Wiadomości z wielkiego świata

Andrzej Koraszewski

Czytam tytuł obszernego doniesienia: „Akcjonariusze pozywają The New York Times za stronnicze relacjonowanie”. To ciekawy precedens. Oczywiście chodzi o stronnicze relacjonowanie wydarzeń dotyczących Izraela.

Rok temu w Wielkiej Brytanii parlamentarna komisja krytykowała BBC za stronniczość w doniesieniach na temat Izraela. Kilka lat wcześniej przeprowadzono w BBC wewnętrzne dochodzenie, a kierownictwo korporacji odmówiło ujawnienia końcowego raportu. Również ta największa gazeta świata była wcześniej wielokrotnie krytykowana, a akcjonariusze pozbywali się jej akcji. Tym razem jednak sprawa trafia do sądu.

Obszernie donosi o tym The Free Press, medium założone przez byłą dziennikarkę NYT, Bari Weiss, która po długich bojach z redakcją o powrót do elementarnej rzetelności obróciła się na pięcie i założyła na Substacku własną stronę, zwracając się do publiczności z pytaniem: „Czy Amerykanie chcą rzetelnego dziennikarstwa?”. Natychmiast pół miliona ludzi zareagowało odpowiedzią: TAK. Dziś to medium skupia dziesiątki niezależnych dziennikarzy (nie tylko z USA) i ma miliony odbiorców.

Informacja to towar jak każdy inny. But musi być wygodny, ale chętnie kupuje się buty, które są wygodne i modne, a modę można kształtować. W handlu informacją wszyscy zapewniają o swojej rzetelności, ale sensacja i powszechne uprzedzenia sprzedają się lepiej niż nudna drobiazgowość.

Redaktorzy naczelni słuchają uważnie, co mówi dział sprzedaży. Są również wpływy różnych darczyńców zainteresowanych kształtowaniem takiej, a nie innej opinii.

Czy ten proces sądowy może cokolwiek zmienić? Wątpię. Mam wrażenie, że niezależnie od werdyktu sądu linia polityczna redakcji New York Timesa pozostanie bez zmian, bowiem zmiana wymagałaby trzęsienia ziemi, a przede wszystkim wymiany sporej części personelu. Dochodzenia w BBC niczego nie zmieniły, tendencyjność doniesień na temat Bliskiego Wschodu raczej się nasiliła, niż zmalała.

Właśnie znowu na Wyspach burza w szklance wody, bo – jak za „Telegraphem” pisze Jake Wallis Simons
– „BBC określiła 53 zabitych terrorystów mianem «dziennikarzy». Niektórzy zostali sfotografowani w mundurach wojskowych. Inni pozowali z bronią. Część z nich organizacje dżihadystyczne wychwalały po śmierci jako «męczenników». Według doniesień co najmniej jeden uczestniczył w masakrze z 7 października.

A jednak dla BBC byli oni «dziennikarzami»”.

Nawiasem mówiąc, na zupełnie innym planie – w ONZ poziom obsesyjnej i nieuczciwej krytyki Izraela był tak wielki, że w 2006 roku postanowiono zlikwidować Komisję Praw Człowieka i zastąpić ją Radą Praw Człowieka. Efekt był odwrotny od zamierzonego. Było to zupełnie zrozumiałe, ponieważ wcześniejsze wpływy Związku Radzieckiego były teraz umacniane przez kraje muzułmańskie, Chiny i kraje Trzeciego Świata, takie jak RPA, Kuba, Wenezuela i dziesiątki podobnych. Zmiana tabliczki nie mogła wymusić powrotu do realizacji pierwotnych celów Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych. Kiedy Iran przewodzi komisji do spraw praw kobiet, nie oczekujmy, że ONZ poprawi sytuację kobiet, czy to w krajach muzułmańskich, czy gdziekolwiek indziej.

Powróćmy jednak do procesu części akcjonariuszy przeciwko redakcji New York Timesa.

Jak czytamy w artykule, pozew opiera się głównie na relacjach dziennikarki NYT, która wielokrotnie składała skargi do kierownictwa na konkretne przypadki przekazywania nieścisłych lub ewidentnie błędnych informacji.

Akcjonariusze oskarżają spółkę wydającą największą na świecie gazetę o to, że nie wywiązała się ze swojego zobowiązania: przekazywania czytelnikom prawdy oraz szybkiego korygowania własnych błędów. W pozwie zwracają się również do sądu z prośbą o nakazanie zarządowi gazety ujawnienia wewnętrznych dokumentów, których spółka od czterech miesięcy odmawia pokazania własnym akcjonariuszom. Większość tych dokumentów dotyczy wojny Izraela z Hamasem.

Redakcja The Free Press przeprowadziła wywiad z dziennikarką, która dostarczyła akcjonariuszom materiały stanowiące główną podstawę pozwu. Jak powiedziała:

„Opinia publiczna zasługuje na pełniejszy obraz tego, jak NYT produkuje wiadomości, gdy dotyczą one Żydów lub Izraela”.

Ona sama prosi o zachowanie anonimowości w obawie o bezpieczeństwo swojej rodziny.

Dziennikarka na przestrzeni ostatnich siedmiu lat kilkanaście razy zgłaszała kierownictwu przypadki antyizraelskiej stronniczości i jawnego antysemityzmu.

