians in Gaza.

 

The distinction between military operatives and civilians is fundamental to the IDF, its commanders and its binding directives during the fighting in Gaza. This distinction is unequivocally expressed in every protocol or directive that address targeting processes in the IDF. The directives prohibit intentionally directing strikes against civilians or carrying out strikes expected to harm civilian in a disproportionate manner and require feasible precautions to mitigate incidental civilian harm from strikes on nearby military objectives. Maintaining this distinction, in the war the IDF took countless documented actions and implemented methods to mitigate civilian harm, including warnings, appropriate strike planning and strike cancellations in light of civilian presence. An interviewee’s assertion regarding the existence of an approach according to which there are “no uninvolved civilians in Gaza” may reflect his personal feelings or assessments, but it does not represent in any way the approach of the IDF and its commanders, its binding directives, or its activities to mitigate civilian harm throughout the war, that were documented and publicized many times.

 

Claim: An interviewee was asked whether this was genocide, and said yes.

 

The allegation of ‘genocide’ is outrageous and unfounded, and the State of Israel has categorically rejected it. The filmmakers’ choice to ask people who are not experts on the matter and do not know the internationally accepted definition of the term for their personal views on it, is manipulative, misleading and irrelevant. Immediately after October 7, before Israel had launched a substantial military response, an international political campaign was launched falsely seeking equate the casualties and destruction of war with ‘genocide’ and mislead the public about its meaning. The personal views of interviewees who did not participate in the relevant command decisions cannot establish the existence of genocidal intent. The film invites viewers to reach a legal and factual conclusion that its material neither supports nor could support.

 

The defining element of “genocide” under international law is the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such. The interviewees could not testify to, or produce evidence of, such an intent, because none ever existed.

 

The IDF’s operations in Gaza pursued concrete objectives set by the political echelon, particularly dismantling Hamas of its governing and military capabilities and creating conditions for returning the hostages. Harm to Gaza’s Palestinian population was never their purpose. The IDF issued warnings, cancelled strikes, facilitated humanitarian aid and took many other steps to prevent civilian harm. These were concrete measures to protect the very population the filmmakers accuse Israel and the IDF of seeking to destroy.

 

Closing

 

The film falsely portrays a military that seeks to cause civilian harm.

The film omits the people behind the targeting process: professionals responsible for operational planning intended to mitigate civilian harm, legal advisers reviewing proposed strikes and commanders responsible for approving or rejecting them, in a military committed to the law and its own values.

 

Several interviewees describe, in their own words, the moral weight that comes from participation in targeting procedures. That weight is real, and the IDF does not dismiss it: decisions that may cost civilian lives are among the hardest soldiers and commanders face, and the IDF expects its soldiers to feel that weight and act accordingly. Yet that moral burden is not evidence that decisions were unlawful or indifferent to civilian lives; it reflects the seriousness with which they were made.

 

The processes and decisions omitted by the film show what the IDF’s effort to protect civilians meant in practice: additional intelligence required, plans changed, strikes cancelled and military opportunities forgone. These decisions restricted the use of force because of assessed risks to civilians. The film ignores them.

 

The tragic consequences of war do not justify distorting the facts. Serious discussion of civilian harm requires a serious account of how decisions were actually made. That is precisely what the film fails to provide. The film seeks to create the impression that the IDF acts in an inhumane manner. In reality, the only way the filmmakers can create that impression is by distorting facts, omitting essential context, ignoring previous IDF publications and explanations, and adding emotional manipulation and scripted effects. The IDF has acted and continues to act humanely, even if the filmmakers have done everything they can to conceal that fact.

 

To view the full IDF response to the film ‘NAZA’, click here.

 

TOP

The cruelty and heartlessness of the Kapos


Right Lion-tweet-16September2026-the cruelty and heartlessness of the Kapos
My grandfather of blessed memory was a survivor of the death camp Auschwitz.
He always told stories about the cruelty and heartlessness of the Kapos. According to him, they were sometimes even worse than the Nazis themselves, but I couldn’t understand how Jews could treat their own brothers that way 🤷🏻‍♂️
It was hard for me to believe his stories 😢
Sorry, Grandpa 🙏🏻 Today I understand!

