Uciekający z obszaru walk na Ochocie mieszkańcy oraz przyglądający się nim niemieccy żołnierze – zdjęcie wykonane na terenie cegielni stojącej przy Gliniankach Szczęśliwickich (otoczenie obecnej Górki Szczęśliwickiej). Fot. ECPAD / Instytut Pileckiego

Ponad tysiąc nieznanych zdjęć z czasów II wojny światowej trafiło do polskich zbiorów

(PAP)

Nieznane dotąd zdjęcia z września 1939 r. z Warszawy i innych polskich miast wzbogaciły zbiory Instytutu Pileckiego i Muzeum Powstania Warszawskiego. Cyfrowe kopie polskim placówkom przekazało francuskie wojskowe archiwum audiowizualne ECPAD.

Nothing Has Changed: Palestinian Authority Trying to Partner with Terrorists

Bassam Tawil

• Instead of talking about “reconciliation” with Hamas and other terrorist groups, [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas should be demanding that they surrender their weapons, answer for their actions, and disappear from the Palestinian arena.
• There are several problems. One is that Hamas and PIJ do not accept Abbas’s conditions. Another is that Abbas is not at all interested in requiring accountability. A third problem that should not be overlooked is: Who is requiring accountability from the Palestinian Authority (PA) itself? Abbas cannot present Fatah and the PA as the “responsible” alternative to Hamas.
• Hamas is a terrorist organization. Abbas and the PA, however, have their own deeply troubling record, including authoritarian rule, suppression of dissent, and a longstanding system of payments and benefits for Palestinian terrorists and the families of those killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis, known as “pay-for-slay.”
• US State Department and Congressional reports have confirmed that the PA continued making millions of dollars in payments to terrorists and their families during 2025 and 2026. In 2025 alone, the PA provided $156 million in payments and benefits to terrorists and their families: $126 million to convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons and those released from prison, and $30 million to the families of Palestinian terrorists who died while committing their acts of terrorism.
• According to Palestinian Authority television, the prioritization of “pay-for-slay” above all other PA budget expenses has caused the PA healthcare system to be “on the verge of collapse.” Without “pay-for-slay” salaries, one released terrorist declared on PA television, it would be impossible to recruit terrorists.
• Abbas announced the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council to appease Western aid donors. He just wants more of their money. The elections will not improve the situation for Palestinians: the choice for them remains between two bad parties: Fatah and Hamas. The United States and the Europeans should demand that Abbas stop paying terrorists and their families. That is more important than holding elections.
• Abbas’s proposed “reconciliation” should not be presented as a choice between a supposedly “moderate” Fatah and a supposedly extremist Hamas. That Hamas is simply worse in certain aspects does not make the Palestinian Authority’s conduct acceptable.
• If Abbas’s conditions are genuine, all the terrorist groups would first have to undergo a fundamental transformation, including the Palestinian Authority itself. This change would include recognizing Israel’s right to exist and dismantling the armed wings of Hamas and all the other Palestinian terrorist groups. Only then could they operate under Abbas’s stated principle of “one state with one set of institutions and one weapons and without militias.” Meanwhile, Abbas gets to retain his multi-million-dollar “pay-for-slay” program.
• Bringing a terrorist group such as Hamas into a political arrangement, however, hardly constitutes reform. For years, Fatah and Hamas have competed for power while Palestinians have paid the price of political division, repression, corruption and armed conflict. The political contest in the PA is not about who will bring democracy and a strong economy to the Palestinians. It is still a contest over power, money and control.
• The Palestinians do not need another photograph of Fatah and Hamas officials shaking hands and hugging each other in Cairo. They need functioning institutions. They need accountability. They need freedom from political repression. They need a political system in which no faction can maintain private armies or militias.
• A Palestinian political system that incorporates Iran’s terror proxies – Hamas and PIJ – means that Palestinian leaders still view these terrorist groups as legitimate actors.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Abbas and the Palestinian Authority, however, have their own deeply troubling record, including… a longstanding system of payments and benefits for Palestinian terrorists and the families of those killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis, known as “pay-for-slay.” “[I]f we have only a single penny left,” he said in February 2025, “it will go to the prisoners and the martyrs. I will not allow a reduction in our commitments to them.” (Image source: MEMRI)

On the eve of the third anniversary of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is seeking “reconciliation” (musalaha) with Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist factions, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

Instead of talking about “reconciliation” with Hamas and other terrorist groups, Abbas should be demanding that they surrender their weapons, answer for their actions, and disappear from the Palestinian arena.