„Sygnalistka wskazała w pozwie, że bezpośrednio po ataku Hamasu na Izrael 7 października 2023 roku pracownicy działu wideo przez wiele tygodni szukali dowodów na to, że Hamas nie korzystał z tuneli pod szpitalem Al-Szifa – nawet po tym, jak w listopadzie 2023 roku izraelskie wojsko opublikowało własne nagrania tuneli. Według pozwu podczas porannego zebrania działu 20 listopada 2023 roku przełożona sygnalistki określiła je jako «rzekome tunele».

Podczas jednego z kilku spotkań z kierownictwem Timesa sygnalistka rozmawiała z przedstawicielką działu kadr, Chante Williams, o szerzej występującej w dziale wideo kulturze antyizraelskiej stronniczości. Według pozwu Williams odpowiedziała jej:

«Jeśli nie podobają ci się nasze wartości, może powinnaś znaleźć miejsce, którego wartości są zgodne z twoimi»”.

The New York Times od 7 października często spotyka się z zarzutami o stronniczość swoich materiałów. Tylko w ubiegłym tygodniu gazeta określiła Sharifa Labada, który zginął w ataku drona, jako „pracownika służby ratowniczej Obrony Cywilnej”, nie wspominając, że Siły Obronne Izraela zidentyfikowały Labada jako jednego z członków elitarnej jednostki Hamasu Nukhba, którzy wtargnęli do Izraela 7 października. Artykułu nie zaktualizowano.

Times został również zmuszony do opublikowania noty redakcyjnej przy artykule dotyczącym NAZA, filmu dokumentalnego o Gazie, po tym, jak w pierwotnej wersji napisano, że Izraelczycy „wciąż w dużej mierze postrzegają samych siebie jako ofiary 7 października”. Gazeta nazwała to zdanie „błędem redakcyjnym”, który „nieumyślnie sugerował”, że śmierć 1200 osób oraz uprowadzenie 250 zakładników były kwestią opinii, a nie faktem.

„Akcjonariusze argumentują, że skoro w dokumentach składanych przez sam The New York Times do amerykańskiej Komisji Papierów Wartościowych i Giełd (SEC) wiarygodność jest określana jako jeden z kluczowych aktywów przedsiębiorstwa, a inwestorzy są ostrzegani, że «postrzeganie naszego dziennikarstwa jako niewiarygodnego lub stronniczego» stanowi realne ryzyko dla firmy, akcjonariusze mają prawo wiedzieć, czy zarząd rzeczywiście pilnuje, aby redakcja przestrzegała własnych standardów”.

Jak czytamy w tym artykule, w badaniu Edieala Pinkera z Yale z 2026 roku, profesora Yale University School of Management, przeanalizowano ponad 1500 artykułów Timesa dotyczących wojny. Pinker stwierdził, że relacje gazety „przypisują niemal wyłączną sprawczość i odpowiedzialność Izraelowi, jednocześnie pomniejszając rolę Hamasu w podtrzymywaniu konfliktu”, co – jak argumentuje pozew – „może w sposób wiarygodny wpływać na opinie czytelnika w kierunku sprzecznym z rzeczywistością”.

Media takie jak The New York Times i BBC w dużym stopniu nadają ton mniej renomowanym redakcjom, więc ich tendencyjność ma szczególną wagę.

Nie położy jej kresu jeden proces sądowy. Jest to jednak sprawa, która przynajmniej w części środowisk dziennikarskich powinna skłonić do debaty na temat etyki zawodowej w głównym nurcie medialnym. Oczywiście dotyczy to również prowincjonalnych papug, takich jak nasza „Gazeta Wyborcza”, „Rzeczpospolita”, „Polityka” i inne.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at the U.N. General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York City, Sept. 24, 2026. Photo by Perry Bindelglass.

Can September surprises topple Benjamin Netanyahu?

Jonathan S. Tobin

Delegations walk out as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the general debate of the U.N. General Assembly’s 81st session, at the U.N. headquarters in New York City, Sept. 24, 2026. Credit: Loey Felipe/UN Photo.

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the U.N. General Assembly in New York last week, his bold defense of his country and evisceration of its foes were predictably greeted by two completely different sets of responses in Israel and the United States. His supporters praised it as an eloquent and necessary rejoinder to the blood libels hurled at the Jewish state by its opponents. His Israeli and Jewish critics panned it as being out of touch with public opinion in both countries.

Those divergent responses sum up the difficulty of assessing Netanyahu’s ability to conduct public diplomacy as well as his current prospects for re-election when Israeli voters go to the polls on Oct. 27. The question isn’t so much about the value of his speech; it’s who is actually listening to him.

And by that, I’m not referring to the representatives of 75 nations who walked out of the speech, as opposed to the 118 who stayed and listened. Rather, I am taking into consideration the many Israelis and Americans who tuned him out long ago over the course of the turbulent four years since he was returned to office in the Knesset election in November 2022.

Serious accusations

The same problem faces those who are pondering the impact of the deluge of stories that have been published in the last week that allege, in one form or another, that Netanyahu has been warned about the Hamas-led Palestinian Arab terror attacks on his country but did nothing about it.

Those are serious accusations. And if they were true—and the prime minister really did ignore warnings and cover up the truth rather than act on the information that he was given—then they would be damning.

But real questions need to be asked about the reports.

It’s not just that their truth can be challenged on many details. The context of the pre-Oct. 7 world in which Israel lived, both in terms of the assumptions of the military and intelligence establishments and the political reality of the pre-war situation, is largely obscured by these articles.

