Connect with us

RSS

Legally Blind: The New York Times’ Muddled View of Law of Armed Conflict

The New York Times newspaper. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

In an investigative piece, “Israel Loosened Its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians,” The New York Times reports that it found that “Israel severely weakened its system of safeguards meant to protect civilians; adopted flawed methods to find targets and assess the risk of civilian casualties; routinely failed to conduct post-strike reviews of civilian harm or punish officers for wrongdoing; and ignored warnings from within its own ranks and from senior U.S. military officials about these failings.”

The New York Times summed up its findings in a separate article, “Eight Takeaways: How Israel Weakened Civilian Protections When Bombing Hamas Fighters.” While there was actual acknowledgment that Jerusalem has complied with international laws of armed conflict, the Times reverted to type, revealing that their recent investigation found that Israel had “…severely undermined its system of safeguards to make it easier to strike Gaza.”

Critically, paper fails to mention that following the October 7 massacre, the elevated threat level posed by Hamas provided a legally justifiable reason for Israel to change the way it interprets its rules of engagement. By not acknowledging this point, the December 26 piece displays a remarkable ignorance of the legal doctrine of proportionality regulating the conduct of hostilities.

“Eight Takeaways” claims that the IDF is using “…flawed methods to find targets and assess the risk to civilians.”

But according to the law of armed conflict, as long as an attack is proportionate to the concrete and direct anticipated military gains, any incidental wounding or killing of civilians may not automatically be deemed an unlawful act, subject to individual assessment. 

In other words, The New York Times is working off a false assumption, whereby the number of civilian casualties – potential and actual – between both sides of a conflict should be roughly even in order to not weaken one side’s ‘civilian protections.’

What Is Proportionality?

But, under the laws of armed conflict, an attack is only considered disproportionate, and therefore illegal, “if the anticipated collateral damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the military advantage expected from the attack.”

Moreover, what is considered proportionate and legal can evolve based on changing circumstances.

Before October 7, Hamas was considered to be an ongoing security concern that Israel had managed to contain. But the post-October 7 reality is very different. Hamas now represents an existential threat to not only the citizens living in the region near Gaza, but the entire country. And let’s not forget Hamas’ Iranian connection.

Since the threat level is so much greater, Israel is legally justified to operate with more force.

Who’s Really Driving Up the Civilian Casualty Numbers?

It is rich that a piece that includes “civil protections” and “Hamas” in the headline omits the very many ways that Gaza’s long-time rulers have for years embedded themselves and their terrorist command and control centers within the coastal enclave’s civilian population structures – including hospitals, schools, and houses of worship.

Indeed, the weakening of civil protections in Gaza is in no small part the result of the terrorist group’s human shield strategy, which its leaders acknowledge is deliberately intended to lead to elevated civilian deaths, thereby ratcheting international pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire that would leave Hamas intact.

Moreover, there is ample evidence that Hamas fighters have posed as medical staff, and journalists, and fought in civilian clothes so as to inflate the civilian death count.

From a legal standpoint as it pertains to armed conflict, Hamas is in violation of the Rule of Distinction, which demands that belligerents and fighters at all times distinguish between civilians and civilian objects on one hand, and combatants and military objectives on the other hand, so as to protect persons not taking part in the conflict.

Evidently, The New York Times was too preoccupied with depicting Israel as seemingly going out of its way to endanger Gaza civilians to note that it is, in fact, Hamas that is in violation of international law.

“Eight Takeaways” implies – by showing how Israel has expanded its list of targets, removed limits on how many civilians can be put at risk each day, used a simplistic risk assessment model, and dropped large, less accurate bombs – that the IDF’s approach to urban warfare is somehow unique.

The New York Times, inadvertently, is absolutely correct. Israel is creating a new standard for urban warfare. And there is a growing body of data to support the claim that the country has developed a way to reduce civilian casualties to historically low levels.

The UN, EU, and other sources estimate that civilians usually account for 80 percent to 90 percent of casualties, or a 1:9 ratio, in modern war. In the 2016-2017 Battle of Mosul, a battle supervised by the U.S. that used the world’s most powerful airpower resources, some 10,000 civilians were killed compared to roughly 4,000 ISIS terrorists.

But with regards to Israel, and given Hamas’ likely inflation of the death count, the figure could be closer to 1 to 1.

