How Media Bias on Gaza Fueled Outrage

For weeks, months, even years, the world was told one story about Gaza:

“There’s a humanitarian catastrophe — famine — caused by Israel blocking aid.”

Images of gaunt children, empty shelves, desperate parents and starving babies dominated headlines and social feeds. Western streets filled with anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic protests. The message was unambiguous: Israel is starving civilians and denying them basic food.

But the reality — as emerging evidence makes painfully clear — was, at best, incomplete; at worst, a manipulated narrative with serious consequences.

Major outlets pushed the famine claim with little critical scrutiny. Yet independent reporting and activists uncovered evidence that undermines that narrative — evidence the media thereafter largely ignored or failed to correct.

Let’s break down the facts the global press chose not to report honestly.

1. The Baby Formula Warehouse Story

Earlier in 2025, doctors in Gaza warned that babies were going hungry due to a shortage of infant formula. The media amplified these claims widely, with The New York Times running a story titled “Parents in Gaza Are Running Out of Ways to Feed Their Children,” and The Guardian warning that babies were “at risk of death from lack of formula.” (HonestReporting)

But then something extraordinary happened:
Anti-Hamas activists published video evidence showing tons of baby formula and nutritional shakes stocked in warehouses controlled by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health — supplies that were never distributed to starving families. (HonestReporting)

This wasn’t a trickle of supplies — it was literal tons sitting in storage.

It means:

• Supplies were available

• They were hoarded by Hamas, not Israel

• And the media didn’t question the narrative once the new evidence emerged

Yet the headlines that fuelled global outrage did precisely that: they laid blame on Israel, not on the group that controlled distribution.

This wasn’t just sloppy reporting. It was a failure to update the story when critical facts changed.

2. Was There Actual Famine? The Record Is Questionable

For months, UN bodies, aid organizations and media claimed famine was either present or imminent in the Gaza Strip. Yet evidence for mass starvation was never clearly established until August 2025, months after widespread press reports. (HonestReporting)

Even when the UN’s own food-security monitors declared famine, analysts questioned the methodology, scope and definitions used. (HonestReporting)

Moreover, images of “starving children” circulated widely —  were later reported to have had pre-existing medical conditions, meaning the claim that they were starving due to lack of food was overstated or misrepresented. (HonestReporting)

All the while, records show substantial amounts of food — including over 1,400 tons of baby formula and special formulations — were delivered into Gaza and did not reach those who supposedly were starving. 

Despite this, the same outlets that amplified famine claims largely did not correct their headlines when new evidence emerged.

3. The Narrative Was Weaponized — and We All Paid the Price

This wasn’t just journalism gone wrong — it became a global narrative weapon.

The story of starving children and blocked aid inspired:

• Anti-Israel protests in Western cities

• Calls for government action

• Political pressure on democratic leaders

• Headlines that overtook other major global news

And for what?
A narrative built on incomplete facts that, at the very least, ignored key evidence that undercut the claim of famine being caused by Israel’s actions.

In some cases, images were framed in ways that emphasized scarcity while ignoring nearby markets, operating shops, and ordinary scenes that did not fit the famine story. (HonestReporting)

When the dominant media narrative pushes images of desperate children and blames a particular actor for that desperation without full context — and then fails to update the public when new evidence contradicts parts of that narrative — that is not neutral reporting. That is agenda-driven journalism.

4. Where Was the Scrutiny?

When the famine narrative first broke:

• There was minimal fact-checking on the baby-formula claims

• Few journalists questioned why warehouses of formula existed untouched

• Errors or misleading impressions were not broadly corrected when evidence changed

The media treated assumptions as facts, and strong imagery as conclusive proof.

Contrast this with how other stories are handled: witness accounts are often dissected, government statements are sceptically examined, and conflicting evidence is foregrounded. But not here.

Why?
Because this narrative fit a broader political story that many media organisations already wanted to tell.

5. The Consequences of Media Bias

This isn’t a small error in reporting. It has real consequences:

• Violence and anti-Jewish sentiment flared in Western cities

• Democratically elected leaders were pressured to act on incomplete information

• Youth movements and activists took to streets chanting slogans born of misinformed outrage

• Entire reputations and national policies were influenced by narratives that lacked full context

When the media fails to challenge powerful narratives — especially ones driven by actors with political agendas — it ceases to be a watchdog and becomes an amplifier.

And when that amplification stokes anger, hatred, or division, the media becomes an accomplice in social fracture, not a reporter of truth.

Final Thought: Journalism Must Return to Reality

The story of baby formula in Gaza is not about dismissing the suffering of ordinary people — Gaza has endured immense hardship, war, and loss.

But reporting must be anchored in facts, not narratives that fit a preferred political story.

When journalists amplify claims without adequate scrutiny and then ignore contradictory evidence, they fail their readers. Worse, they shape world opinion on faulty foundations.

If we want a media that informs rather than inflames, the world must demand more than emotion.
We must demand truth.

https://honestreporting.com/a-gazan-warehouse-of-baby-formula-exposes-the-medias-vilest-hamas-fed-lie/

UN Watch research shows UNRWA = Hamas

UN Watch research gathered over the last decade shows that UNRWA is not simply failing its humanitarian mandate — it is systematically compromised with hundreds of UNRWA employees having documented ties to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This infiltration of the agency raises serious questions about the neutrality, accountability and very purpose of a major United Nations relief body. (www.israelhayom.com)

The Key Findings

• The investigation suggests hundreds of UNRWA staffers have connections with Hamas or Islamic Jihad — far beyond a handful of bad actors. (www.israelhayom.com)

• The allegations include employees who allegedly participated in terror activities, used relief facilities or resources for militant purposes, or held dual roles as teachers/social workers and operatives. (Wikipedia)

• Israel has publicly demanded immediate action, arguing that UNRWA’s infiltration undermines its humanitarian legitimacy and allows terror groups to embed themselves in aid structures. (new.embassies.gov.il)

Why This Matters

For years, UNRWA has been the primary aid agency for Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the West Bank. It receives billions of dollars of international funding and enjoys a high degree of trust. But if the allegations are true, the consequences are profound:

• Humanitarian Aid at Risk: If a relief organisation is compromised by terror affiliations, donor governments face a dilemma: continue funding and risk indirectly supporting militants, or cut funding — and risk leaving vulnerable civilians without aid.