And, just as important, is that the reports in Haaretz, The New York Times and The Atlantic come from publications fully committed to defeating the prime minister in the upcoming Knesset election by any means necessary. That they have arrived just in time to try and reverse a polling trend that seems to indicate an election stalemate or a Netanyahu victory also inspires skepticism.

As such, it’s hardly surprising that most of those who support Netanyahu’s Likud Party and his right-wing and religious coalition partners aren’t listening to the accusations. They not unreasonably assume that these broadsides are the Israeli equivalent of what American political observers call “October surprises”: politically motivated bombshells concocted by partisans to influence an election.

In America, the practice dates back to the 19th century. But the term was first coined when liberals seeking to derail Ronald Reagan hatched a conspiracy theory about him conspiring with Iran to ensure that the American hostages the Islamist regime had taken would not be released before the 1980 election. It was a lie, though some on the left still cling to this fiction. Nevertheless, Reagan won by a landslide.

Doubt over the reports about Netanyahu is not purely a function of support for him.

After all, six years ago the same American outlets that are now flogging charges about the Israeli leader were those who denied the truth of an October surprise that was actually true. Those who falsely claimed that the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop—which, in addition to providing prurient details about his life, also contained evidence of his family’s corrupt activities—contained Russian disinformation forfeited our trust in their integrity.

A far-left outlet like Haaretz, which provides cover to many of the blood libels that have been spread about Israeli conduct during the post-Oct. 7 war—is similarly lacking in credibility. Israelis also know that the same sources have been telling them the prime minister is a crook and guilty of corruption. Yet the trial based on the flimsy charges made against him by a hostile legal establishment goes on endlessly, even though proof of his criminal conduct has not been produced.

Genuine intelligence or ‘noise’

Still, the accusations cannot be dismissed out of hand.

In addressing this indictment of Netanyahu, we need to start with a basic fact about judging intelligence in real time. As with all such situations in which governments must assess information, it’s very difficult to separate the truth about the intentions and actions of foes from what intelligence professionals refer to as the “noise.” By that, they mean the cacophony of other data that can be essentially true or completely false, and that might lead them to disbelieve the reports that might have led them to the correct conclusions. It is only after the fact (when we already know the outcome) that we can point to what happened prior to any conflict or incident and know which was which.

To note that doesn’t mean that it’s unfair to second-guess Netanyahu, as well as the entire military and intelligence establishment, for believing that, regardless of what some of the information they were receiving was telling them, Hamas wasn’t going to attack. Such judgments are part of the price of power.

But it is fair to point out what his critics would have said he had acted on such information. Since the plans of the Israel Defense Forces were predicated on an Oct. 7-style attack not being within the realm of the possible, would warnings have sufficed to defend the Gaza Envelope communities?

Critics want it both ways

As Israeli columnist Amit Segal has pointed out, many of the details in these reports don’t stand up to scrutiny. The Netanyahu-bashers want to have it both ways. As he wrote, “Israel’s government stands accused of, before Oct. 7, ignoring the warnings and not acting against Hamas with enough force and resolve. From Oct. 8 onward, it stands accused of acting with too much force and resolve.”

More to the point, would the same people who now call him a “traitor” have supported the prime minister if he had ordered an attack on Gaza to forestall the attacks before the slaughter on Oct. 7 based on the sources cited in these reports? Would they have backed him if he had reacted to these warnings—if indeed they were as unambiguous and authoritative as these journalists now claim them to be—and halted efforts to buy off Hamas with cash from Qatar (which was well known and largely supported by his political opponents at the time, since they, too, believed that war was unlikely) or restricted Gazans from employment in Israel?

The answer to those questions may be obscured by the righteous anger directed at everyone who has any share of the blame for the disaster—and Netanyahu is one of them.

But we all know that these left-wing outlets and the politicians hoping to benefit from these stories would have accused him of inhumanity and provoking war had he done so, even based on the best intelligence. The same smears about “genocide” and “war crimes” that have been hurled at Israel after Oct. 7 would have soon followed.

The problem is that even if the reports were accurate, what Netanyahu is truly guilty of doing is following the same policies toward Hamas-controlled Gaza that almost all of his political opponents supported before Oct. 7. Some, especially those on the left of the current “anyone-but-Bibi” coalition that has coalesced behind former IDF Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, actually want to repeat the folly of trying to appease the Palestinians now. Despite what some of those who are running against Netanyahu say now, the “conceptzia” about Hamas not attacking that paralyzed Israel’s security and political establishment prior to Oct. 7 was accepted across the Israeli political spectrum, with almost none of his opponents advocating for a tougher or more proactive stand against Hamas.

Letting Hamas off the hook

The worst aspect of the attempt to claim that Netanyahu somehow conspired to allow the attack to happen is not so much the way it seeks to undermine faith in his character and judgement. It’s that, as Segal also noted, these accounts seem to pardon the real authors of Oct. 7 of any agency or the ultimate responsibility for the worst mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. The charges against Netanyahu are reminiscent of the way many of those who demonstrated against Netanyahu during the war seemed to speak at their weekly emotional rallies in Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square, as if Netanyahu had taken Israeli captives and was personally holding them prisoner. This type of argument gave a pass to the real culprits: Hamas, the Palestinians and their funders.

Shlomi Eldar and Ruthie Yuval, the authors of the new book that Haaretz and The New York Times cite as providing conclusive proof of Netanyahu’s criminal irresponsibility, appear to be claiming that Hamas senior leader Yahya Sinwar was left with no choice but to order the murder, torture, rape and kidnapping of Israelis. They further claim that he was willing to be bought off by the Israelis for more economic aid. They also argue that Sinwar was willing to release the hostages right after Oct. 7. All of this seems to stem from sources in the Palestinian Authority, who are no more trustworthy than Hamas.

