Uncategorized
How the ‘Experts’ Lost Credibility: 10 Predictions About Israel’s War That Fell Apart
Relatives and friends of Israeli hostage Alon Ohel, held in Gaza since the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, react as they watch broadcasts related to his release as part of a hostages-prisoners swap and a ceasefire deal in Gaza between Hamas and Israel, in Lavon, Israel, Oct. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Rami Shlush
Israel’s founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, once quipped: “If an expert says it can’t be done, get another expert.”
While there are established facts no matter who says them, that wisdom has certainly been vindicated in the war that began with Hamas’ October 7, 2023, invasion of Israel.
Over the past two years, politicians, academics, journalists, and analysts – people routinely presented as “experts” – have issued dire predictions and sweeping moral judgments about Israel and its enemies. Again and again, they were wrong.
Here are ten examples.
1. The General Who Underestimated the IDF
Soon after October 7, a US three-star Marine lieutenant general assigned to advise Israel warned against a ground invasion, predicting Israel would lose 20 soldiers a day. His projection – over 14,000 fatalities – proved vastly exaggerated. The 918 IDF soldiers killed remain a national tragedy, but the prediction of catastrophic losses was, like many others, baseless.
2. The Hezbollah “Victory” That Never Came
On October 4, 2024, Samer Jaber, a PhD researcher at Royal Holloway University, wrote on Al Jazeera: “Hezbollah has been dealt a heavy blow, but it can still win over Israel.” A year later, Hezbollah has been dismantled as a fighting force, and even Lebanon’s own government now regards it as an enemy.
3. The “World War III” Predictions
When Israel – and later the US – struck Iran in June 2025, media outlets including The Independent and The New York Times warned of “catastrophic consequences” and “the start of World War III.” The Iranian ambassador to France declared such a scenario inevitable. Yet instead of triggering global war, the strikes crippled Iran’s terror network and, in the absence of one of its primary sponsors, forced Hamas to accept a ceasefire.
4. The UN’s “14,000 Babies” Claim
In May 2025, Tom Fletcher, the UN’s humanitarian chief, told BBC Radio 4 that “14,000 babies will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them.” His words were repeated uncritically by The New York Times, NBC, ABC, TIME, and The Guardian. The prediction never materialized — and was proved to be a manipulation of other statistics — but the damage to Israel’s image did.
5. The Manufactured “Famine”
UNRWA head Philippe Lazzarini repeatedly warned of an “imminent famine” in Gaza. Yet under the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, famine can only be declared if three specific thresholds are crossed: 20 percent of households face extreme food shortages, 30 percent of children suffer acute malnutrition, and two or more people per 10,000 die of hunger each day. None of those conditions was met. For Gaza’s population, that would mean over 400 starvation deaths daily – a figure not claimed even by Hamas.
6. The “Genocide Scholars”
Omer Bartov, a professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University, declared in The New York Times: “I’m a genocide scholar. I know it when I see it.” He first accused Israel of genocide in December 2024 — months before the war’s end.
Yet Gaza’s population rose throughout the conflict as Israel consistently evacuated civilians from combat zones. Genocide requires intent to destroy; Israel’s intent was to protect. As HonestReporting board member Salo Aizenberg dryly noted, to become a member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars, “all you need is a credit card.”
7. The Misread ICJ Ruling
In May 2024, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to halt any actions in Rafah that could bring about the destruction of the Palestinian people in whole or in part. But major outlets — BBC, CNN, NBC, Newsweek — misreported it as a blanket ban on Israel’s Rafah operation. The IDF proceeded, eliminated Hamas’ last stronghold, and the supposed “violation” never materialized.
8. The “Restrained” Hamas
On the eve of the October 7 attack, Israel’s own National Security Adviser, Tzachi Hanegbi, confidently described Hamas as “restrained.” Speaking privately on the afternoon of October 6, he noted that Hamas had stayed out of Israel’s recent clashes with Islamic Jihad and was focused on sending more Gazan workers into Israel. Sixteen hours later, Hamas invaded.
Hanegbi — fired by Prime Minister Netanyahu this week — had also told Maariv in September 2023, “I don’t see our enemies raring to fight, not in Lebanon, not in Gaza, and not in Syria.”