• Neutrality Lost: The premise of humanitarian work relies on neutrality and impartiality. If UNRWA is operating as a cover or conduit for terror groups, it destroys that trust and opens aid operations to misuse and manipulation.

• Geopolitical Fallout: Many Western nations fund UNRWA. The revelations fuel arguments that UNRWA must either be reformed, replaced, or have its role radically re-evaluated. It also heightens Israel’s claims that terror and relief are intertwined in Gaza.

• Terror Infrastructure Hidden in Plain Sight: The idea that a teaching organisation, a social-service agency or a relief network could be used as a front for militant activity is chilling — and shows how sophisticated terror groups have become at embedding in civilian systems.

The Counter-Arguments

As always there are many counter arguments, including; - .

• UNRWA itself denies systematically aiding terror, and claims any affiliated staff are a small minority. (UNRWA)

• Some independent observers say that while there may be troubling links, the evidence of institutional complicity 'remains contested'

• Cutting or limiting UNRWA’s operations could have serious unintended consequences for civilian Palestinians who rely on it for basic services — healthcare, education, food aid — especially in a war-torn environment.

What Should Be Done

Given the stakes, it is time to disband the UNRWA. 

Specifically; -

1. Over a period of 12 months fully disband the UNRWA and transfer its functions to the UNHCR. There is no reason that Palestinian refugees require a UN agency separate from the rest of the world's refugees.

2. Establish multiple alternative aid agencies to operate within Gaza and the West Only by having a multplicyt of organisations can the possibility of future infiltration by Islamist be managed.

3. Encourage Donor Countries to continue humanitarian support. Given the past misuse of funds, Donor Countries will want better assurance that future funding will not be misappropriated.

Bottom Line

We are looking not just at mismanagement, but a fundamental subversion of what had been one of the largest humanitarian organisations in the Middle East. UNRWA infiltration by militant networks isn’t a side‐issue: it goes to the heart of whether we can trust relief agencies in conflict zones.

For readers, this is more than a geopolitical story. It matters for how we think about aid, how we fund relief, and how terror can exploit the very structures meant to help victims. It's a story about the war beneath the war — one that demands more attention than it has received so far.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/11/04/unrwa-terror-investigation-hamas-ties/

The Price of Tolerating the Intolerant

Two years ago, the world was shocked by an unprecedented, barbaric attack on a dance festival in Israel. Hamas terrorists launched a massacre of unfathomable proportions, killing countless civilians, taking hostages, and displaying the true horrors of their ideology. The scale and cruelty of the assault made it one of the most horrific terror attacks in recent history. But what followed in the Western world was just as shocking, if not more so.

Before Israel even had the chance to respond to the attack, there were spontaneous demonstrations in major Western cities, celebrating the massacre. The grotesque nature of these rallies was horrifying enough, but even more unsettling was the complete lack of action from Western authorities. Governments stood by as violent, hate-filled protests erupted on their streets. Demonstrators chanted anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and genocidal slogans, some even calling for the destruction of entire nations, including Israel and the West.

These were not isolated events. In the months that followed, the protests only grew, turning into a weekly display of hate — and yet, little was done. Even as the demonstrations turned increasingly violent, with flags of enemy states burned and anti-Western sentiments voiced openly, authorities failed to act. Australia, for instance, saw no charges filed for hate speech in these protests, despite laws explicitly designed to address such behaviour. And the situation was no better in other Western nations. The silence from governments was deafening.

How did we get here? How have we come to a place where our streets are filled with hate, and our governments stand idly by, unable or unwilling to control the chaos? It does not take a genius to recognise that these demonstrations are being orchestrated by Islamists—adherents of an extreme form of Islam that is, at its core, at war with the West. The question then becomes: how did they get here, and why are we allowing them to thrive?

The Price of Tolerating the Intolerant

For years, Western countries have accepted migrants on the belief that they would contribute to the country’s economic and cultural life, living in harmony with existing citizens. The expectation has always been that migrants would assimilate into society, respecting the values of their new home. But as we’ve seen in recent years, some of these migrants—likely a small but vocal minority—have no intention of assimilating at all. Instead, they are working to transform the countries that welcomed them.

The truth is uncomfortable: some of these individuals seek to change the West. They are not just looking for a better life; they are actively trying to remake our societies into something more akin to the countries they left behind. They want a global caliphate. They want Sharia law. And, increasingly, they want to destroy the very values that the West was founded on: freedom, democracy, and secularism.

Why are we tolerating this? Why are we allowing the enemies of the West to freely enter and spread their destructive ideologies? Why has the West opened its doors to those who wish to undermine its very foundations?

The lack of effective vetting and the failure to ensure that those who enter the country are committed to respecting its values are glaring oversights by Western governments. They have allowed the sowing of dissent within their borders, to the detriment of their own citizens.

Australia’s Double Standard

In Australia, this problem is particularly evident. The Australian government has made two glaringly questionable decisions that put the nation at risk.

First, there is the decision to accept 3,000 refugees from Gaza — despite the fact that no other Arab country is willing to take them in. Why would Australia risk importing individuals from a region where many have deep ties to terrorist organisations? It’s a reckless gamble, one that the Australian public has not been given a clear explanation for. Why are we prioritising the relocation of people who may have links to Hamas when our own national security is at stake?

Second, Australia has recently repatriated a number of ISIS brides—women who voluntarily left Australia to join ISIS in its war against the West. These women married ISIS fighters, had children with them, and supported an organisation that was directly responsible for heinous acts of terror. After the defeat of ISIS, they sought to return to Australia, and astonishingly, the Australian government allowed them to come back. This is despite clear laws prohibiting the return of citizens who join foreign enemies.

The weak response from the Albanese government is deeply concerning. These women were part of an organisation bent on destroying the West, and yet the government has quietly allowed their return. The public has no transparency on the vetting process, and we don’t know how many have been brought back. Have they been charged? How thorough was the process? This failure to protect Australia from those who have supported our enemies undermines our national security.