Instead, during a recent visit to Cairo, Abbas said in an interview with Egypt’s Akhbar Al-Yom newspaper that he wanted “reconciliation” with all Palestinian factions and that a “reconciliation conference would soon be held in the Egyptian capital under the umbrella of the PLO and with Egyptian sponsorship.”

“I want reconciliation with everyone and I do not exclude anyone. Every Palestinian has the right to participate” in the upcoming legislative elections, scheduled for November 28, 2026, he added.

Abbas then added a series of conditions: the Palestinian factions must agree with the policy of the PLO, recognize what he called “international legitimacy,” and accept “one state with one set of institutions and one weapon and without militias.” He said Palestinians had already “tried” militias and that he did not want people to “die for nothing.”

There are several problems. One is that Hamas and PIJ do not accept Abbas’s conditions. Another is that Abbas is not at all interested in requiring accountability. A third problem that should not be overlooked is: Who is requiring accountability from the Palestinian Authority (PA) itself? Abbas cannot present Fatah and the PA as the “responsible” alternative to Hamas.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Abbas and the PA, however, have their own deeply troubling record, including authoritarian rule, suppression of dissent, and a longstanding system of payments and benefits for Palestinian terrorists and the families of those killed while carrying out attacks on Israelis, known as “pay-for-slay.”

US State Department and Congressional reports have confirmed that the PA continued making millions of dollars in payments to terrorists and their families during 2025 and 2026. In 2025 alone, the PA provided $156 million in payments and benefits to terrorists and their families: $126 million to convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons and those released from prison, and $30 million to the families of Palestinian terrorists who died while committing their acts of terrorism. Payments also went to families of 5,000 “martyrs” in Lebanon.

According to Palestinian Authority television, the prioritization of “pay-for-slay” above all other PA budget expenses has caused the PA healthcare system to be “on the verge of collapse.” Without “pay-for-slay” salaries, one released terrorist declared on PA television, it would be impossible to recruit terrorists.

Abbas announced the elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council to appease Western aid donors. He just wants more of their money. The elections will not improve the situation for Palestinians: the choice for them remains between two bad parties: Fatah and Hamas. The United States and the Europeans should demand that Abbas stop paying terrorists and their families. That is more important than holding elections.

Abbas’s proposed “reconciliation” should not be presented as a choice between a supposedly “moderate” Fatah and a supposedly extremist Hamas. That Hamas is simply worse in certain aspects does not make the Palestinian Authority’s conduct acceptable.

Hamas has never accepted the Oslo Accords signed between the PLO and Israel in 1993-1995, and the Palestinian Authority has not fulfilled its binding obligations under the Accords. Both the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas do not recognize Israel’s right to exist and have continued to reject the political framework established by the Oslo process. Both do not accept the PLO’s commitment to United Nations resolutions pertaining to the Israeli Arab conflict. Most importantly, Hamas and PIJ in Gaza have consistently refused to surrender their weapons and dissolve their armed wings.

If Abbas’s conditions are genuine, all the terrorist groups would first have to undergo a fundamental transformation, including the Palestinian Authority itself. This change would include recognizing Israel’s right to exist and dismantling the armed wings of Hamas and all the other Palestinian terrorist groups. Only then could they operate under Abbas’s stated principle of “one state with one set of institutions and one weapons and without militias.” Meanwhile, Abbas gets to retain his multi-million-dollar “pay-for-slay” program.

Hamas and PIJ are not just political factions with which Fatah happens to disagree. The United States and several other countries have officially designated both Hamas and PIJ as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

There is another striking feature of Abbas’s interview. When asked about the October 7, 2023 massacre and its repercussions, Abbas chose to focus only on the destruction in the Gaza Strip, as if the invasion of Israel by Hamas had never taken place. “After October 7, the result was the complete destruction of the Gaza Strip,” he said, referring to the destruction of infrastructure, roads, and buildings. “What happened brought nothing but destruction and ruin.”