The New York Times’ rather sophomoric attempt at legal analysis here is not the result of sloppy journalism. Rather, it is part of a pattern, whereby “findings,” such as those revealed in “Eight Takeaways: How Israel Weakened Civilian Protections When Bombing Hamas Fighters,” somehow dovetail with the talking points of Israel’s most vociferous detractors.

Gidon Ben-Zvi, former Jerusalem Correspondent for The Algemeiner, is an accomplished writer who left Hollywood for Jerusalem in 2009. He and his wife are raising their four children to speak fluent English – with an Israeli accent. Ben-Zvi’s work has appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, The Algemeiner, American Thinker, The Jewish Journal, Israel Hayom, and United with Israel. Ben-Zvi blogs at Jerusalem State of Mind (jsmstateofmind.com). 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 Legally Blind: The New York Times’ Muddled View of Law of Armed Conflict first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 351
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Live from New York: It’s Antisemitism, with Zohran Mamdani

Zohran Mamdani Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect

Contrary to what some may believe, we’re not here to critique New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani for his grating stint as a rapper.

What’s more troubling is the New York Democratic mayoral primary results last week. There are currently massive efforts to unearth just who Mamdani is behind the cool millennial-politician facade. Here’s what you need to know:

Who’s the Real Zohran Mamdani?

Mamdani, an antisemitic and anti-Israel progressive, is gaslighting the Jews of New York by lying to their faces when evidence of his true stances are plentiful, public, and loud. This clip tells you all you need to know:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by HonestReporting (@honestreporting)

Now, even though we aren’t going to make fun of Mamdani for trying his hand at an illustrious F-list rap career, we may as well criticize some antisemitic elements present in his songs.

One example is Salaam, released in 2017. In it, Mamdani praises the Holy Land 5, who were convicted of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas through their organization. Here is what Canary Mission revealed:

Although his political platform seemed to focus on economic policies, The Times of Israel reported that Mamdani declared that the Palestinian cause is “central to his identity and the reason he got into politics” during his victory rally this week. It’s food for thought, to say the least.

Mamdani’s Antisemitic Beliefs Run Deep

While Mamdani is a classic progressive who aligns with the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), his Israel stances are more extreme and deeply ingrained than both her and the typical Qatari-funded university club members he went to school with.

Both of his parents are staunch and well-known anti-Israel activists.

His father, Professor Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia University, is known, according to Canary Mission, to be anti-Israel and consumed with the topic of “colonialism.” Their report also revealed his backing of violent resistance movements, and unsurprisingly, his participation in the 2024 encampment protests.

He was also a featured speaker at one of Columbia’s Center for Palestine Studies (CPS) BDS events — equating South African Apartheid to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and calling to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state.

His mother, filmmaker Mira Nair, also has a history of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) support, including rejecting an invitation to be a guest of honor at the Haifa International Film Festival in 2013. Canary Mission revealed she is a signatory on an open letter that demanded that Israeli actress Gal Gadot be banned from the Oscars this year.

With roots so deep, it isn’t surprising that Mamdani has such hateful views.

Redefining Antisemitism to Please Jew Haters

Media outlets have taken a special interest in Mamdani — plastering heroic profiles of him everywhere. The New York Times, in particular, has taken quite the delusional approach in “The Attacks on Zohran Mamdani Show That We Need a New Understanding of Antisemitism.”

For one, Masha Gessen attempted to redefine what an antisemitic attack is:

Another excerpt describes the unfortunate xenophobia Mamdani has had to deal with, and how broken up he is about being called an antisemite:

When I spoke to Mamdani on the phone a couple of days after that press conference, it became clear to me that there is another reason he chokes up: It’s hard to keep defending yourself against a false accusation.

While there are undoubtedly extremists who went too far in their criticism of him, it is legitimate to say that Mamdani is antisemitic. The mere fact that he praises Hamas terror funders, marched with Hamas supporters, won’t denounce the chant “globalize the intifada” (because he says it is simply a coin of the Palestinian struggle), and decided (though he has no right to) that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism, proves that.

Perhaps Mamdani himself as a non-Jew does not truly understand the significance of all this like a Jew would, but it is ignorant and appalling for a mayoral hopeful of the US city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel to ignore why antisemitism is at an all time high, and more importantly, how anti-Israel rhetoric creates that environment. He’s part of the problem.