The West Under Siege

It’s time to face the truth: radical Islam is a direct threat to Western societies. And the more we tolerate these ideologies within our borders, the more we risk losing the very freedoms that make the West what it is. These ideologies aren’t about peaceful coexistence; they are about revolution and subjugation. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the real threats within our societies, we are complicit in undermining the values that have long made our nations strong.

We cannot afford to remain silent in the face of this growing danger. It’s time for Western governments to take action — to ensure that they are actively vetting who enters their countries and not tolerating those who seek to destroy the societies they’ve chosen to inhabit.

Until we recognize the true threat posed by radical Islam and take decisive action, we will continue to watch our streets fill with hate and violence. The question is: how much longer will we let this go on before it’s too late?

What are your thoughts? Leave a comment below or share your perspective. 

Here is a short video from Konstantin Kisin with another take on this issue. Well worth the five minutes.

Where are the protests demanding Hamas accept peace

In his recent video, “The Extraordinary Silence… And What It Tells Us,” commentator Konstantin Kisin examines what he sees as a revealing quiet from many of the loudest critics of Israel’s war in Gaza. After nearly two years of strident activism the silence that followed President Trump’s proposed Gaza peace plan speaks volumes — not just about the conflict, but about truth, hypocrisy, and moral posturing in public life.

Now, with the second anniversary of October 7th approaching, Kisin turns his attention to the reaction — or rather, the lack of reaction — to Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan for Gaza.

A Plan That Should Please Everyone — But Doesn’t

The Trump plan, delivers almost every demand made by those calling for peace:

• An immediate end to the war

• Israeli withdrawal

• The release of over 2,000 Palestinian detainees in exchange for 20 Israeli hostages

• Humanitarian aid and the reopening of the Rafah crossing

• A non-Israeli, non-Hamas administration of Gaza

• An economic development package

• Commitments against displacement, annexation, and occupation

• U.S.-mediated talks for a “peaceful and prosperous coexistence”

In other words — everything that peace campaigners have been chanting for. And yet, those same campaigners have gone strangely quiet.

The Silence That Speaks

Kisin singles out several high-profile commentators — Crystal Ball, Candace Owens, Owen Jones, and Jeremy Corbyn — for either ignoring or rejecting the plan. Ball, he notes, spent twenty minutes on air insinuating that Hamas shouldn’t take the deal. Owens hasn’t mentioned it at all, preferring to focus on conspiratorial content. Jones and Corbyn, meanwhile, dismissed it as “colonial” and unacceptable.

The result, Kisin argues, is extraordinary silence — a void where there should be celebration. If this really were about stopping genocide, why is there no pressure on Hamas to accept a deal that would stop it immediately?

What the Silence Reveals

This is the moment when rhetoric and reality diverge completely. Hamas, has every right to reject terms it considers unfavourable — just as Ukraine might reject peace on Russia’s terms. But its rejection (or the West’s indifference to that rejection) exposes the true nature of the conflict.

“Far from being genocide,” Kisin says, “it’s a war — a war Hamas started and is losing badly.”

There is a sharp distinction between real genocides — in Rwanda, the Armenian Genocide, or the Holocaust — and wars, however brutal, fought between armed belligerents. The misuse of the word genocide, is not accidental. It’s what Kisin calls a “slide of mouth” — a distortion of meaning that turns aggressors into victims and facts into feelings.

The “genocide” label, has been weaponised to evoke moral outrage and to frame Israel as criminal, regardless of the evidence. But the failure of activists to embrace peace reveals they don’t actually believe their own rhetoric. They know it’s a war — but prefer the emotional power of pretending it’s something else.

Kisin’s Broader Message

Beyond the specifics of Gaza, Kisin’s argument is really about truth and moral integrity in public debate; silence can be more revealing than speech. When those who claim to champion peace fall quiet in the face of an actual peace offer, the mask slips. What’s exposed is not moral conviction, but performative outrage — a market for clicks, likes, and ideological identity.

The suffering of Palestinian civilians, he warns, is being used as content — a source of online engagement rather than genuine empathy.

A Mirror for the West

Kisin’s final message is a challenge to the rest of us. What do we really value — truth or tribal comfort? Are we willing to test our moral positions against reality, or do we prefer to keep signalling virtue while turning away from inconvenient facts?

The extraordinary silence, in other words, tells us more than the noise ever did.

Here is Kisin's YouTube video, well worth a view.

The UN’s Shameful Double Standard on Israel

Israel once again finds itself in the dock of international opinion. Its recent strike on Hamas leaders meeting in Qatar has triggered a wave of condemnation. The accusation? That Israel violated the sovereignty of another state by targeting terrorists outside its immediate conflict zone.

But as Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, reminded the chamber, this criticism is not only hypocritical — it flies in the face of the UN’s own resolutions.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the UN Security Council passed resolution 1373, making it explicitly clear: no sovereign state has the right to harbour terrorists. If terrorists operate from within your borders, you cannot hide behind sovereignty as a shield. That was the world’s response when America was attacked. The principle was supposed to be universal.

And indeed, other nations have acted on it without reproach. The United States killed Osama Bin Laden deep inside Pakistan, without asking permission, and the world cheered. France, the UK, and others have also pursued terrorists across borders — again, without the torrent of criticism now being unleashed at Israel.

So why the double standard? Why is Israel held to a different set of rules?

The answer is obvious: an entrenched anti-Israel bias at the UN and among many of its member states. When Israel defends itself, it is branded a violator of international law. When others do the same, it is celebrated as justice served.

This is not just unfair — it is shameful. The UN was supposed to stand for principles applied equally to all nations. Instead, it has become a stage for political grandstanding, where Israel is singled out again and again, no matter how clear the case for its actions.

Danny Danon’s speech cut through the hypocrisy with brutal clarity: if the US was justified in hunting Bin Laden in Pakistan, why is Israel condemned for targeting the masterminds of terror hiding in Doha? There is no honest answer — only political convenience.

The reality is simple. Terrorists who hide behind borders remain terrorists. Any state that shelters them is complicit. And any international body that condemns Israel for doing what others have done — what the UN itself has said is legitimate — reveals not principle, but prejudice.

The shame is not Israel’s. It is the UN’s.