Right Lion-tweet-16September2026-the cruelty and heartlessness of the Kapos

Right Lion-tweet-16September2026-the cruelty and heartlessness of the Kapos

 

TOP

?NAZA מי עומד מאחור Who is standing behind NAZA?


Estia H.G-tweet-16September2026-Who is standing behind NAZA
Why did the glibslists Soros and Rokefeler fund the funder of the faked propaganda’s winning film?

We consider it obviouse that every film creator want to become very rich.
We know that those that support the faked Juhadists propaganda in Gaza becomes very rich Clown-Tucker is such a channel.

But what made Soros and Rokefeler be involve while the Fremason’s still try to hide their agenda in the genocide of 100% of Israel’s population, Muslim were included in this plan.
To clear 100%of Israel’s population – why?
——-

🚨 Who is really behind the Israeli film currently causing a stir online?

We followed the money.

👇 The film *NAZA*, which presents ‘testimonies’ from Israeli soldiers and levels serious allegations regarding IDF operations in Gaza, is billed as a production by Israeli filmmakers.

[Was it ? ]
[Realy ? ]
[Did you look for a truth ?]

When you start looking into who is behind it, the picture becomes far more interesting.

🎬 The film was produced by *The Guardian* and JW Films.

🎥 Among the producers is
Jonathan Glazer,
the Jewish director who sparked a global controversy
after using his Oscar acceptance speech to criticize the use of Jewish identity and the Holocaust to justify the occupation and the war in Gaza.
(My Note: which no one did, we dimply went in to save our hostages that taken on purpose to make sure to cause a war)

💰 Now comes the part almost no one tells you about.
The film is based on investigative reports published in collaboration with *The Guardian*, *+972 Magazine*, and *Local Call* (Siha Mekomit).

Question:
Who funds *Local Call*?
Answer:
Open Society Foundations.

Yes.
The network of foundations established by George Soros.

This is neither speculation nor a “conspiracy theory.”

The 972 Association itself publishes its list of donors,
which shows years of funding from the Open Society.

According to the data it publishes, funding for *Local Call* (Siha Mekomit)
from the Open Society
totaled over half a million dollars between 2018 and 2024.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
appears among the donors, alongside other entities that have provided significant sums.

That is precisely why it is always worth asking one question:
Who is funding the person telling you the story?

Sometimes,
the real story
lies in the credits + financial reports.

📚 Sources and Documents:

1️⃣ 972 Association – Official List of Funders The 972 Association publishes its own funding sources. The list explicitly shows funding from the Open Society Foundations for *Local Call*,
including $83,300- 2018,
$91,600- 2019,
$75,000 in each years 2020–2022,
$106,000- 2023,
$57,000- 2024.
http://972citizenjournalism.org/en/

2️⃣ Venice Festival – Official *NAZA* Page The official page notes that the film was produced by *The Guardian* and James Wilson’s JW Films, and explains that some of the investigative work upon which the film is based was published in collaboration with *The Guardian*, *+972 Magazine*, and *Local Call*.
http://labiennale.org/en/cinema/2026
…

3️⃣ *The Guardian* – Official *NAZA* Production Announcement *The Guardian* confirms that the film was produced by the outlet together with James Wilson/JW Films, and that Jonathan Glazer serves as Executive Producer.

The announcement also explicitly links the film to investigative reports published by *+972 Magazine*, *Local Call*, and *The Guardian* between 2023 and 2025.
http://theguardian.com/gnm-press-offi
…

4️⃣ +972 Magazine – The creators of *NAZA* on the film and the investigations Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shor write about *NAZA* themselves, confirming that the film was produced by *The Guardian* and James Wilson, and that Jonathan Glazer served as executive producer. http://972mag.com/naza-exposing-
… 🔎

The bottom line:
There is no proof here that the Open Society Foundations directly funded the production of *NAZA*. Documented is that Open Society funded *Siha Mekomit* which is one of the media outlets whose investigative work forms the basis of the film.