There is no mention of the murders, kidnapping and torture of thousands of Israeli and foreign nationals that caused the “destruction” he is lamenting.

If Abbas or any other Palestinian leader wants to convince Israelis and the international community that the Palestinian leadership represents a different political path from Hamas and PIJ, all they have to do is say plainly — and then actually do it. He must declare that attacking Israeli civilians deliberately and taking hostages will no longer be accepted, that Hamas and all the terrorist organizations must surrender their weapons, and that no Palestinian political future will be built on terrorists or terrorism.

Abbas also appears to have forgotten — or at least set aside — what happened between his Fatah faction and Hamas in 2007. Hamas members violently seized control of the Gaza Strip, forcibly took over the government from the Palestinian Authority. After days of deadly fighting and extrajudicial executions — including Hamas throwing Fatah members off tall buildings to their deaths — other Fatah members fled to Israel.

According to Human Rights Watch:

“For eight days, the fighting was intense, and both sides engaged in serious violations of international humanitarian law, such as torturing and summarily executing captured and incapacitated fighters, including those inside hospitals, unnecessarily endangering civilians by fighting from populated areas, and blocking medical access to the injured. Hamas security forces, including members of the Executive Force and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, shot several captured Fatah security members multiple times in the legs – a practice that continued over the following months.”

Since then, Abbas has repeatedly stated that there could be no “reconciliation” talks with Hamas so long as the terrorist group continues to control the Gaza Strip. In June 2007, he also issued a presidential decree declaring the Executive Force and Hamas militias to be “outlawed” due to their armed coup against the Palestinian Authority.

The fundamental problems, however, have not disappeared. Hamas remains an Islamist terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel through jihad (holy war), and while Abbas says that the Palestinians need one state, one government, one set of institutions, and one weapon, Hamas continues to retain its armed wing.

For years, furthermore, Abbas has faced sustained international pressure to reform his own Palestinian Authority and strengthen governance, transparency, and the rule of law.

Recently, Abbas “renewed his commitment to the national reform agenda, including improving governance and transparency, strengthening the justice and security sectors, modernizing public administration, and developing education curricula in line with UNESCO standards,” according to the PA’s official WAFA news agency.

“He further emphasized efforts to enhance social protection systems, combat corruption, and reinforce accountability and integrity, while working with international and regional partners to implement reforms within set timelines.”

Bringing a terrorist group such as Hamas into a political arrangement, however, hardly constitutes reform. For years, Fatah and Hamas have competed for power while Palestinians have paid the price of political division, repression, corruption and armed conflict. The political contest in the PA is not about who will bring democracy and a strong economy to the Palestinians. It is still a contest over power, money and control.

The Palestinians do not need another photograph of Fatah and Hamas officials shaking hands and hugging each other in Cairo. They need functioning institutions. They need accountability. They need freedom from political repression. They need a political system in which no faction can maintain private armies or militias.

Finally, Abbas’s proposal raises an even larger question: Why is Palestinian reconciliation always discussed primarily as reconciliation among Palestinian factions, while reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis remains so distant? A Palestinian political system that incorporates Iran’s terror proxies – Hamas and PIJ – means that Palestinian leaders still view these terrorist groups as legitimate actors.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East. His work is made possible through the generous donation of a couple who wish to remain anonymous. Gatestone is most grateful.

Iran Is Recruiting Child Soldiers as Young as 12

Maddie Ali

Kids hold up an Iranian flag and chant slogans during a protest against the Israeli airstrikes on Iran, in Sana a, Yemen, June 20, 2025. Photo: IMAGO/Hamza Ali via Reuters Connect

IRAN — Iranian state television has launched a campaign to prepare young people for a possible war, with programs under the banner of “Janfada” (those who sacrifice their lives) urging civilians to be ready for what authorities describe as the possibility of a US ground invasion.

The campaign includes a website through which people can register for military and wartime training. State television has repeatedly warned viewers that a ground invasion could become reality if the conflict with the US escalates, while presenting military readiness as a duty for young Iranians.