Those claims are as unlikely to be true as the assumptions we’re asked to make about Netanyahu ignoring warnings. It contradicts everything we know about Hamas’s intentions and operations. It also requires us to believe that Sinwar was willing to keep the secret about his plan from his allies and sponsors in Iran and Lebanon, who could have materially aided the assault on Israel had they known of its date in advance. But at the same time, it requires us to believe he also either rushed to pass on the information to Netanyahu or let his allies elsewhere do it.

It’s also rather hard to believe and a bit too convenient for those who have come to think of Netanyahu as not merely a political opponent who is very hard to beat, but the source of all evil. Having failed to make their corruption accusations stick, accusing him of deliberately betraying his nation and his legacy as the guardian of its security is all that’s left to them.

Hypocrisy exists in both camps. It’s entirely fair to say that had one of Netanyahu’s opponents been in power on Oct. 7, those supporting the Likud-led coalition would probably be saying the same things about them. Just as those on the left dispute any “surprises” that might discomfit their candidates, conservatives in both countries do the same. And Israelis have substantial, if debatable, reasons to want a change in government that have nothing to do with the effort to smear Netanyahu.

Looming over all of this are the data points that scare Netanyahu’s opponents. The various polls of the Israeli electorate that have been published are clearly influenced by the political leanings of those who sponsor them. Israeli TV Channel 11, Channel 12 and Channel 13 all skew to the left, as do their polls. Channel 14, the one more conservative and religious alternative, skews to the right.

But none of them show Eisenkot’s coalition winning a majority in the Knesset, even if, despite his pledges not to do it, he invited the anti-Zionist Arab Ra’am Party to join his government. Meanwhile, Channel 14’s poll shows Netanyahu’s coalition gaining an even stronger majority in the Knesset. What frightens the Israeli left even more is that this same outlet’s poll correctly called the 2022 election, while its competition wrongly predicted his defeat.

Even if the left-wing polls are closer to the mark this time, at this point that would mean a stalemate, ensuring that Netanyahu continues as prime minister until a subsequent election could be organized sometime in 2027.

Under these circumstances, it’s hardly surprising that the Israeli left is pulling every possible surprise out of the closet—with likely more to come in the weeks until Oct. 27.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at the United Nations in New York City, Sept. 24, 2026. Credit: Arie Leib Abrams/Flash90.

The voters’ verdict

This still begs the question as to whether anyone thinking of voting for one of the parties in Netanyahu’s coalition is even listening to the very serious charges the left is making.

In the internet era, in which competing sets of media outlets exist on both sides of the political aisle, it’s not just that Israelis, like Americans, no longer watch, listen or read the same news sources. In a bifurcated society, different media supply their readers, listeners and viewers with not only contradictory opinions and analyses of the issues. They also present them with often completely different sets of facts. In such an environment, it’s far from clear that all but a tiny portion of the electorate can be influenced to change their minds about who to vote for.

That battle over blame for Oct. 7 is likely to go on indefinitely since it has been a political football from the moment the war began. It’s hard to imagine either the Israeli right or left believing the findings of a commission of inquiry they don’t control. For the foreseeable future, historical works about the issue will probably be treated in the same manner.

And, for the time being, the only verdict that will matter will be the one delivered by the voters. Israelis have not only been deluged with evidence and arguments about this since Oct. 8. They have also lived through this chapter of history, experiencing the horror and sorrow of the attacks while being equally aware of the victories Israel has won over its enemies since then. Whether or not Netanyahu’s career is ended by the election results, his fate will be in the hands of the citizens of Israel—the only jury that ought to count and a far more trustworthy one than a jury composed of the editors of the Times, the Atlantic or Haaretz.

Many, if not most, of those looking on from abroad detest Netanyahu. Like U.S. President Donald Trump, they see him as a larger-than-life villain who can be blamed for anything. Even so, they need to trust the Israeli people and accept their judgment, whether they like it or not.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.

Israel Orders Dutch Diplomats in Ramallah to Return Credentials in Retaliation for Settlements Trade Ban

Ailin Vilches Arguello

March 29, 2025, Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands: A pro-Palestinian demonstrator burns a hand-fashioned Israeli flag. Photo: James Petermeier/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect

Israel has given Dutch diplomats operating in Ramallah seven days to return their Israeli-issued diplomatic credentials, in retaliation for the Netherlands’ newly imposed ban on goods from Israeli communities in the West Bank that took effect last week.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar announced Sunday that the diplomatic privileges and immunities extended to the Dutch diplomats will be revoked if they fail to return their credentials in the given time period.

“If the Netherlands wishes to continue representing its interests with the Palestinians, it may do so from Palestinian Authority territory, rather than from the territory of the State of Israel,” the top Israeli diplomat wrote in a post on X.

“Israel will not ignore measures intended to harm it,” Saar continued, warning that countries that treat the Jewish state “in a hostile and unilateral manner” would ultimately undermine their own influence in the region.

The Israeli government announced additional measures against the Netherlands earlier this year, removing the Dutch delegation from the US-led Gaza coordination mission in Israel over what Jerusalem described as a series of “anti-Israel measures.”

Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen on Monday described Israel’s decision as “unnecessary,” while insisting that the new law was “not directed against Israel.” The Dutch government is also expected to summon Israel’s ambassador in the Netherlands in the coming days to protest Israel’s decision to revoke the diplomatic status of the diplomats at the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority, although no such step has been taken yet.