Estia H.G-tweet-16September2026-Who is standing behind NAZA

Estia H.G-tweet-16September2026-Who is standing behind NAZA

 

מי עומד מאחורNAZA? Who is standing behind NAZA?

מי עומד מאחור
NAZA?
Who is standing behind NAZA?

 

TOP

The creators of NAZA, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor try to sneak into Israel


Tamir Shalom-tweet-28September2026-Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor try to sneak into Israel
הם רק רצו לחזור הביתה.. אבל מה חיכה להם בנתב״ג! הסרטון נוצר בבינה מלאכותית (ai) לצרכי הומור ובידור בלבד. קרדיט liorbouzaglo1

Translated from Hebrew
They just wanted to go home.. but what awaited them at Ben Gurion Airport! The video was created with artificial intelligence (AI) for humor and entertainment purposes only. Credit liorbouzaglo1

Tamir Shalom-tweet-28September2026-Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor try to sneak into Israel

Tamir Shalom-tweet-28September2026-Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor try to sneak into Israel

 

 

TOP

Honest Reporting New Logo

The Jewish Anti-Zionists Giving Israel’s Enemies a Free Pass

Prominent Jewish anti-Zionists are using their identities to legitimize attacks on Israel. And the consequences extend far beyond the Jewish community.

 

By October 08, 2026  https://honestreporting.com/the-jewish-anti-zionists-giving-israels-enemies-a-free-pass/?share=1

Anti-Zionist-Jews Credit: Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images

Anti-Zionist-Jews
Credit: Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images

 

Key Takeaways:

  • Prominent figures like Benjamin Moser and Zack Polanski use their Jewish identities to lend legitimacy to anti-Zionist positions, portraying Zionism itself as a threat to Jewish safety.
  • From mainstream news outlets to prestigious literary awards, Jewish anti-Zionists receive disproportionate attention and recognition, helping normalize efforts to sever the connection between Jews and Israel.
  • By providing cover for anti-Israel rhetoric and undermining Israel’s legitimacy, Jewish anti-Zionists risk emboldening antisemitism and making Jews worldwide less safe.

At first glance, esteemed Pulitzer Prize-winning author and historian Benjamin Moser and Zack Polanski, the former hypnotherapist turned radical leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, would seem like improbable ideological allies. But the pair, now in the headlines owing to a major new book by the former and controversial party moves by the latter, are among the highest-profile protagonists in the matrix of antisemitic and anti-Israel personalities that have overwhelmed Western politics and culture three years after Hamas’ October 7 massacre.

 

What unites Moser and Polanski is not that each happens to be gay or even that both men are Jewish. After all, in politics and culture, there is nothing unusual about either. Rather, it’s Moser and Polanski’s distinctive brand of Jewishness – very avowed and very public anti-Zionist Jewishness – that makes the pair so odious and influential.

 

Raised with strong Jewish identities – Moser in Texas, Polanski in Britain – both men have staked their current professional prominence on not merely advocating against Israel as a formalized Jewish nation, but legitimizing this thinking through their Jewishness itself. Indeed, as both men see it, fealty to Israel, rather than classical antisemitism on the right or radical jihadism on the left, is actually the greatest threat facing Jews right now. In fact, both could not have said so more clearly.

 

Zionism “makes me feel less safe as a Jewish person,” declared Polanski to Mehdi Hasan, founder of the anti-Israel site Zeteo, in the run-up to the Green Party’s recent vote to declare Zionism as racism. As for Moser: “Jews are really in danger right now, and not because of Palestinians or Arabs,” he explained in a late September interview with the Brown Daily Herald while promoting his new book Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History, “Jews are in danger because of Zionism.”

 

Such sentiments would be of little value, of course, were it not for a fawning and pliant media eager to pit Jews against the Jewish nation as the ultimate rhetorical and ideological weapons. Just look at a recent article from The Washington Post, “Why Some Jewish Leaders Say They Want to Stop Using the Word ‘Zionism’”. It aims to legitimize the idea of “decoupling” Israel from Jewishness, dismantling the core connections between a people and country in order to pave the way for Israel’s further isolation, demonization, and perhaps even destruction.