Promoted through Iran’s state-controlled media, the campaign has increasingly featured children and teenagers. The Iranian authorities are recruiting and mobilizing children as young as 12 as part of an effort led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a military force charged with defending Iran’s authoritarian regime internally and expanding its Islamist revolutionary ideology externally.

Verified photographs and videos show children at checkpoints, patrols, and state-organized events alongside armed security personnel, sometimes carrying AK-pattern rifles themselves.

The campaign has continued to expand in recent weeks. Over the past month, Iranian authorities organized a large public mobilization event in Tehran under the “Janfada” banner. Thousands of men, women, and children participated in the Sept. 18 military-style exercise, while some teenagers were shown carrying weapons; armed teenagers have been observed at checkpoints and roadblocks in Tehran and other Iranian cities.

Authorities have presented the mobilization as preparation for possible future threats to the Islamic regime, with Iranian officials and state-linked media repeatedly warning of the possibility of renewed conflict with the US and Israel. The Janfada campaign has been promoted as a way to prepare civilians to respond to a potential emergency, including further military confrontation.

The campaign has now moved beyond online registration. IranWire reported on Sept. 24 that the first Janfada military training center opened at Imam Hossein Square in Tehran. According to the report, the center run by the Basij, a paramilitary organization operating under the IRGC, is intended to train volunteers and organize them into units and battalions. The reported program includes general wartime preparedness, local security, surveillance, reconnaissance, search and rescue, and firearms-related training.

Iranian authorities have claimed that tens of millions of people have registered for the Janfada campaign. However, those figures are not verified. Activists examining the registration website found fewer than 4 million user registrations, while Iranian officials have claimed that more than 30 million people signed up. IranWire has reported doubts about the official figures.

The involvement of children has drawn particular concern from international human rights organizations. Amnesty International said the recruitment and use of children under 15 in armed conflict can constitute a war crime under international law.

Earlier this year, the regime lowered the minimum age for participation in war-related activities to just 12 years old, recruiting participants to assist with patrols, checkpoints, logistics, and other security roles.

The current mobilization escalates that effort and comes against the backdrop of Iran’s long history of using young people in military campaigns.

During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, the Iranian government mobilized many children through the Basij and other state structures. Children and teenagers were sent to the front, including, in some cases, for dangerous operations such as clearing minefields. Hundreds of thousands of children were recruited during the conflict, and tens of thousands were killed.

The use of young people during the Iran-Iraq War became deeply embedded in Iran’s wartime culture. State propaganda portrayed young volunteers as symbols of sacrifice and patriotism, with images and stories of teenage Basij members becoming part of the official narrative of the war.

For years, Iran has drafted children under 18 into the Basij militia, with Human Rights Watch documenting boys as young as 14 years old killed in combat, revealing a brutal pattern of exploiting children on the battlefield.

In the past, widely circulated social media images and videos have repeatedly shown children and teenagers in military-style uniforms cracking down on protests, including during the 2022 Woman, Life, Freedom uprising, which erupted nationwide after Mahsa Amini, a young Kurdish woman, died in a Tehran police station following her arrest for allegedly violating hijab rules.

Under international law, Iran’s latest initiative flagrantly violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly prohibits the use of children in military activities.

Human rights groups have also repeatedly accused Iranian security forces of killing child protesters during past crackdowns.

According to the Center for Human Rights in Iran, hundreds of children were killed during the nationwide anti‑government protests earlier this year, which security forces violently crushed, leaving tens of thousands of demonstrators tortured or killed.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also documented cases of children being shot, detained, and abused during these latest demonstrations, noting that government forces have repeatedly targeted minors in ways that breach international law.

The regime’s current recruitment campaign is taking place against the backdrop of another deadly incident involving children: the US bombing of a school in the city of Minab during the first day of the US-Israel strikes on Iran earlier this year.

Satellite imagery and analysis showed the school’s proximity to an IRGC compound. The location of the Minab school has raised questions about the risks faced by civilians when military installations are located close to schools and other populated, civilian areas.

The renewed mobilization is making children and teenagers increasingly visible in state-organized wartime activities, presenting military preparedness, sacrifice, and responsibilities that extend beyond adult soldiers.

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.