The Dutch sanctions, which took effect on Sept. 22, are among the most far-reaching measures yet restricting trade with Israeli communities in the West Bank, as international efforts to boycott the Jewish state continue to grow.

The law is broader than similar measures adopted elsewhere, banning goods not only from Israeli settlements beyond the Green Line but also from the Golan Heights bordering Syria to the north.

The measure prohibits imports from these areas as well as the sale and purchase of such goods in the Netherlands, including products containing ingredients or components sourced from the West Bank or the Golan Heights, to prevent companies from bypassing the restrictions by using other European markets.

Even further, the law applies to Dutch citizens abroad, meaning a person could face prosecution after knowingly purchasing goods from these areas while outside the country, with violations carrying a maximum penalty of up to six years in prison.

According to the UN trade database Comtrade, the Netherlands is among Israel’s largest export destinations, receiving roughly 5 percent of the country’s total exports, making the new restrictions particularly significant for Israeli businesses trading with the European market.

The newly implemented law has already survived domestic legal challenges, including a case brought by the Christian-run Israel Product Center that was rejected after a Hague court ruled the organization lacked standing to contest the restrictions.

Following the rollout of sweeping Dutch restrictions on Israeli goods, passengers arriving from Israel at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport have reported unusually thorough customs inspections, fueling concerns over heightened scrutiny of luggage and Israeli products entering the Netherlands.

The Israeli Embassy in The Hague has cautioned Israelis traveling to the country to expect potentially “lengthy and invasive” luggage inspections, adding that it is closely monitoring the situation and will provide further updates as it develops.

Besides the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, and Spain are the only European countries so far to have advanced comprehensive legislation aimed at banning trade with Israeli communities in the West Bank.

The United Kingdom was the latest country to ban trade with Israeli settlements, with Canada, France, and other European countries backing similar measures as part of the growing boycott campaign against the Jewish state.

Expected to take effect within six to nine months, London’s new policy measures will ban imports of goods from Israeli communities in the West Bank and impose sanctions on companies and individuals that “facilitate settlement expansion,” including those providing construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate services for such development.

The British government will also deny licenses for arms and other exports deemed to materially support what British officials called Israel’s “occupation,” ban advertising for settlements in the UK, and sanction a group of “extremist settlers” accused of supporting or inciting violence against Palestinians.

The Israeli government sharply denounced Britain’s latest measures, announcing the closure of the British consulate in Jerusalem and warning other countries against taking similar action against Israel.

Saar also unveiled further retaliatory measures, including barring Britain from the US-led Gaza coordination mission in Israel, ending British training for Palestinian Authority forces in the West Bank, and banning 12 elected officials and British citizens involved in anti-Israel or antisemitic activities from entering the country.

Jak Bractwo Muzułmańskie przejęło Republikę Południowej Afryki

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Wspomnij o Bractwie Muzułmańskim, a większość ludzi pomyśli o Kairze albo być może o Gazie. Niewielu spogląda poza Bliski Wschód. Ten odruch jest zrozumiały. Jest też błędny. Bractwo nigdy nie było projektem regionalnym, lecz globalnym. Dzięki długofalowej cierpliwości i taktycznej dyscyplinie rozszerzyło swoje wpływy aż po Republikę Południowej Afryki.

Historia zaczyna się w 1954 roku, kiedy Egipt zdelegalizował Bractwo i zmusił jego przywódców do emigracji. Najbardziej wpływowy spośród nich, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, uciekł do Kataru. Rodzina panująca dała mu coś więcej niż azyl: dała mu platformę. Z Dohy Qaradawi zbudował sieć ideologiczną, a w 2004 roku nadał jej instytucjonalną formę, powołując Międzynarodową Unię Uczonych Muzułmańskich. Organizacja reprezentuje dziś dziesiątki tysięcy radykalnych duchownych i dziesiątki organizacji islamskich na całym świecie. Karadawi stał również na czele Union of Good, organizacji parasolowej, na którą Waszyngton nałożył później sankcje za finansowanie operacji terrorystycznych Hamasu.

Projekt ten potrzebował sojuszników poza Bliskim Wschodem, a Republika Południowej Afryki stała się jednym z jego najbardziej niezawodnych państw-gospodarzy. Ebrahim Gabriels, wojujący islamista i były przewodniczący krajowej Muslim Judicial Council, nawiązał bliskie kontakty z kręgiem Karadawiego. Ebrahim Rasool, były ambasador RPA w Waszyngtonie, połączył Bractwo z Afrykańskim Kongresem Narodowym i pielęgnował bliskie relacje między nimi. Każdy ruch potrzebuje także publicznej twarzy, która wzbudza zaufanie. W Republice Południowej Afryki rolę tę pełnił Imtiaz Sooliman. Założyciel Gift of the Givers przyjął nawet osobiste wyróżnienie od Karadawiego. Jako szef największej na kontynencie organizacji niosącej pomoc w przypadku katastrof Sooliman zdobył ogromną społeczną sympatię. Reputacja ta umożliwiła mu finansowanie działań i propagowanie poglądów znacznie bardziej skrajnych, niż sugerowałby jego starannie pielęgnowany wizerunek humanitarysty.