 

Similar articles have appeared over the past year or so in mainstream outlets ranging from NPR to Haaretz, and The Guardian – while the news site Mondoweiss and highbrow literary platform Jewish Currents have staked their entire existences on Jewish anti-Zionism.

 

The media’s embrace of anti-Zionist Jews doesn’t merely include platforming them across both traditional and social media, but rewarding them for their efforts, often literally with cash and prizes. Just look at author and Jewish Currents Editor-at-Large Peter Beinart, who not only advocates against Israel in his regular columns for The New York Times, but saw his 2025 anti-Zionist book, “Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning“, awarded the top prize for nonfiction earlier this year by literary giant PEN America. The honor arrived with a $10,000 honorarium.

 

Politicians like current Michigan Senate candidate Abdul el-Sayed and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have also become masters at using anti-Zionist Jews to not only “prove” they’re not antisemitic, but insist their Israel-hatred has nothing to do with Jews at all. Here too, progressive-led media makes for an all-too-eager messenger for these politicians’ highly calculated messages.

 

El-Sayed’s Rosh Hashanah social media video with a Jewish anti-Israel mother-and-daughter duo perfectly captures how this works. He cannily celebrates the new year with the pair of self-described “Jews for Abdul,” indulging in and honoring sacred Jewish traditions amid endless homemade kugel and feel-good glee. Missing from the entire affair, however, is any mention of his hosts’ longtime affiliation with Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Israel organization that stands “in full solidarity with Palestinian resistance.”

 

This is what’s most disingenuous, if not downright dangerous, about the role of anti-Zionist Jews in the current Israel/Judaism/Zionism debate. It’s their sheer dishonesty – and the unwillingness of media and cultural institutions to challenge this dishonesty with the same rigor and critique demanded of nearly every other identity-driven movement in the U.S.

 

Such dishonesty plays out most cravenly in the attack on the very foundations of Zionism itself, and the unwillingness of anti-Zionists (both Jewish and not) to honestly consider what might happen to the nearly 8 million Jews living in Israel if the state were to suddenly not exist.

 

Perhaps, what’s most intriguing, if not obscene, about anti-Zionist Jews is that they have no racial or ethnic equivalent in the vast canon of American and Western identity politics. Which is why their impact is both so potent and difficult to dismiss.

 

True, conservative African Americans, particularly amid the Trump era, have become more confident in airing the types of intra-community critiques embraced by leaders such as comedian Bill Cosby decades before his legal troubles. But Cosby’s sentiments, which lambasted stereotypes of Black boorishness or criminality, found little traction beyond the extreme right or a tiny Black elite. Same with their equivalents today. And same with, say, gay Republicans or conservative Latinos. Their opinions matter, but mostly to other gay people or Latinos, regardless of political slant.

 

But in the case of anti-Zionist Jews, the damage is both far-greater reaching and longer lasting. Rhetoric by Jewish anti-Zionists doesn’t merely exist along the extremes; it infects the entire political middle. And Jews, all Jews, including those who blast Israel, are less safe because of it.

 

The new film NAZA, for instance, was made by anti-Zionist Jews who insist it was intended for an Israeli audience in order to change Israel from within. But NAZA is actually receiving far more interest outside than inside of Israel, a tailor-made tool for anti-Zionist propagandists whose only goal is to remain the center of attention and terrorize Jews into submission and silence.

 

In the case of Moser and Polanski, both men are likely to remain in the spotlight at least for a bit longer. But with Moser’s book panned by much of the major media that was expected to embrace it, there is some hope that the endless elevation of anti-Zionist Jews might be coming to an end. Or is at least slowing down. Nothing would better honor the thousands of Jews, both soldiers and civilians, who have paid with their lives to keep Israel Jewish.

 

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

 

© Divuach Ne’eman R”A, 2025

 

David Christopher Kaufman

David Christopher Kaufman is a New York-based journalist who has spent more than two decades working in major media, including nearly a decade at the New York Post, where he was most recently an Opinion Editor and Columnist.