See Danny Danon's speech below.

https://youtu.be/u7GuwYENnHY?si=PonJL9mZwszC7rYL

Western Media act as Hamas' stooges

Let’s talk about the latest media-fueled fairy tale making the rounds: the claim that Israel is using food as a weapon and deliberately starving Gaza’s civilians. It’s a dangerous narrative that’s been amplified by outlets desperate to push their anti-Israel agenda — and the sad part is, it’s working.

Here’s the kicker: it’s all false.

If you watched the YouTube video “Inside the IDF ‘Aid Massacre’ That Never Happened”, you’ll know the media has spun this narrative into an absolute lie. The premise? Israel intentionally blocked food aid to Gaza, using hunger as a tactical weapon in their ongoing war with Hamas. The evidence? None.

What the media won’t tell you is that Israel has been actively facilitating humanitarian aid to Gaza. They’ve allowed food convoys through, opened crossings, and even provided medical supplies. But here’s the part they leave out: Hamas — the terrorist regime running Gaza — has been hoarding and rerouting the aid to fund their war effort. Instead of distributing food to the population, Hamas is stockpiling it to maintain control. They've even been caught selling supplies to fund their terrorist activities.

The truth is simple: Israel is not starving Gaza's civilians. Hamas, on the other hand, is starving them of the basics of life to maintain its control and propaganda war against Israel.

In the video, IDF officers explain how their military is going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. They’ve been dropping leaflets, sending text messages, and even calling civilians to warn them of upcoming strikes. But the media doesn’t want to talk about that. Instead, they’d rather amplify Hamas's cries of starvation, which only serve to distract from the real issue: Hamas's use of human shields and its exploitation of its own people.

When the media repeats this false narrative without providing the full context, they become complicit in spreading propaganda. They don't care about the truth; they care about the story that fits their agenda. It’s all part of the campaign to delegitimise Israel and paint it as the bad guy, no matter the cost.

Let’s be clear: the truth is out there, and it's getting buried by the very people who should be reporting it. If you want the whole story — the one the media doesn't want you to hear — watch the video, dig deeper, and think critically about what you're being told.

Hamas is using food as a weapon, not Israel. And until we stop letting the media manipulate us with lies, the cycle will just continue.

Here is one of the video's exposing the facts.

The Ridiculous Clamor for Palestinian Statehood

 

It’s honestly hard to believe that this is a real conversation. But here we are, with world leaders like Macron, Starmer, and now even Carney pushing for the UN to recognise a Palestinian state this September. What’s their reasoning? To promote peace between Hamas and Israel. Yeah, you read that right. They’re arguing that recognising a “Palestinian state” will magically restart the peace process.

Let’s just pause and think about that for a second: What type of Palestinian state are they proposing here? A state run by Hamas, the same group that’s committed to the annihilation of Israel and the killing of all Jews? A state where hostages are still being held in terror tunnels, where education systems are training future martyrs, and where the population is not even permanent after all, they are registered as refugees.

Oh, and let’s not forget, the Palestinian territories haven’t had free and fair elections in decades. The Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas can’t even agree on who gets to make the rules, let alone run an entire country. So, we’re going to recognise this? A divided entity that can’t meet any of the UN’s basic conditions for statehood?

According to the UN Charter, a state needs:

1. A defined territory.

   • Well, that’s still disputed, isn’t it?

2. A permanent population.

   • Most of the population is recognised as refugees. Does that sound “permanent” to you?

3. A government that controls the territory.

   • No, there are two competing governments — the PA and Hamas. They can’t even agree on which flag to fly.

4. The capacity to enter into relations with other states.

   • How can they when they’re at war with Israel, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation that openly supports terrorism worldwide?

And let’s talk about the peace-loving requirement. The UN Charter says explicitly that new states must be “peace-loving.” Sure, the PA might make nice promises (which they’ve broken every time), but Hamas? Their entire charter is to destroy Israel and kill Jews. How does this fit with the UN’s criteria for peace-loving states? It doesn’t.

The whole idea of pushing for Palestinian statehood now is nothing short of rewarding terrorism. Hamas started a war, committed atrocities, took Israeli hostages, and continues to hold its own population hostage. Recognising this chaos as a state would be a shameful endorsement of violence over diplomacy, terror over peace.

So, let’s not kid ourselves: This is madness. Giving a state to a disjointed, terror-sponsoring entity only emboldens extremism and undermines the UN’s own principles. It doesn’t promote peace — it rewards the very forces preventing it.

Hamas Feasts While Gaza Starves?

The world’s turned upside down again. Headlines scream that Israel is starving Gaza’s civilians. The UN frets, activists rage, and the usual suspects in the media bang the drum of outrage. But here’s what they won’t tell you: it’s Hamas that’s doing the starving.

Yep, the same terrorist group that's been running Gaza into the ground for years is now blocking food aid from reaching civilians. They hijack convoys, reroute supplies to their own fighters, and punish anyone who dares speak out. But wait—there’s more. While Gazan families scavenge for scraps, Hamas posts videos of its leaders sitting down to feast. Not just surviving—feasting. As HonestReporting's latest short video below shows, the contrast is jaw-dropping.

Meanwhile, Israel—blamed for it all—is still sending in aid, still opening crossings, still trying to coordinate distribution… only for Hamas to intercept and weaponise humanitarian relief. And what does the international community do? Point fingers at the only country actually doing something to help.

Even worse is the media’s role in all of this. Western outlets had access to the same footage, the same facts, the same damning evidence—but instead of exposing Hamas, they parroted its propaganda. They ran with the "Israel-starves-Gaza" narrative while deliberately ignoring—or burying—the images of Hamas officials boasting about their well-stocked kitchens. It’s not just bias, it’s complicity.

Let’s call this what it is: a propaganda farce. Hamas is crying “starvation” while hoarding food and letting their people suffer for PR. And the world, predictably, laps it up.

Iranians calling on Israel to help bring down the Theocracy!

Given the weekly marches, protests, and demonstrations screaming genocidal slogans against Israel in many of the cities of the Western world, one would think that if this is happening in the Western world, it would be even more extreme in the Middle East. It is not so. While there is a core group of demonstrators in the West who are, let's say, impassioned in their hatred of Israel and Jews, it is by no means a large number. The vast majority of the silent masses stand in support of Israel and are sympathetic to their existential battle against the extremists incessantly threatening them. A recent survey in the US found support for Israel was at some 70%.

