RSS
Haaretz Claim That IDF Was Ordered to Fire on Unarmed Gazans Refuted by Translation Discrepancies, Contradictions, and Eyewitness Accounts
Gazans receiving humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip. Photo: Col. Richard Kemp
A recent Haaretz exposé accusing the Israeli military of ordering troops to fire at unarmed civilians near food aid sites in Gaza relied on mistranslation, selective quotes, factual omissions, and contradictions to construct a narrative of unprovoked Israeli violence, according to independent observers interviewed by The Algemeiner.
Debunking the claim of indiscriminate fire by the IDF, the experts instead described widespread fear of Hamas, not the Israeli military.
The Haaretz report quickly gained traction in international media. Titled “’It’s a Killing Field’: IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid,” it was cited by outlets such as NPR, CNN, and Reuters, .
British military analyst Andrew Fox criticized the article for its framing and language. One of the discrepancies he pointed to was the shift in the English version of the story from soldiers firing “towards” civilians, as stated in the Hebrew original, to “at” them. The original Hebrew subheader also specified that soldiers were told to fire “towards” crowds “to distance them” from the aid sites, suggesting the shooting took place as a means of crowd control.
“It’s a matter of intent,” Fox told The Algemeiner. The phrase “‘at civilians’ means they are trying to kill them. It’s misleading because they’re firing warnings to avoid harm rather than shooting to cause harm.”
“Warning shots are something all armies do — we did in Afghanistan — but when you pull the trigger there’s always a risk of harm, and that’s not great,” explained Fox, a think tank researcher and former British Army officer. “Still, there’s a huge difference between that and deliberately targeting civilians.”
Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, said that “shooting towards,” as in the original Hebrew, was “quite reasonable as a means to exercise crowd control in a war zone.”
“It is highly unlikely the IDF would be ordered to shoot at unarmed civilians unless they directly endangered them,” Kemp told The Algemeiner, citing Israel’s interest in the success of US-backed humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza. “The IDF rigidly follows laws of war. It makes no sense for the IDF to want to damage aid efforts. They cooperate with and facilitate [the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation] and want it to succeed. The ones who want it to fail are Hamas because it deprives them of control and funds. If anyone has been doing this shooting, it would be Hamas. They have the motive the IDF do not.”
There were other discrepancies in the original headline and its translation. Whereas the Hebrew version reads “Soldiers testify: IDF deliberately shoots towards Gazans near aid collection points,” the English version not only omitted any reference to mediating testimony or attribution, but also framed the event as an empirical fact: “IDF soldiers ordered to shoot deliberately at unarmed Gazans waiting for humanitarian aid.” Further, the phrase “waiting for humanitarian aid” may carry specific legal implications under international law, suggesting heightened vulnerability, whereas the Hebrew version referred more vaguely to crowds “near aid collection points.”
The subheader — which claimed soldiers were ordered to fire at unarmed civilians “even when no threat was present” — conflicted with the body of the text, which acknowledged that Israeli soldiers were wounded near the aid distribution zones. One sentence, appearing for the first time in the 21st paragraph, stood out: “There were also fatalities and injuries among IDF soldiers in these incidents.” The piece offered no explanation for how such casualties could occur if, as the article claims, no one else present was armed.
Elsewhere in the article, a soldier is quoted describing the IDF creating a “killing field,” supposedly involving heavy machine guns, mortars, and grenade launchers. But if such weapons were used with lethal intent, as Fox pointed out in a Substack post, the casualty rate would be far higher than the one to five reported per day. “That’s not a massacre,” he wrote, going on to quip that the only massacre to take place was one of “journalistic standards by Haaretz.”
“Could some soldiers accidentally miss and hit someone?” Fox wrote. “Yes. That is tragic and warrants investigation. However, the article itself acknowledges that the IDF is already examining those incidents. To jump from that to ‘deliberate killing fields’ is not responsible reporting. It is narrative laundering.”
The lack of video footage of the alleged mass shootings near GHF sites raises questions, given the large volume of media typically produced from Gaza, according to Fox, who noted that Hamas has repeatedly circulated images and clips for propaganda purposes.
“Every Gazan has a mobile phone, and numerous videos of other events have been released,” he wrote. “Why is there a total absence of any credible footage of these supposed IDF combined arms assaults on queuing civilians?”