Potem nastąpiła dyplomatyczna zdrada. Jako minister stosunków międzynarodowych i współpracy Naledi Pandor prowadziła rozmowy z przywódcami Hamasu i wspierała za granicą sieci lobbystyczne Bractwa. Wróciła do Pretorii niewzruszona i oznajmiła swoim rodakom, że opowiadanie się po stronie krwiożerczych ekstremistów jest po prostu normalną praktyką w stosunkach międzypaństwowych.

Nic z tego nie wydarzyło się przypadkiem.

Lata świadomego i celowego organizowania doprowadziły Republikę Południowej Afryki do Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, gdzie oskarżyła Izrael o ludobójstwo. Sieć Karadawiego dostarczyła ideologii. Katar, przyjaciel zarówno Hamasu, jak i Bractwa, dostarczył pieniędzy. Republika Południowej Afryki przekształciła tę agendę w kampanię prawną.

Oskarżenie Izraela o ludobójstwo jest cyniczną operacją retoryczną. Ludobójstwo ma wyjątkowy ciężar moralny w pamięci Zachodu. Przywołuje zagładę europejskich Żydów w Auschwitz, zorganizowany przez państwo mord na rodzinach Tutsi w Rwandzie oraz masowe egzekucje w Srebrenicy. W każdym z tych przypadków dążono do systematycznego wymazania danej ludności z istnienia.

Zgodnie z prawem międzynarodowym ludobójstwo wymaga szczególnego zamiaru zniszczenia, w całości lub w części, grupy narodowej, etnicznej, rasowej lub religijnej. Izrael odpowiedział na niesprowokowany transgraniczny atak organizacji terrorystycznej, która zamordowała 1200 osób, gwałciła żony i córki oraz wzięła setki zakładników. Hamas rozmieszcza zasoby wojskowe w mieszkaniach cywilnych, podziemnych tunelach, szpitalach i szkołach oraz wykorzystuje cywilów, w tym dzieci, jako żywe tarcze. Taktyka ta zmienia przestrzenie cywilne w pola bitew, wystawia ludność na skutki walk miejskich i niszczy życie niewinnych ludzi. Wynikające z tego ofiary śmiertelne wśród ludności cywilnej są przerażające. Pokazują one niszczycielską cenę walki z wrogiem wykorzystującym cywilów jako żywe tarcze, a nie kampanię mającą na celu zniszczenie całego narodu. Izrael podjął bezprecedensowe działania w celu ograniczenia strat wśród ludności cywilnej: wykonał miliony telefonów ostrzegających przed ewakuacją, zrzucał ulotki ostrzegawcze i ustanowił korytarze humanitarne. Państwo dążące do całkowitej zagłady nie ostrzega cywilów, by opuścili obszary będące celem ataków, ani nie ułatwia ewakuacji medycznej.

Mimo to ta trująca nieprawda wciąż się utrzymuje. Przywódcy Republiki Południowej Afryki wykorzystują narrację o ludobójstwie do uzasadniania swojego dyplomatycznego sojuszu z międzynarodową siecią terrorystyczną.

Sojusz Pretorii z doktryną islamistyczną jest haniebny, ale stanowi kontynuację mroczniejszej historii. Historyk Milton Shain opisuje ją w książce Fascists, Fabricators and Fantasists: Antisemitism in South Africa from 1948 to the Present. Jego badania pokazują, jak antyżydowska wrogość przeniosła się z platform politycznych nacjonalistów z epoki apartheidu do ideologii rządzącej współczesnym państwem. Antysemityzm w Republice Południowej Afryki ma głębokie korzenie. Jest systemowy i nie można go oddzielić od historii rosnących wpływów Bractwa Muzułmańskiego.

W latach 1930–1948 ugrupowania takie jak Ossewabrandwag i Grey Shirts importowały ideologię nazistowską do Kapsztadu i Johannesburga. Partia Narodowa D.F. Malana ograniczała w latach 30. żydowską imigrację. Kiedy w 1948 roku partia przejęła władzę, przeniosła swoją podejrzliwość wobec żydowskich obywateli do struktur państwa.

Europejski faszyzm i islamizm z początku XX wieku opierały się na identycznych założeniach ideologicznych. Kiedy Hassan al-Banna założył w 1928 roku w Kairze Bractwo Muzułmańskie, zorganizował je wokół całkowitej militaryzacji, absolutnego ideologicznego konformizmu oraz opartej na teoriach spiskowych demonizacji Żydów. Pod koniec lat 30. Bractwo tłumaczyło i rozpowszechniało na Bliskim Wschodzie nazistowską propagandę, w tym Mein Kampf oraz Protokoły mędrców Syjonu. Oba ruchy odrzucały liberalną demokrację, podporządkowywały jednostkę kolektywowi i państwu oraz przedstawiały naród żydowski jako kosmiczne zło, które należy wyeliminować. Nazizm zdefiniował grozę poprzedniego stulecia; radykalny islam definiuje kryzys XXI wieku. W swoim niepowstrzymanym marszu przenosi hitlerowską nienawiść do czasów współczesnych.

Język polityczny zmienił się od lat 30., ale leżąca u jego podstaw wrogość pozostała. Obecnie w Republice Południowej Afryki mieszka nawet 70 tysięcy Żydów, z których wielu żyje w ciągłym strachu. W dzielnicy Sea Point w Kapsztadzie oraz Glenhazel w Johannesburgu społeczności żydowskie regularnie spotykają się z zastraszaniem i groźbami pozbawienia życia. Radykalne ugrupowania islamistyczne i organizacje fasadowe Bractwa Muzułmańskiego napędzają tę kampanię terroru, działając bezkarnie na terytorium Republiki Południowej Afryki. Ekstremiści atakują żydowskich obywateli z użyciem broni palnej i noży wyłącznie z powodu ich tożsamości. Tłumy popierające Hamas wymachują bronią, powiewają flagami dżihadystów i atakują mieszkańców w biały dzień, podczas gdy lokalne władze stoją z boku i się temu przyglądają.