The demonstrators are not all of one mind and really include four separate groups. There is a core group of Middle Eastern Islamists whose enmity is based both on religious background and sympathy for fellow Muslims. Again, this group is only a small proportion of the wider Muslim community, but given the recent migration from North Africa and the Middle East to Western countries, even a small number represents an increase in such extremists.

The second subgroup comes from the hard left. These are Marxists, anti-Western zealots who will join any group threatening Western society. Finally, we have a group that could be best labelled as 'useful idiots.' With little knowledge of the history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, they join in chants of "River to the Sea" without being able to identify the river or the sea, nor realizing they are calling for the annihilation of Israel.

Why, one could ask, are there so many of them? Indeed, why? What type of education creates such moral failure? And why are there so many in universities, where one would assume there are students who have the capability of thinking for themselves? One reason is no doubt due to the too many academics who are open or closet Marxists, critical of every aspect of Western civilization and indoctrinating their students.

So much for the West. In the middle east support for extremists has had a mixed history. In Gaza suveys have shown that support for Hamas just after the October 7 massacre was running at 80%. That is despite the barbarity of the attack on innocent civilians. So not exactly an encouraging result. When this survey was repeated recently after a year in which Hamas has been decimated and much of Gaza has been levelled, support for Hamas has dropped to just 8%! That is encouraging.

In Lebanon too, we can already see signs of the Lebanese rejecting Hezbollah. 

Many in the Middle East have already spoken out condemning Hamas, and even celebrating the death of Nasrallah In an earlier post (Palestinians speak out against Hamas .) I included YouTube videos covering this. 

Most recently following the direct attacks between Iran and Israel, Iranians are speaking out. They want Israel to destroy the Iranian leadership and allow Iranians to live the peaceful and prosperous lives they had before the Islamic revolution that created a dictatorial theocracy.

Here is the video; - 

The vocal minority is having an undue influence on our perception, especially in a world where opinions are amplified by social media, and the mainstream media has been corrupted to push agendas rather than objectively report and analyse .  

Appeasement leads to escalation

For too many months we have seen repeated demonstrations claiming support for innocent Palestinians in Gaza, while screaming anti-Semitic and genocidal slogans. The protests are not 'peaceful' and 'non-violent' as sometimes reported. Too often, masked demonstrators take over the streets and any bystanders are intimidated. Many, especially those who are Jewish are assaulted. If you carry a sign supporting Israel you are in danger. 

The police have generally tried a hands-off approach, hoping that the demonstrators will dissipate their aggression without violence. They have gone out of their way to remove any possible trigger by asking Israel supporters to move on and even resorting to arresting them. 

Look at this video highlighting the experience of an independent reporter attending one of the demonstrations. The video covers the whole saga, showing the attempt by the Police to ignore the assault but having to act once the assault was given sufficient publicity.

However, appeasement has not worked. The demonstrations have become increasingly confrontational and violent. This is exemplified by the most recent violent scenes in Melbourne where some 25,000 protestors clashed with police. 

"Thousands of anti-war protesters clashed with police outside the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre, disrupting the Land Forces International Defence Expo. The demonstration, one of Melbourne's largest in decades, saw protesters throw projectiles and manure at police, who responded with pepper spray and batons. Over 25,000 demonstrators rallied against the weapons expo, with tensions escalating as officers on horseback attempted to control the crowd. Traffic chaos ensued, and several protesters were arrested. " The Australian, Sep 11 2024

Appeasement does not work! Ask Neville Chamberlain. Appeasement only leads to escalation.

What should the police do? Simply enforce the law, without fear or favour. That's all!

Who is to blame?

We have seen this story before. A bank robbery has gone wrong, the police have the bank surrounded with the 4 would-be-robbers holding twenty hostages. The police negotiator using his best patient and compliant manner has offered food, and has calmed the trigger-happy gunmen. The barter is simple, they want their freedom in exchange for the freedom of the hostages. As always it is a long and complex negotiation. Lots of pizza is delivered. The delivery man is an undercover cop, who sizes up the locations of the gangsters, the hostages and the layout. The SWAT team is already on site, ready and eager to get their hands on the bastards, but the negotiator holds them off feeling he can avoid bloodshed. 

It has taken 10 hours and everyone is tired and edgy. A gunshot rings out. Something has happened. The SWAT team is given the go-ahead to bring the stand-off to an end.

Flash-bangs, gun fire, sniper action, and all is over in just a minute. The result?

All gunmen were shot, 18 hostages were safe, but one hostage had been shot by one of the robbers, and another was shot and killed when a SWAT team member aiming at a gunman accidentally shot a hostage.

So who is to blame for the death of the hostage? Not who caused the death but who is to blame? The law is clear on this. If someone is killed during a felony the perpetrator of the felony is responsible and will be charged with murder.

So why am I raising this?

Apply this to the recent accidental deaths of aid workers in Gaza. Who is to blame? Israel has accepted that it was responsible for the deaths, and has taken action to punish the perpetrators. But who is to blame for the deaths?

In a court of law, it would be Hamas. So it should be in all our minds. Had Hamas not broken the peace on Oct 7, none of the deaths would have occurred.

World opinion is being manipulated for various reasons that I won't get into here. So all the more we need to maintain moral clarity. In Gaza there would be no civilian deaths, no widespread damage to infrastructure, no upheaval in the daily lives of citizens and no food shortages had Hamas not started a war by massacring innocent civilian Israelis and taking many hostage. Hamas started the war, and every death including the death of the aid workers, is on their head.

Palestinians speak out against Hamas!

Following Hamas's Oct 7 massacre of Israeli's civilians, and the consequent war between Hamas and Israel, much of the Western world has seen noisy, intrusive & disruptive, 'mostly peaceful', anti-Israel and antisemitic demonstrations. Large crowds have expressed their support for the civilian victims of the war as well as support for Hamas' genocidal call "from the River to the Sea ". 