Kemp, who visited two of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s distribution sites in the days following the report’s publication, described hearing distant gunfire but reported that the aid operation proceeded mostly without disruption.
Col. Richard Kemp at humanitarian aid site with Gazans. Photo: Provided
“None of the Gazans there showed any concerns [about the IDF] whatsoever,” he said. Many of the civilians identified Hamas, not the IDF, as the main threat to the aid effort — a dynamic not acknowledged in the Haaretz report — telling Kemp they could not return home for fear of being recognized and targeted by Hamas.
“I must have spoken to at least 50 Gazans at each site,” he said. “Many told me they feared Hamas and Hamas threatened them if they used the sites.”
Kemp added that the atmosphere was chaotic but manageable, with GHF workers — most of them local Gazans — interfacing directly with the crowds. He described people smiling, holding up food packages, and expressing gratitude for the aid.
“The overwhelming impression was how grateful they were to be getting free aid for once, as opposed to buying aid looted by Hamas and sold at a premium,” he told The Algemeiner.
Many Gazans at the GHF sites who spoke to Kemp voiced hatred for Hamas and praised the US-backed aid effort, with some chanting “kill Hamas” while others said “I love America” or expressed admiration for President Donald Trump. The alignment between Hamas and UN criticism of the food program was “shocking,” Kemp added, particularly given the visible gratitude expressed by many recipients.
“They associate this aid program with the US,” he said. “They seem to like it, whereas Hamas and the UN seem to be its greatest enemies.”
The post Haaretz Claim That IDF Was Ordered to Fire on Unarmed Gazans Refuted by Translation Discrepancies, Contradictions, and Eyewitness Accounts first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
South Africa Distances Itself From Army Chief’s Pledges of Military, Political Support to Iran
Iranian Major General Amir Hatami and South African General Rudzani Maphwanya meet in Tehran to discuss strengthening military cooperation and strategic ties. Photo: Screenshot
South Africa’s army chief has faced domestic backlash after pledging military and political support to Iran during a recent visit, prompting government officials to distance themselves from his remarks over concerns they could harm Pretoria’s efforts to strengthen ties with the United States.
Members of South Africa’s governing coalition have denounced Gen. Rudzani Maphwanya, chief of the South African National Defense Force (SANDF), for his trip to Tehran earlier this week, describing his remarks as “reckless grandstanding.”
The Democratic Alliance (DA), South Africa’s second-largest party in the governing coalition, has called for Maphwanya to be court-martialed for breaking neutrality and violating military law, saying his comments had gone “beyond military-to-military discussions and entered the realm of foreign policy.”
“This reckless grandstanding comes at a time when South Africa’s relations with key democratic partners, especially the United States, are already under severe strain,” DA defense spokesperson Chris Hattingh said in a statement.
“The SANDF’s job is to lead and manage the defense forces, not to act as an unsanctioned political envoy. Allowing our most senior military officer to make partisan foreign policy pronouncements is strategically reckless, diplomatically irresponsible, and economically self-defeating,” he continued.
“South Africa cannot afford to have its international standing further sabotaged by political adventurism from the military’s top brass,” Hattingh said.
Iran and South Africa held high-level military talks earlier this week as both nations seek to deepen cooperation and strengthen their partnership against what officials called “global arrogance and aggressive colonial approaches.”
During a joint press conference with Iranian Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami, Maphwanya called for deeper ties between the two nations, especially in defense cooperation, affirming that “the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals.”
“We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenseless people of the world,” the South African general said.
He also criticized Israel over the ongoing war in Gaza, expressed support for the Palestinian people, and told Iranian officials that his visit “conveys a political message” on behalf of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration.
However, shortly after Maphwanya’s remarks drew media attention, the South African government moved to distance itself from his comments, with the Foreign Affairs Ministry stating that his comments “do not represent the government’s official foreign policy stance.”
The Defense Department, which described Maphwanya’s comments as “unfortunate,” confirmed that he is now expected to meet with the Minister of Defense and Military Veterans, Angie Motshekga, upon his return to provide explanations.
Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, clarified that the president was neither aware of the trip nor had he sanctioned it.