He currently contributes to publications including The Telegraph,
The Spectator, Canada’s National Post, Monocle, AirMail, Commentary, The Forward and Tablet — with a focus on politics, antisemitism, culture and identity politics.

Kaufman regularly appears on global television news channels commenting on politics and culture and is working on a range of projects to combat political extremism, most notably along America’s left.

He is a graduate of Brandeis and New York Universities and is a very proud dad of twin sons.

Follow him on X and Instagram at @kaufmandavidnyc

 

TOP

israelhayom-logo

PM orders action plan after Negev emerges as new Oct. 7 blind spot

Officials fear weapons stockpiled by criminal networks in the Bedouin community could one day be aimed at the state itself. Past report by Rifman Institute suggests southern Israel could be severed from state in minutes during insurrection.

by  Shirit Avitan Cohen – Published on 7October2026 17:36 – Last modified: 7October2026 18:36 – https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/10/07/netanyahu-negev-bedouin-weapons-shin-bet/

Riots in Jaffa in 2021 | Photo: Usage under Israel's Intellectual Property Law Article 27(a)

Riots in Jaffa in 2021 | Photo: Usage under Israel’s Intellectual Property Law Article 27(a)

 

The warning that Shin Bet chief David Zini issued in the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet about the possibility of nationalist Bedouin battalions forming in the Negev reached the government meeting as well on Tuesday, with the prime minister ordering prompt action. During a security briefing presented by Defense Minister Israel Katz on a scenario in which the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria turns its weapons on Israel, Deputy Minister Almog Cohen interrupted the discussion and asked if there was a plan to deal with a similar scenario occurring inside Israeli territory, if the Bedouin community turns against fellow Israelis in southern Israel.

 

A view of the city of Rahat, in southern Israel (Dudu Grunshpan)

A view of the city of Rahat, in southern Israel (Dudu Grunshpan)

 

>He said there was concern that in such a case, the IDF would not be able to respond fully, since the scenario would involve civilians inside the state’s own territory. Cohen told ministers that the concern does not apply only to a future scenario. He said there is already information indicating that Bedouin elements currently hold weapons within criminal organizations, but are directed by terror groups such as Hamas and even ISIS.

 

During the discussion, Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs revealed that a warning on the matter had already been delivered to ministers the evening before and asked Cohen, “Are you referring to what the Shin Bet chief said in the briefing about the Negev battalions?” Cohen was not familiar with the briefing Zini had presented earlier.

 

Israel Hayom has learned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded that the Shin Bet present a full report on this trend, along with a plan to curb it.

 

Netanyahu expected to convene special discussion

Netanyahu is expected to hold a special discussion on the matter in the coming days. It has also emerged that Cohen is working on legislation intended to allow what would be defined as a “national task force,” including the IDF, to operate in the Bedouin sector against the quantities of weapons already held in some communities.

 

The goal is to enable the removal of weapons from the area, and also to allow the military, in the event of such a scenario, to operate deep inside Israeli territory. Zini, for his part, delivered the warning to ministers in the cabinet, and the task was placed in the prime minister’s hands.

 

On Wednesday morning, Roi Kahlon, head of the Staff for Combating Crime in the Arab Sector at the Prime Minister’s Office, addressed the gun-turning scenario within Israeli territory explicitly, with an emphasis on the Negev.

“One of the difficult lessons of October 7 concerns the blindness that a fixed mindset creates. The security establishment saw an enemy arming and training, but the assumptions about its intentions and about our ability to deal with it distorted the assessment of the danger,” Kahlon wrote on his Facebook page.

 

“When I examine the growing strength of criminal organizations, I fear we are developing an internal version of that same trap. We know that criminal elements possess military-grade weapons, including anti-tank rockets, machine guns, Claymore mines, and explosive-laden drones,” he added.

 

Haggai Reznik, head of the Rifman Institute for Negev Development (a Negev-focused policy think tank), told Israel Hayom that “the Shin Bet chief’s unusual warning about the entrenchment of terror infrastructure and threat zones in the Bedouin community in the Negev proves once again what the Rifman Institute has been warning against for years. It’s especially jarring as we mark exactly three years since the October 7 attack.”