In a crowd of thousands. no doubt some were only there to support civilian victims, but, given the genocidal chants, many were there to support Hamas. These 'useful idiots' justify their support for the murderous terrorists by blaming Israel, Zionists or just Jews for the supposed "occupation" of Gaza, forgetting that Gaza had not been occupied since 2005. Or worse still accepting Hamas' call to remove all Israelis, and Jews from "the river to the sea". This widespread antisemitic tidal wave to what was a blatant unprovoked attack by Hamas is a shameful betrayal of the "never again' mantra following the defeat of Nazi Germany 80 years ago. 

So much for the Western democratic world. But how do the citizens of Gaza feel? How does the Middle Eastern Arab world feel about the war? It is difficult to know as Hamas still controls much of what comes out of Gaza. If you were to publish something they don't like, the punishment would be painful and permanent. Nevertheless, word is slowly coming out. It is just a trickle but it has started.

Here are a couple of Youtube videos recording the views of the Arab world. It seems many of Gaza's civilians are not happy with Hamas 

The first is titled UNRWA Accused of employing Hamas - Palestinians turn against HAMAS

And another short one, titled Elderly Gazan woman accuses Hamas of stealing aid in rare criticism

and finally Gazans Speaking Out Against Hamas

As Israel disarms Hamas I expect more voices will be heard. 

The elimination of Hamas as the governing force in Gaza is the best chance for Gaza's civilians to have a peaceful & prosperous life.

What is life like for citizens of Gaza?

The war between Hamas and Israel has been going for 3 months. It has wrought devastation for Gaza and its citizens. It has also spawned many vocal, often antisemitic rallies, marches, and convoys in support of "Palestine"/Hamas in most Western Cities. 

Given Hamas started this war, many, most probably a large majority, believe Israel had no choice but to fight back and that if Israel were successful in eliminating Hamas, it would liberate Gazans from their oppression by Hamas. Most Western media have given some twisted legitimacy to Hamas's atrocities in an inverted morality, blaming the victims for the crimes of Hamas. No doubt it is partly support for the weaker party, support for the innocent victims, and partly anti-Israel and antisemitic bias. 

While this is widely debated in the Western media there is very little coming out of Gaza. Perhaps this is not surprising given Hamas' absolute control of Gaza's citizenry. Nevertheless, we have had some snippets of dissent mainly on the Middle East-based media, Egypt, Al Jazeera etc.

In November a longer piece titled "What Is Life Like for Palestinians in Gaza? was posted on YouTube. Using video snippets and commentary by Gaza's citizens together with historical footage from a wide range of media, it paints a different picture than we are traditionally shown in our Western media. Life in Gaza is terrible and it seems Gazans, at least some would love to get rid of Hamas and be allowed to live their lives without Hamas' oppression.

So well worth view!

https://youtu.be/PgAq-9_4Rzs?si=4R9dUk1cTiAFRDXx

Progressives are driven by ideology not conviction

Too many home truths in Gemma's most recent article Progressives in lock-step with Hamas ideology published in the Weekend Australian. it exposes too many home truths to hide behind a paywall, but nevertheless I quote jsut a few relevant snippets, and encourage you all to subscribe to the Australian. In MHO it is the only old-school daily newspaper worth the subscription.

Thank you, Gemma, for articulating what to some of us is somewhat obvious, but that so many seem to miss, avoid or even cover-up. We need the light of truth to spread as widely as possible.

I have selected some sections that I found particularly poignant.

"We are living in an age of ideology, not conviction. We are being governed by people who favour form, not substance. There is an obsession with feeling over fact, perception over reality and an absolutely hysterical addiction to victimhood."

"The slaughter in Israel on October 7 opened the world's eyes to many things, two of which are relevant here. First, the venomous, inexplicable hatred that still exists towards the Jewish people that is not only excused but perpetuated by the progressive political left; and the undeniable truth that ideology rules moral clarity and at a terrible cost.|"

"Only the ideologically obsessed would be demanding a ceasefire in Gaza without an immediate concurrent surrender by Hamas, and a release of the remaining living hostages. The fact these hostages still are being held and the international community is even talking about a ceasefire is insanity. Israel is the only nation on earth that needs to defend itself for defending itself. If that doesn't embody the curse of rotten ideology, then nothing does."

Since the start of the war that Hamas started and, God willing, Israel will finish, the ideologically driven mainstream media for the most part has demonstrated in dangerous clarity how ideologically driven it has become. Who can forget the bombing of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in the Gaza Strip on October 17? Mainstream media, for the most part, breathlessly reported 500 killed and blamed the Israel Defence Forces.

We now know it to have been a tragic own goal, a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket fired from within Gaza that fell short of its Israeli target. The death toll, about 100. Mainstream media took days to correct the mistake. Some never did. It's certain that truth is a casualty of war but to an even greater degree it is one of ideology. Since October 7, the phase has been coined: no Jews, no news. Terribly, awfully true.

Only ideology could cause the Western left and its cronies to fawn over Gaza, chant Free Palestine, when Gazan society is the embodiment of everything they purport to be against. A place where being gay is a death sentence, where marital violence is condoned by law, as is intra-family sexual violence, where religious dogma rules and disagreeing with Hamas (the government) will get you a bullet in the back of the head.

"George Orwell was right when he said in a time of deceit, telling the truth becomes hate speech."

"But I am one who, perhaps foolishly, lives in hope. Hope that the more this idiocy is laid bare (special thanks to the Free Palestine brigade and the brains trust at Just Stop Oil) the greater and more aggressive the pushback will be. Our future depends on it."

Hear! Hear! 

Politics and the Arts do not mix

No doubt you will have read about the controversy at the STC following an unauthorized protest by some actors at the end of a play. At the encore three of the five actors displayed their support for Palestine by wearing keffiyehs. 

The STC management reacted poorly and was slow to distance itself from the protest, trying to tread a fine line between the actors and patrons of the theatre, many of whom are Jewish. The ensuing furore has led to the resignation of 3 directors of the STC and indeed the abandonment of the STC by many influential patrons. 

One patron, Daniel Greenberg has penned a damning letter to the STC explaining his own position. This letter has been widely publicized.(see  Read the damning letter sent to the Sydney Theatre Company that reveals the Jewish community's outraged response to 'sickening protest')

I include his letter to illustrate the depth of feeling of Jewish patrons. You will not get this from MSM as they seem more biased towards the virtue-signaling left.