Rezultat jest niepokojący, ale trudno uznać go za zaskakujący. Bractwo Muzułmańskie dostrzegło głęboko zakorzenioną w Republice Południowej Afryki wrogość wobec Żydów i wykorzystało ją, łącząc swój wojujący antysyjonizm z antysemityzmem partii rządzącej. Słowa Hassana al-Banny – „Izrael będzie istniał i będzie istniał nadal, dopóki islam go nie unicestwi, tak jak unicestwił innych przed nim” – do dziś nie straciły ani odrobiny swego jadu. Pozostają brutalnym nakazem całkowitego unicestwienia. Zmieniło się jedynie to, jak daleko dotarło to przesłanie. Pod patronatem Pretorii żądanie zniszczenia Izraela przeszło od ekstremistycznej retoryki do oficjalnej polityki. Ta zmiana zapewniła islamistom legitymizację, o którą zabiegali przez dziesięciolecia.

Link do oryginału:

Restoring the West by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

How the Muslim Brotherhood Captured South Africa

Mention the Muslim Brotherhood, and most people picture Cairo, or perhaps Gaza. Few look beyond the Middle East. That instinct is understandable. It is also wrong. The Brotherhood was never a regional project but a global one. Through long-term patience and tactical discipline, it has extended its reach as far as…

Netanyahu isn’t the reason pop singers spout blood libels

Jonathan S. Tobin

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a Likud Party election campaign event in Tel Aviv ahead of the upcoming general elections in October, Sept. 17, 2026. Photo by Flash90.

According to many American as well as some Israeli pundits, the marked decline in Israel’s popularity can be primarily attributed to one man. Those who cite the many polls that document the shrinking support for the Jewish state believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the one to blame for the problem.

It seems logical. The downward trend has unfolded on his watch as the man who has led Israel for 15 and a half of the last 17 years. MS NOW morning host Joe Scarborough spoke for many when he claimed that the explanation couldn’t be that the United States had become 67% more antisemitic in the last decade. The only reason was, he asserted, Netanyahu’s alleged “radicalism.” And he was not being facetious.

The missing element

Still, in the most recent incident that once again demonstrated the widespread belief that Israel is the villain in the Middle East conflict, Netanyahu’s name didn’t come up.

The appalling dustup involving pop-music star Ed Sheeran, rapper Macklemore and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft may be fading from the headlines. But the melodrama that widely pilloried Sheeran and Kraft among the chattering classes, while Macklemore became the darling of the “Free Palestine” crowd, didn’t center on Netanyahu’s “radicalism.” It was predicated on the assumption of commentators in venues ranging from The New York Times to Variety that claims whereby Israel was actively perpetrating a “genocide” are not merely credible but an unchallenged truth.

Macklemore, who has a history of not merely extreme leftist advocacy but open antisemitism, was dropped from his position as the opening act for Sheeran after spouting blood libels about Israel committing “genocide” and being an “apartheid” state on stage at a concert at MetLife Stadium in northern New Jersey. At that point, Kraft—a longtime Jewish philanthropist and prominent supporter of both Israel and efforts to combat antisemitism—along with other owners of National Football League stadiums where Sheeran was to perform, dictated that the rapper not appear at their venues. That led to a firestorm of criticism from Israel-bashers, including many in the arts world who also regularly make false claims about the Jewish state.

The wave of support for Macklemore’s stance, coupled with the abuse of Kraft and Sheeran, didn’t save the singer’s gig. But it did lead Sheeran to make a craven apology for not tanking his tour by standing by Macklemore at his next concert at Philadelphia’s Lincoln Financial Field on Sept. 18, while also pleading to be allowed to sing without being dragged into politics.

Though denouncing the atrocities of Oct. 7, he also felt compelled to bend the knee to the “genocide” claim. He said that Israel’s effort to prevent more such attacks by defeating the Islamist terror group that led the Palestinian-Arab assault on Israeli communities on Oct. 7, 2023, was illegitimate. “What is happening in Gaza is catastrophic and unjustifiable and disproportionate,” Sheeran said, apparently without noting that the war actually ended with a ceasefire and release—three years later—of the final Israeli hostages in October 2025. “My heart has been broken by the scale of devastation and loss of civilian life and loss of children’s lives. And the systemic injustice we’re seeing unfolding in the West Bank cannot be overlooked.”

Unsurprisingly, that didn’t save the singer-songwriter from being roundly denounced by many in the arts world, with only a few Jews like the singer Pink, who is Jewish, speaking up against the trend while also being bashed by the same people praising Macklemore.

The ‘genocide’ blood libel

The problem wasn’t the false claims that Kraft and other stadium owners, with Sheeran’s complicity, were repressing free speech, something that New York Times columnist Roxanne Gay characterized as “cartoon villainy” in a piece in which she actually described a vulgar antisemite like Macklemore as an eloquent and courageous advocate for human rights. Nor was the issue the allegedly outrageous policies of an Israeli prime minister.

The point of the argument, which resonated around the world, was something greater than a critique of one man or even his government. It was the claim that Israel’s attempt to defend its civilian population against a group that openly demands the destruction and the genocide of Israel’s Jewish population was itself misguided. The Israel-bashers don’t want a kinder and gentler Israel; they want no Jewish state at all.