Op-Eds are meant for opinions, but facts are facts, and those do not change, no matter how you try to twist them or ignore vital context.

All in all, Mamdani attempts to cover for his past and his current ties by saying that he will fight antisemitism, but uses contradictory language out of the other side of his mouth.

Suffice it to say, what he believes is antisemitism is irrelevant, because he has no right to redefine it. Jews of New York know better, and hopefully, the majority of non-Jewish New Yorkers will wake up before it’s too late.

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 Live from New York: It’s Antisemitism, with Zohran Mamdani first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 15
Continue Reading

RSS

The ‘Both-Sidism’ of Trey Yingst’s Fox News Coverage

An image showing some of the damages sustained by Colel Chabad’s daycare center in Be’er Sheva as a result of an Iranian missile strike on June 20, 2025. Photo: Colel Chabad/Chabad.org.

Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst claims to be a journalist who reports fairly and accurately. But amidst the fog of war, Yingst’s desire to be “fair” to all sides over the last 21 months has, instead, allowed his bias to seep through.

Yingst often does a professional job and gets it right. In an interview with Vanity Fair in October 2023, he even explains how he prides himself on patience over “being first,” as well as the understanding that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has lots of nuance and there is a deep responsibility to get the story right.

But a scroll down his X (formerly Twitter) feed exposes him not sticking to his own words — all the way back to 2023 and perhaps beyond. And, of course, his appalling report in real time of an Iranian missile strike last week may have made for compelling TV, but it showed blatant disregard for Israelis’ safety.

The IDF issued a warning not to reveal locations of hits, and he chose one of the most sensitive ones to expose.

He may have gotten the footage he needed for a powerful field report, but it came at the expense of his reputation. Yingst may now be regretting that, as the hit, which may be considered “journalism gold,” can no longer be found on his constantly updated, media-filled X feed, and efforts to obscure exact locations when needed have since been honored.

Even so, there are indications of some troubling views and allegiances behind the scenes.

We can gloss over his contacts in Gaza, which include senior officials of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Not only does he make this publicly known, but it’s common practice for journalists to maintain connections with some very questionable characters.

His time at News2Share earlier in his career highlights questionable ties to Hamas-linked Palestinian Ain Media, as well as terrorists who were exposed to be posing as journalists. Though more recently, his tweets and the apparent blocking of pro-Israel accounts are raising eyebrows.

It’s not easy to verify that firsthand, of course, but a number of X accounts have claimed this fact.

One recent tweet that stands out is this attempt at virtue-signaling, and reflects how he suddenly forgot that he knows Israeli hospitals are different from Palestinian ones in Gaza.

Yingst has personally reported on the Hamas weapons inside hospitals and terror tunnels underneath civilian infrastructure, including hospitals. He has seen it with his own eyes. He must know that means these buildings are no longer just hospitals and are not considered off limits under international law.

Here is just one of his reports:

The following tweet could well be indicative of a particular political stance:

Whether Yingst meant it or not, it wasn’t just how he identified this doctor, which in itself is an assumption, as the doctor, working in a Beersheba hospital and living in or near the city, means that he is most likely an Israeli citizen and thus considered Arab-Israeli. It is a passive suggestion that a Palestinian doctor was treating both Jewish and Muslim patients without prejudice, despite Israel’s “deadly war against” the Palestinians.

One more example, which has a pattern of turning up both in Yingst’s reports and on his feed going back to late 2023, is that of Gaza “journalists” allegedly killed by Israel.

Yingst has every right to advocate for the protection of journalists’ lives in a war zone. He knows the region, however, and says he is very familiar with Hamas. So why does Yingst never acknowledge the proof that many of these dead “journalists” are actually Hamas or Islamic Jihad members, among others, and that several were known to be involved in the October 7 massacre?

Maybe Yingst believes that he is attempting to provide perspectives from both sides of the story. But, sometimes “both-sidism” means ignoring the vital context that his audience crucially needs. Having been in the region for several years, he should know better by now.