9. Did Hamas Choose Stability Over Jihad?
Historian and former deputy minister Michael Oren wrote after Operation Shield and Arrow in May 2023 that Hamas had “chosen social and financial stability over jihad.” In reality, Hamas’s “restraint” was strategic deception — a prelude to October 7. The calm wasn’t peace; it was preparation.
10. The Prophet of Doom
In May 2025, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman predicted Israel was “preparing to re-invade Gaza” and “advance annexation” in the West Bank. His headline read, “This Israeli Government Is Not Our Ally.” Six months later, President Trump declared the war over. There was no annexation, no mass expulsion — just another failed prophecy from the paper that rarely learns.
The Pattern: Expertise Without Accountability
From generals to journalists, UN officials to academics, the pattern is the same: overconfidence, distortion, and a lack of accountability when “expert” narratives collapse.
Ben-Gurion’s advice still stands: when an expert insists something can’t be done — or invents horrors that never were — it’s time to find another expert.
The author is the Executive Director of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America
The new documentary Immigrant Songs: Yiddish Theater and the American Jewish Experience, produced by the Milken Archive of Jewish Music, is fast, entertaining and a good introduction to the topic.
Focusing mainly on the musical side of the story, but covering ‘straight plays’ as well, the film opens with a superb ‘warm-up act’: “Hu Tsa Tsa,” a stock Yiddish vaudeville number performed by the widely mourned Bruce Adler, who died in 2008 at age 63. Bursting with charm and talent, Adler, scion of a top Yiddish vaudeville family, demonstrates that Yiddish theater used to be pretty damned lively.
What follows is the oft-told story of the rise and decline of the American Yiddish theater, beginning with its prehistory in the Purimshpiels — the annual performances that for centuries served as the only secular entertainment in the Ashkenazic world. From there the film takes us to Yiddish theater’s 1876 birth in Romania, courtesy of Avrom Goldfadn, a.k.a. “The Father of Yiddish Theater.”
The film also describes Yiddish theater’s arrival in America, which, thanks to massive Jewish immigration, quickly became its capital. We learn of its influence on American theater’s styles of acting and set design. And the film describes the decline of its audience, due to assimilation and the immigration quotas of the 1920s.
There’s an excellent section on “The Big Four” Yiddish theater composers — Joseph Rumshinsky, Alexander Olshanetsky, Abe Ellstein, and Sholom Secunda. All in all, the documentary does a fine job of teaching the aleph-beyz, the ABCs, of the history of Yiddish theater to the uninitiated.
The most impressive aspect of Immigrant Songs is its well-crafted pace. Though there are a few snippets of vintage Yiddish cinema (Yiddish theater’s “kid brother”), most of the film consists of recent concert footage, some well-selected photographs and ephemera, and a lot of talking heads. Almost every prominent Yiddish theater historian was interviewed for it, along with several musicologists, an archivist, Yiddish actors, directors, producers, etc. (Full disclosure: I am one of them.) Director Jeff Janeczko cuts between the interviewees so smoothly — sometimes in mid-sentence — that it feels like they’re in the same room and feeding off each other’s energy. The movie just flies by.
There are a few errors. Marc Chagall is described as an important designer of Yiddish theater; actually he designed one minor production in Russia in 1921, and never did another. In a bizarre, and biblically illiterate, statement, one interviewee claims that Jews hadn’t developed a theater culture earlier because the Second Commandment’s prohibition of “graven images” forbade the construction of sets. (Actually it’s about idol worship.)
Another interviewee claims that the Yiddish play Der Yeshiva Bokher; oder, Der Yudisher Hamlet — The Yeshiva Student; or, The Jewish Hamlet (Yiddish plays then often had subtitles), is closely patterned on Shakespeare’s tragedy. In truth, the play — written by Isidore Zolotarevski, the prolific writer of shund (“trash”) melodramas — is not only awful, but is as close to Shakespeare as baked ham is to your grandmother’s kreplach.
The film’s biggest fault, however, is its short running time (45 minutes). This is a rich topic, and too much is left by the wayside in the interest of brevity. There’s nothing about what shund melodramas felt like, why they appealed to their audiences, and why they became the only thing a lot of people know about Yiddish theater.
There’s also nothing about the World War I-era wave of shtetl plays, which reflected immigrants’ homesickness without indulging in nostalgia, and provided some of Yiddish theater’s shining moments with plays like Green Fields, The Empty Inn and Tevye. And the most important play in the Yiddish canon, The Dybbuk, is never mentioned.