What this controversy spells out is that the arguments about Gaza in venues like the Times newspaper, MS Now cable TV and other liberal outlets that covered the Macklemore story have largely ended. It is now possible to write or speak about the post-Oct. 7 war in such outlets as a “genocide” without even bothering to back up such preposterous claims. The claim that Israel is in the middle of an ongoing campaign to wipe out the Palestinian Arabs in the same manner that the German Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during the Holocaust or other acknowledged genocides, like that conducted by the Khmer Rouge under the leadership of Pol Pot in Cambodia in 1994 or the mass slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, has been accepted as a historical fact rather than an outrageous lie.

We are at the point where an antisemitic blood libel about the Jewish state committing mass murder is routinely asserted in public discourse in the same manner as one might note any obvious, widely accepted fact.

Why this happened is a subject that can be debated. Even though its primary responsibility was to defend the country in the actual war being fought on several fronts against Iranian terror proxies, Israel’s government can be faulted for its failure to fight the public information war.

But contrary to Scarborough’s claims that it was Netanyahu and not antisemitism, what we have witnessed in the last three years was something that transcended the usual give-and-take of public diplomacy.

The war that followed the Oct. 7 attacks was destructive and bloody and replete with tragic episodes, as is the case with all armed conflicts. Israel was faced with the difficult military problem of defeating a genocidal terror movement dug into a crowded urban area that Hamas had turned into a fortified enclave during the period from 2007 to 2023, when it governed the Gaza Strip as an independent Palestinian state in all but name.

While objective military experts have maintained that Israel’s conduct in the Strip resulted in fewer civilian casualties than any other example of modern urban conduct, that’s not how the war has been portrayed in mainstream media. A generation of journalists who had been indoctrinated in toxic leftist ideas like critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism has come to believe the myth that Israelis and Jews are “white oppressors” and colonizers from Europe. Just as troubling, they have come to believe that their duty is political activism to spread such falsehoods, not the objective reporting of facts and truth.

In this way, outlets like the Times and countless other liberal outlets, in addition to podcasters on the far right like former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, have become willing stenographers for Hamas propaganda that has fueled the global swell in antisemitism that ensued after Oct. 7.

Seen in that context, the notion that Jerusalem could have singlehandedly reversed this with greater proficiency in advocacy or manipulating the algorithms of social-media platforms doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Just as wrong is the notion that all of this is a reaction to Israel’s prime minister.

The split between American and Israeli opinion

Contrary to Scarborough’s assumption, Netanyahu’s policies on fighting the war against the Islamist regime in Iran and its terror proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis—are not radical but actually centrist in an Israeli context.

Israelis, who will head to the polls on Oct. 27 to elect a new government, may be split on the question of how much blame Netanyahu should shoulder for Oct. 7 or whether he should go on leading their nation, especially with the coalition partners he’s been forced to include since other Zionist parties wouldn’t work with him except as part of unity wartime cabinets. But they are not divided on the question of pursuing that conflict. Indeed, the prime minister’s main opponents are all doing their best to claim that they will be equally, if not more zealous, in seeking the defeat of their country’s enemies.

The current disconnect between Israeli and American public opinion is stark.

As the most recent New York Times/Siena College poll on the subject showed, support for Israel is now largely a partisan issue. Democrats now back the Palestinians against Israel by 58% to 17%, and Republicans support it by a margin of 77% to 6%. Even when adding in those who identify as independents, who support the Palestinians by a smaller though still decisive 42% to 26% margin, it still leaves Americans as a whole split about the conflict, with 39% in favor of Israel, 36% for the Palestinians, 12% declaring they back both, and 13% saying they don’t know or didn’t answer.

That Democrats and Republicans are operating with different sets of facts about the Middle East is the tip-off that what we are seeing isn’t a normal reaction to a bad leader but the result of biased media.

Americans live in a hyper-partisan era in which they have effectively become part of a bifurcated society. They read, listen and watch different sets of media outlets which put forward competing narratives about virtually every issue. With respect to the Middle East, that is especially true. The point being is that if you get your news from places like the Times and by scrolling social-media platforms whose algorithms promote anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda, including the blood libel about “genocide,” you’ve heard little if anything to refute such smears.

And that won’t change no matter who wins the next Israeli election.

If, in a few months, the prime minister of Israel is Gadi Eisenkot or any of the others who hope to replace Netanyahu, the circumstances that led to the Macklemore-Sheeran-Kraft debacle won’t have altered one bit.

At a moment when international media, academia and the arts world treat the genocide blood libel as a fact, antisemitism rooted in the ideas that Israelis and their Jewish supporters are bloodthirsty monsters killing children will continue to spread. Supposedly respectable outlets like the Times are backing up the blood libels with pieces that valorize antisemites like Macklemore or treat the documentary “NAZA” as an accurate depiction of Israeli criminality by writers like Gay or Michelle Goldberg, who are open about their opposition to the existence of a Jewish state. So long as that is true, the idea that all of this is Netanyahu’s fault falls apart.

Think what you like about Netanyahu. But keep in mind that his lengthy tenure in office has resulted in a situation where he has become a symbol of his country and the false assumptions about it more than anything else. In a media environment where antisemitic blood libels are treated as inarguable, Israel’s image isn’t likely to improve no matter who is leading it.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice” podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily” program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube. Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia University.