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

The post The ‘Both-Sidism’ of Trey Yingst’s Fox News Coverage first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 16
Continue Reading

RSS

Jewish Orgs to Receive $94 Million from DHS to Harden Defenses Against ‘the Deeply Disturbing Rise in Antisemitic Attacks’

US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar stand next to a memorial honoring Yaron Lishinsky and Sarah Milgrom in Jerusalem on Monday, May 26, 2025. Photo: Alex Brandon/Pool via REUTERS

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Friday it would supply 512 Jewish faith organizations with $94,416,838 to strengthen their security measures following a recent spike in antisemitic violence across the US.

The funds will be allocated via a National Security Supplemental through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program and implemented by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

In a release, DHS cited the June 1 attack with Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower against Jewish demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado at a “Run for Their Lives” event, the killing of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, DC on May 21 and figures from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) showing a 344 percent increase in antisemitic incidents over the last five years as justifications for the funding surge, saying the money “will be used to help these organizations harden their defenses against attacks.”

“DHS is working to put a stop to the deeply disturbing rise in antisemitic attacks across the United States,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, noting, “that this money is necessary at all is tragic.”

“[A]ntisemitic violence has no place in this country,” said McLaughlin. “However, under President Trump and Secretary Noem’s leadership, we are going to do everything in our power to make sure that Jewish people in the United States can live free of the threat of violence and terrorism.”

All faith-based institutions — including schools, houses of worship, medical facilities, and career centers — are eligible to apply for funding through the Security Grant program, which recently received a funding boost from Congress.

The increase in funding comes following a Wednesday gathering in Washington D.C. organized by Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Almost 400 people representing 100 Jewish groups joined together in calling for more federal protection.

Bob Milgrim, father of Israeli Embassy employee Sarah Milgrim, who was killed outside of a Jewish gathering, told attendees that “had there been more security at the event where Sarah and Yaron [Lischinsky] were tragically murdered, had there been more security outside, watching the crowd, I feel that it possibly could have identified the shooter pacing back and forth and possibly disarmed him.”

Police arrested Elias Rodriguez, 30, and charged him with two counts of first degree murder for the May shootings. He allegedly chanted “Free, free Palestine” after the attack.

Eric Fingerhut, president and CEO of JFNA, said “we know there are many things on the nation’s agenda, but we must insist that the safety and security of the Jewish community and the battle against domestic terror be at the very top.”

William Daroff, CEO of the Conference of Presidents said that “Jewish safety in America is not optional, and the silence in the face of antisemitic incitement, whether it comes from Iran’s Ayatollahs or American campuses, is unacceptable.”

Following the June 25 death of 82-year-old Karen Diamond from burn injuries, prosecutors have now added a first degree murder charge against Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, the man alleged to have attacked her and other Jewish demonstrators in Boulder.

Diamond was a Holocaust survivor.

Rabbi Marc Soloway, who leads synagogue Bonai Shalom, where Diamond worshipped, wrote in a statement Monday that “this event and the tragic loss of someone who has given so much of herself over the years to the Bonai community and beyond, has impacted us all and we are sad and horrified. We will need to support each other as we process this loss.”

District Attorney Michael Dougherty released a statement in which he said that “this horrific attack has now claimed the life of an innocent person who was beloved by her family and friends. Our hearts are with the Diamond family during this incredibly difficult time. Our office will fight for justice for the victims, their loved ones, and the community. Part of what makes Colorado special is that people come together in response to a tragedy; I know that the community will continue to unite in supporting the Diamond family and all the victims of this attack.”

Soliman, an Egyptian national living in the United States illegally, also yelled “Free Palestine” during the attack and reportedly told investigators that he had wanted to kill as many as 20 people. His attorney David Kraut argued to Magistrate Judge Kathryn Starnella that the attack was motivated by anti-Zionism rather than antisemitism and thus should not be prosecuted as a hate crime.

Colorado’s Fox 31 reports that the full list of charges against Soliman includes two counts of first-degree murder, 52 counts of attempted first-degree murder, eight counts of first-degree assault, 18 counts of attempted first-degree assault, two counts of third-degree assault, two counts of using an incendiary device, 16 counts of attempted use of an incendiary device and one count of animal cruelty (a dog was also injured in the attack).

The post Jewish Orgs to Receive $94 Million from DHS to Harden Defenses Against ‘the Deeply Disturbing Rise in Antisemitic Attacks’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 15
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News