The actors have dug their heels in. They plan further such protests and have convinced a large number of fellow artists to join their stand. This is still ongoing and we don't know where it will all land. However, given the many high-profile patrons have walked, it is possible the STC will not survive.

What is the morality behind these issues? In some ways it is difficult. There is the issue of free speech. We do want a society where speech is not censored even when it is obnoxious. But of course, many consequences fall short of censorship. 

The Left taught us over the past few years how 'cancellation' can work to limit free speech. They have not targeted the person whose speech they did not like but have approached his customers, employer, colleagues and even professional associations. It has been very effective. We have seen the many 'hostage videos' by hapless victims apologising profusely, but unbelievably, for violating some PC edict. This has of course meant that many others have self-censored. Thus cancel culture keeps the herd on a tight leash. 

Well, I guess that can be our weapon too. The actors may exercise their free speech. They can air their views, but the patrons, the audience, and the directors of the STC are free to exercise their option to withdraw from supporting these actors' performances and the theatres that employ them. 

I stand with the patrons and will not attend plays that feature these actors and will boycott the STC until they have taken adequate measures to redress their failure to distance themselves from the actors.

AIM fights back against antisemitism at Harvard

In a recent post ( How to fight back against antisemitism )  I suggested that we can all fight back against the blatant antisemitism and Jew hatred that has exploded in our communities following Hamas's terrorist attack on Israel. My suggestion was to expose the names of those who put their names to petitions calling for protests against Israel/Jews. 

AIM, Accuracy in Media, has done much, much better. Following the many antisemitic rallies, marches and petitions against Israel and Jews in Universities in the US, AIM has set up a series of campaigns to draw attention to antisemitism and to expose the anti-Semites. The mobile billboards on a truck display and shame the leaders of the antisemitic rallies. These have gained results with students losing scholarships and no doubt some will have trouble gaining employment. 

Here is one of the videos; there are many more on the site

As a result of seeing the exposure of their colleagues perhaps some will tone down their rhetoric Or perhaps not. In any case, it proves the point. You can and should have free speech, but you cannot have it anonymously. If you believe strongly protest, speak up, but give your name. Then others will decide whether they believe you have the right character for their scholarship or job. 

Israel IS following rules of war

Widespread claims of war crimes against Israel have been made following Israel's military response to Hamas's unprecedenteed massacre of 1200 Israeli civilians and taking of 250 hostages on Oct 7. Even before Israel had organized any response Israel was being warned by Australia's foreign minister, Penny Wong to 'exercise restraint'. Everyone seems to accept that Israel has a right to self defense but they fall short of allowing Israel to do so unreservedly. Most often they add some qualification, warning Israel to follow the rules of war.  This is despite any evidence of Israel ever having not done so! And adespite Hamas , repeatedly, having broken the rules of war and perpetrating war crimes. 

Few commentators have clarified the rules of war to inform the public.  So any attempt is worth circulating. 

John Spencer is certainly well qualified to assess Israel's compliance with the 'rules of war;. See his bio below.

John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point, codirector of MWI’s Urban Warfare Project and host of the “Urban Warfare Project Podcast.” He served for 25 years as an infantry soldier, which included two combat tours in Iraq. He is the author of the book “Connected Soldiers: Life, Leadership, and Social Connection in Modern War” and co-author of “Understanding Urban Warfare.” 

In his article titled Opinion: I’m an expert in urban warfare. Israel is upholding the laws of war
published on CNN's Website, he covers the core issues.

War Realities:

• All war involves killing and destruction, with civilians historically suffering the most in conflicts, especially in urban warfare.
• Urban warfare presents unique challenges, impacting both soldiers and civilians, with noncombatants often constituting the majority of casualties.
• Approximately 90% of casualties in modern urban wars involve civilians, even when led or supported by Western powers.

War Crimes and Legal Assessments:

• Destruction and suffering in war don't automatically constitute war crimes; accusations must be assessed based on evidence and armed conflict standards.
• Hamas violated multiple laws of war, including taking hostages, targeting civilians, and using human shields.
• Israel's actions are subject to examination based on international humanitarian law principles, including military necessity, proportionality, distinction, humanity, and honour.

International Support for Israel:

President Joe Biden and European countries support Israel's self-defence, recognizing its right to immediate and unilateral self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Israel's Pledge to International Law:

• Israel pledged to obey international law, with proportionality as a cornerstone, requiring consideration of civilian harm compared to military advantage.
• Israel's actions, including targeting a senior Hamas commander, align with military necessity and proportionality principles.
• IDF implements practices to minimize harm, such as warning civilians before strikes and providing evacuation routes.

Complex Principle of Distinction:

The principle of distinction requires Israel to differentiate between civilians and combatants, aiming to minimize civilian casualties.

Challenges in Urban Warfare:

Emptying a city of civilians before the urban battle is essentially impossible, posing challenges for minimizing harm.

Israel's Efforts and Cooperation:

Israel takes steps to constrain forces, provide safe areas, and cooperate with the US to facilitate humanitarian aid entry into Gaza.

Reality of Pursuing a Terrorist Organization:

Pursuing a terrorist organization in urban areas creates a nightmarish landscape, reminiscent of past campaigns against groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Evidence of Respect for Rules of War:

The visual impact of conflict in Gaza doesn't indicate indiscriminate bombing. Israel's restraint in using full military capacity suggests adherence to rules of war.

Defensive Campaign for Survival:

Israel's actions are framed as a defensive campaign to ensure its survival, challenging the characterization of revenge.

In summary ;

"Like all similar conflicts in modern times, a battle in Gaza will look like the entire city was purposely razed to the ground or indiscriminately carpet-bombed – but it wasn’t. Israel possesses the military capacity to do so, and the fact that it doesn’t employ such means is further evidence that it is respecting the rules of war. It is also a sign that this is not revenge – a gross mischaracterization of Israeli aims – but instead a careful defensive campaign to ensure Israel’s survival."