 

Palestinian Police celebrates the 31st anniversary of its founding in the Palestinian Authority territories during a military parade (Nasser Ishtayeh/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Palestinian Police celebrates the 31st anniversary of its founding in the Palestinian Authority territories during a military parade (Nasser Ishtayeh/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

 

He said, “The vacuum of governance, the relentless supply of combat equipment, and the leakage of weapons are a strategic time bomb that directly threatens the State of Israel’s critical operational assets, chief among them Israeli Air Force bases.”

 

A report warning from another Oct. 7

Several months ago, Israel Hayom revealed that the institute had prepared a report sounding the alarm on Israel facing an “eighth front” due to the proliferation of weapons among Bedouin communities and growing nationalist tendencies.

 

Haggai Reznik (Liron Moldovan)

Haggai Reznik (Liron Moldovan)

 

Delivering a holistic analysis of field intelligence, the authors caution that flooding the Negev with illicit arms, combined with rising nationalistic sentiment among factions of the Bedouin population, could make some turn their weapons on their fellow Israelis. This describes a scenario where rampant criminality and massive weapon stockpiles evolve into an armed insurrection, seamlessly integrating with an orchestrated terror assault launched from South Hebron Hills.

 

“The Negev and South Hebron Hills will turn into a unified and rolling event,” senior defense establishment officials said. Their stark conclusion reveals that the absence of state sovereignty in the Negev extends far beyond ordinary crime, serving as a critical force multiplier for external terrorism.

 

The campaign will not begin with a formal declaration of war, the report states. Instead, it will commence with an operational creep designed to paralyze security forces before a single bullet is fired.

 

The initial phase involves coordinated, violent uprisings at key strategic intersections like the Shoket Junction, Route 31, and Route 25. These demonstrations quickly escalate into active combat as thousands of illicit weapons are mobilized to seize control of surrounding communities.

 

Concurrently, orchestrated riots will erupt in southern penal facilities. While law enforcement battles at the junctions, criminal inmates will launch prison revolts designed to overwhelm police and the Israel Prison Service, drawing critical security resources away from the primary combat zones.

 

Hamas terrorists in Gaza (Majdi Fathi/TPS)

Hamas terrorists in Gaza (Majdi Fathi/TPS)

 

The second phase marks the collapse of the Seam Line (the boundary between Israel and Judea and Samaria), merging the interior with Judea and Samaria into a single theater of war. As Israeli forces struggle to contain the internal chaos and prison uprisings, heavily armed and highly trained terror cells from South Hebron Hills will exploit the security vacuum. Riding motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles, they will breach the border through compromised fence sections or overrun checkpoints.

 

By the third phase, the horrors of Oct. 7 will repeat themselves across southern communities. Given the immediate geographic proximity, these terror cells could reach their targets in mere minutes. The report explicitly warns that operatives could strike Meitar in just seven minutes, with Lehavim and Beit Kama equally vulnerable to rapid infiltration.

 

The Hebron Hills area could become a flashpoint in a new Oct. 7 attack (Dudu Grunshpan)

The Hebron Hills area could become a flashpoint in a new Oct. 7 attack (Dudu Grunshpan)

 

The resulting operational reality is terrifying, forging an unbroken combat corridor from South Hebron Hills deep into the Negev. Communities would find themselves entirely isolated as main transportation arteries are severed, effectively blocking the IDF from deploying reinforcements to rescue besieged residents.

 

The authors stress that this is far from a hypothetical exercise. They argue that the discovery of terror cells operating in the heart of Rahat shortly after the Oct. 7 massacre provides undeniable proof that the eighth front is already entrenched and awaiting orders. A similar preview occurred during Operation Guardian of the Walls (the 2021 Gaza war and internal Israeli riots), when strategic Negev highways were barricaded and orchestrated attacks targeted both civilians and security personnel.

 

TOP
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was written by Staff, posted on 01/10/2026 – כ״א בתשרי ה׳תשפ״ז – כ״א בתשרי ה׳תשפ״ז at 19:36, and filed under War News and Comments and tagged , , , , , , , .