“The visit was ill-advised and more so, the expectation is that the general should have been a lot more circumspect with the comments he makes,” Magwenya told reporters during a press conference on Thursday.
“It is crucial to clarify that the implementation of South Africa’s foreign policy is a function of the presidency,” he continued. “Any statements made by an individual, or a department other than those responsible for foreign policy, should not be misinterpreted as the official position of the South African government.”
Maphwanya’s trip to Iran came after the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI) released a recent report detailing how South Africa’s deepening ties with Tehran have led the country to compromise its democratic foundations and constitutional principles by aligning itself with a regime internationally condemned for terrorism, repression, and human rights abuses.
RSS
Democrat Pete Buttigieg Toughens Stance on Israel, Says He Backs Arms Embargo Following Left-Wing Pressure
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaks during an appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast on Aug. 10, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat considered by many observers to be a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has recalibrated his stance on Israel, moving from cautious language to a far more critical position after facing backlash over recent comments on the popular “Pod Save America” podcast.
In his podcast interview on Sunday, Buttigieg called Israel “a friend” and said the United States should “put your arm around” the country during difficult times. He also sidestepped a direct answer on whether the US should recognize a Palestinian state, describing the question as “profound” but offering little elaboration beyond calls for peace.
That measured approach drew sharp criticism from progressives and foreign policy voices who argued that his words were too vague amid the ongoing war in Gaza and a shifting sentiment within the Democratic party base regarding Israel. Evolving fault lines within the Democratic Party over US policy toward its staunch Middle Eastern ally signal that the issue could loom large in the 2028 presidential primary.
Following Sunday’s interview, US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) urged Buttigieg to show “moral clarity,” while Ben Rhodes, former White House aide to President Barack Obama, said he was left uncertain where the Cabinet official stood. Social media critics accused Buttigieg of offering platitudes that dodged hard policy commitments.
In a follow-up interview with Politico published on Thursday, Buttigieg took a decidedly tougher line. He said he supports recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution and ending the decades-long practice of providing military aid to the Jewish state through sweeping, multi-year packages. Instead, he called for a case-by-case review of assistance, while emphasizing the need to stop civilian deaths, release hostages, and ensure unimpeded humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Perhaps most significantly, Buttigieg indicated support for a US arms embargo on Israel, saying he would have signed on to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s recently proposed resolution to prohibit arms sales to the Jewish state.
The shift places Buttigieg closer to the party’s progressive flank on foreign policy, a notable change for a figure often viewed as a bridge between the Democratic establishment and younger, more liberal voters. For a likely 2028 contender, the move reflects both the political risks of appearing out of step with an increasingly skeptical base and the growing influence of voices calling for sharper limits on US support for Israel.
Recent polling shows a generational divide on the issue, with younger Democrats far more likely to back conditioning aid to Israel and recognizing Palestinian statehood.
RSS
Former Algemeiner Correspondent Gidon Ben-Zvi Dies at 51
Gidon Ben-Zvi. Photo: Screenshot
Gidon Ben-Zvi, former Jerusalem Correspondent for The Algemeiner, has died at the age of 51 after a fight with cancer.
Ben-Zvi continued to write op-eds for The Algemeiner even after he left as a correspondent, including in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
An accomplished writer, Ben-Zvi left Hollywood for Jerusalem in 2009, moving back to Israel after spending 12 years in the United States. From 1994-1997, Gidon served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in an infantry unit.
In addition to writing for The Algemeiner, Ben-Zvi contributed to the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, CiF Watch, and blogged at Jerusalem State of Mind.
Ben-Zvi joined HonestReporting as a senior editor in June 2020, becoming an integral part of the editorial department and writing dozens of articles and media critiques for the watchdog group exposing anti-Israel bias. He moved with his family to Haifa at the end of 2022.
Ben-Zvi’s final article for HonestReporting was published in January 2025, before he took a leave of absence for health reasons. HonestReporting said in a newly published obituary that staff believed he would eventually return, noting the positivity and perseverance he exuded. The advocacy group said it learned of Ben-Zvi’s passing late last month.
Ben-Zvi leaves behind his wife, Debbie, and four young children.
All Ben-Zvi’s articles for The Algemeiner can be found here.
May his memory be a blessing.