The myth of Gaza’s innocent civilians

The widespread marches declaring the "Stand with Palestine" decry the large number of casualties resulting from Israel's response to Hamas' atrocities of October 7. The marches are united by their declaration of support for innocent victims of Israel's retaliation.  The civilians they claim are the victims, as they did not start the war, it was Hamas. The civilians are the victims of Hamas too, and did not support the attacks on Israel. But is this so?

A recent poll went to find out. The results were published in the article The myth of Gaza’s innocent civilians

The results are sobering.  I'll let you read the article, but here a few snippets'

• "A recent poll of Arab Muslim residents of the West Bank and Gaza, known as ‘Palestinians’ circa 1967, conducted by the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) asked them.
• 74% supported the Hamas atrocities of Oct 7. Of these 59% “extremely” support them and another 15% only “somewhat”. Only 7% were “extremely against” and 5% somewhat against.
• That’s 74% in favor of murdering, raping and kidnapping Jews and only 12% against.
• Only 7% were ‘extremely’ against murdering and abducting children."

and

• "83% of those in the West Bank, ruled by the Palestinian Authority, said that they supported the Hamas atrocities. Only 7% were opposed. In Gaza, there was notably less enthusiasm at 63%. But after weeks of bombings and raids, only 20% seem to have decided it was a bad idea.
• Why were only 7% of those in the West Bank, but 20% of those in Gaza opposed?
• Do those extra 13% of Gazans reflect a people (slightly) more likely to value human life or terrorist supporters who, like their comrades in the West Bank, like it better when someone else is doing the fighting? If the attack had come from the West Bank, would 83% (instead of just 63%) of those in Gaza be enthusiastic about the massacre and beheading of Israelis?"

and finally. 

• "A majority believed that the Hamas atrocities were an Islamic response to the “defilement of Al Aqsa” by allowing Jews to set foot on the former site of the Holy Temple.
• 98% in Gaza and the West Bank said that they felt ‘pride’ as ‘Palestinians’ over the war.
• 74% expect the fighting to end with the defeat of Israeli forces in Gaza.
• Only 17% support a two-state solution while 77.7% want to destroy Israel and replace it with a ‘Palestinian’ state."

So are there 'innocent civilians' in Gaza?  Certainly, but most probably fewer than the Pro Palestine marchers claim.

We cannot relinquish the streets to the mob!

 Repercussions of Hamas' barbaric attack on Israeli citizens are percolating throughout the world with continued rocket fire by Hamas, the severe bombing of military targets by Israel, and most recently a full-force ground invasion, with the rest of the world polarising. Most Western democracies have stood strongly by Israel and support their mission to eliminate Hamas. But so too, most Western democracies have a noisy minority voicing general anti-Israeli sentiments, together with antisemitic tropes. The minority is too often allowed to march and given implied support by an activist-biased media. Unfortunately, we have been here before. The magnitude of the attack by Hamas is however unprecedented, a ubiquitous word nowadays, so we are in new territory. The coming weeks will tell.

I have been shocked by the barbarism and even more by the many of my fellow citizens who have failed to condemn it but rather support it. I am dismayed by the marches and demonstrations shouting anti-semitic slogans. But most of all I am astounded by the failure of our police to enforce the laws against illegal demonstrations and hate speech. With such a blatant violation of the law, inaction clearly sends a message, that we will not enforce hate speech laws if they are directed at Israel or Jews. It is like a time warp to the 1930s with Hitler gangs and marches. What is the base reason for such moral inversion? Is it playing for Muslim votes as some have excused, or is it something far more serious? Is it plain and simple cowardice? The police have no problem breaking up unauthorised demonstrations by peaceful anti-lockdown protesters, even using rubber bullets to break up the demonstration and arrest large numbers. Yet they have no appetite to break up a belligerent crowd fomenting hatred of Israel and Jews. Is it sympathy with the cause? I don’t know but think it is cowardice. Cowardice in the face of a loud belligerent angry mob. Fair enough they fear that they may be hurt in the melee. But if that is really the case they have the wrong job. We need police who will apply the law without FEAR or favour. Without FEAR! Also, there has been no follow-up on those who clearly broke hate speech laws in their harangues to the crowd. They were identifiable. They clearly broke the law. But was the law enforced?. Were they arrested? Has anyone been charged? Not to my knowledge.

Cowardice in the face of a minority who intimidates even our law enforcement is clearly unacceptable. We cannot, must not, relinquish peace and safety to the rule of the mob. 

It is time to hold the Police Commissioners and the Ministers of Police accountable and replace them with those who have the courage to do their jobs. In NSW we need both the Minister of Police Yasmin Catley and Police Commissioner Karen Webb to be sacked. Premier Minns if you fail to replace these people, then you yourself will share the blame and your electorate will hold you accountable via the ballot box. It will become your failure to replace those who have not done their jobs to keep our streets safe. You cannot abandon the Jewish citizens of your state because they are a small minority. Failure to enforce the law reflects on all of us. How can any of us feel safe if the laws intended to protect us are not enforced?

Too Many Useful Idiots

This post is directed to all journalists and commentators who serve to form opinions in our chaotic world.  If you qualify, and if you published Hamas' claims of Israel's bombing of a hospital resulting in the death of 500 people, then you should look in the mirror, and ask yourself the question, "Am I a useful idiot?" 

If you did, you have been and are being used by Hamas. You accept their lies without question while pointing the finger at Israel without checking the facts on the ground. You provide cover for heinous acts against civilians while equivocating about condemning such atrocities. You are an accomplice to all that follows. Sure your complicity may be unintended, but by negating the horror of Hamas' barbarism by some sort of moral equivalence you condone it, and in effect encourage it. Your lies had a direct effect. They caused the cancellation of high level diplomatic meetings between Biden and Arab leaders and launched massive anti-Israel marches in much of the Western World. Your implicit support for Hamas prolongs the war and will cause further casualties on both sides.

As a journalist, you have one job to report the facts without fear or favour. If you don't have the facts, you should say so and report nothing at all. 

More than a week after this event, I have only seen one half-hearted apology from the New York Times. Every media organisation that spread the lie should apologise for accepting Hamas' lies without checking the facts and to correct the record. We are waiting.

So really, have you acted as a useful idiot? Many would think you have!