Connect with us

RSS

Revolting: How the Media Used Oct. 7 Anniversary to Focus on Hamas-Instigated War in Gaza

The bodies of people, some of them elderly, lie on a street after they were killed during a mass-infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip, in Sderot, southern Israel, Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad

October 7, 2024 marked one year since Hamas’ murderous rampage through southern Israel. As Israelis commemorated the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust, how did the international media cover this somber anniversary?

By and large, the media coverage was both empathetic and nuanced, with news organizations dedicating much of their coverage to the effect that October 7 has had on Israel and interviewing survivors, family members of the 1,200 who were murdered during the atrocities, and family members of hostages still being held in Gaza.

However, both online and in print, some media outlets chose to use the anniversary to spotlight the cost of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, despite the fact that October 7 is not the key anniversary of the war.

In effect, they chose Israel’s national day of sorrow as the springboard through which to criticize Israel’s defensive military operations and to subtly move the spotlight away from the atrocities committed by Hamas and other Palestinians on that fateful day.

For example, on its Instagram page, TIME Magazine highlighted the work of a Palestinian photographer, who had first spoken to the American magazine early in the war and was now speaking to it again after a year of documenting the fighting and destruction in Gaza.

However, as TIME noted, October 7 was not the anniversary of the first time this Palestinian photographer spoke with the magazine, it was a couple of weeks later.

So, why did the magazine choose to feature his story on October 7, and not on the actual anniversary of its first conversation with the Gaza-based photographer?

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by TIME (@time)

Similarly, on October 7, Reuters’ photos account on X (formerly Twitter) posted an award-winning image of a Gazan woman cradling a dead child’s body, captioning it “A picture of her grief gripped the world. A year on, Gaza woman haunted by memories.”

However, this image is from October 17.

Why did the esteemed wire service choose to post this image on October 7 and not on the actual anniversary of when it was taken?

A picture of her grief gripped the world. A year on, Gaza woman haunted by memories Mohammed Salem pic.twitter.com/LgiGxu7ty2

— Reuters Pictures (@reuterspictures) October 7, 2024

On its Instagram page, Vanity Fair’s sole post on October 7 paid lip service to the atrocities  before turning its attention to the war with a post entitled “The Sorrow of Gaza, One Year After the October 7 Attacks.”

The accompanying quote by war correspondent Janine di Giovanni not only created a moral equivalence between those killed in Gaza during the Israel-Hamas War (which includes killed Hamas terrorists) and Israeli civilians that were intentionally massacred on October 7, but also implicitly drew a connection between the war in Gaza and the Holocaust and the African & Balkan genocides of the 1990s.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Vanity Fair (@vanityfair)

On its X page, Sky News chose to commemorate October 7 by publishing an in-depth look at the destruction in Gaza, deeming it “a year since the war in Gaza began.”

In this long thread, only a passing reference was made to Hamas and several posts were specifically designed to paint Israel’s defensive campaign in the coastal enclave as some kind of cruel and unusual operation that falls outside the bounds of normative warfare.

No, it’s not a year since the war in Gaza began, @SkyNews.

Today is a year since Hamas launched its brutal attack on Israel, murdering 1,200 & taking some 250 hostages.

If you are going to look back at what has been lost, maybe start with that. https://t.co/N5WRqkO7Es

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 7, 2024

Along with social media posts, there were several front pages of printed newspapers that also moved the spotlight away from the atrocities of October 7.

For example, The Independent’s front page, headlined “365 days of horror since October 7,” was a mashup of different numbers related to the war in Gaza, but only featured one number related to the Israeli victims of Hamas.

This is how the @Independent marked October 7: by editing the jihadis out of the story. The word “Hamas” doesn’t appear once. pic.twitter.com/V4yZMQ15vf

— Jake Wallis Simons (@JakeWSimons) October 7, 2024

For other newspapers, it wasn’t the replacement of coverage of Hamas’ atrocities with coverage of the war in Gaza that was the issue, it was the lack of substantial coverage altogether.

For example, The Chicago Tribune’s front page for October 7 featured two Israel-related articles — one AP copy about present fighting in Gaza and an article about how the war’s effects on the Chicago city council’s sentiments.

Compared to the front pages of other newspapers, which dedicated a substantial portion of the page to a reminder of what occurred on October 7, The Chicago Tribune’s coverage was clearly lacking.

And it wasn’t only news coverage that was an issue with some media outlets, but also opinion pieces.

On the eve of October 7, The Guardian saw fit to publish a grotesque op-ed by Naomi Klein, which accused Israel of turning the trauma of October 7 into a weapon.

Grotesque: Israel can’t even mourn its dead from Oct. 7 without @guardian platforming Naomi Klein to accuse the country of weaponizing its trauma.

If you can’t sympathize with innocent civilians butchered by terrorists, then you are the problem.https://t.co/ONhRmJ3pac pic.twitter.com/1emgTKzxa6

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 6, 2024

Similarly, on October 8, The Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by Daoud Kuttab which seemed to both minimize the horrors of October 7 while also implicitly justifying them.

This is beyond disgusting. @latimes published an opinion piece that tries to justify Hamas butchering civilians https://t.co/HzyNkYDMEC pic.twitter.com/S0r2Gr6sgA

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 8, 2024

As we pass a year since the October 7 atrocities and the subsequent beginning of the Israel-Hamas war, it is reasonable for media organizations to place extra focus on the toll that the war has wrought on the Gaza Strip and its Palestinian residents.

However, what is not reasonable is using the anniversary to take focus away from the atrocities and massacres that were committed by Hamas and its allies in southern Israel and instead use the opportunity to place a spotlight on what is occurring in the Gaza Strip.

By using October 7 to focus on Gaza (especially when commemorating an event that took place after October 7), these media organizations are helping to create a false narrative that seeks to diminish what occurred on October 7 or to create a moral equivalence between those atrocities and the situation in the Gaza Strip due to the ongoing war.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post Revolting: How the Media Used Oct. 7 Anniversary to Focus on Hamas-Instigated War in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law

Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:

  • A “blatant violation of international law.”
  • A “violation of sovereignty.”
  • A “flagrant breach of international law.”

France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.

Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.

In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.

  • Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
  • However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
  • For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
  • Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
  • Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
  • Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.

In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.

These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.

Continue Reading

RSS

No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack

People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad

Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.

Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.

Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.

Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.

Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.

The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.

The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.

UAE condemnation of terror Mahmoud Abbas’ sham
“The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.

In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability.

The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.”

[United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025]

“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.

The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem.

It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region.

This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025]

Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.

Continue Reading

RSS

Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat

A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara

Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.

Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.

For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.

One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.

His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.

Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.

Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.

The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.  

The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News