Perhaps most surprisingly, considering the film’s emphasis on music, there is no examination of Yiddish theater’s influence on Broadway’s music. (Cole Porter — ironically, the only gentile among the major composers of Broadway’s Golden Age — had a pronounced Jewish lilt in a number of his songs, and he actually attended Yiddish theater regularly.)
The film’s last section is about the renewed interest in Yiddish that began in the 1970s and ’80s with the klezmer revival. Much of it focuses on the 2018 Yiddish production of Fiddler on the Roof in Yiddish, whose success was predetermined the moment the production was announced.
For the overwhelming majority of American Jews, from the Orthodox to the unaffiliated, Fiddler is all they know about the lives of their ancestors. And though it’s a world-class piece of musical theater, as a work of social history Fiddler is as phony as a glass eye. Nevertheless, for American Jews it’s a sacred text.
Fiddler was a huge hit, but it was a gimmick, a one-off, whose success does very little for the future of Yiddish theater. Worse, the Yiddish — not the text, but the lines spoken by most of the actors — was often mispronounced and had the wrong intonation. (One elderly gentleman of my acquaintance, a native Yiddish speaker from Czechoslovakia, told me he didn’t understand a word the actors said, and spent the whole evening reading the English supertitles.)
What follows the Fiddler section in Immigrant Songs is mostly bromides. But the best current Yiddish theater reflects the kind of fresh thinking that keeps the form alive.
An occasional well-presented museum piece, like the Folksbiene’s 2016 revival of Rumshinsky’s operetta The Golden Bride, is a very worthwhile project (though it, too, suffered from poorly spoken Yiddish). But the most dynamic contemporary Yiddish theater is, in Jeffrey Shandler’s apt phrase, “post vernacular” — i .e., the use of Yiddish is self-conscious, a deliberate choice rather than something that’s done automatically, as it would have been a century ago when there were a lot more Yiddish speakers in the world.
An example of this is the 2017 neo-realist film Menashe, which could far more easily and conventionally have been made in English. Or a well-known piece done in Yiddish translation, like Shane Baker’s stunning Yiddish translation of Waiting for Godot, can become something much more valuable than a mere stunt. The Yiddish version, under Moshe Yassur’s straightforward direction, humanized the play, stripping it of the encrusted pretentiousness that had hidden its soul. (When it was presented in the International Samuel Beckett Festival in Ireland, multiple audience members approached the cast afterwards with the same reaction: “I don’t speak a word of Yiddish. But I’ve seen Godot five or six times, and this is the first time I understood it.”)
There’s a lot to be learned from Immigrant Songs. If you find yourself hungry for more, you couldn’t do better than to seek out YIVO’s online Yiddish theater course “Oh, Mama, I’m in Love!” But by all means, start with Immigrant Songs. It’s a very entertaining and informative appetizer.
The post New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK PM Starmer Says There Could Be New Powers to Ban Pro-Palestinian Marches
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives a media statement at Downing Street in London, Britain, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jack Taylor/File photo
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches in some circumstances because of the “cumulative effect” the demonstrations had on the Jewish community after two Jewish men were stabbed in London on Wednesday.
Starmer told the BBC that he would always defend freedom of expression and peaceful protest, but chants like “Globalize the Intifada” during demonstrations were “completely off limits” and those voicing them should be prosecuted.
Pro-Palestinian marches have become a regular feature in London since the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel that triggered the Gaza war. Critics say the demonstrations have generated hostility and become a focus for antisemitism.
Protesters have argued they are exercising their democratic right to spotlight ongoing human rights and political issues related to the situation in Gaza.
Starmer said he was not denying there were “very strong legitimate views about the Middle East, about Gaza,” but many people in the Jewish community had told him they were concerned about the repeat nature of the marches.
Asked if the tougher response should focus on chants and banners, or whether the protests should be stopped altogether, Starmer said: “I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter.”
“I think it’s time to look across the board at protests and the cumulative effect,” he said, adding that the government needed to look at what further powers it could take.
Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” on Thursday amid mounting security concerns that foreign states were helping fuel violence, including against the Jewish community.
“We are seeing an elevated threat to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions in the UK,” the head of counter-terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor, said in a statement, adding that police were also working “against an unpredictable global situation that has consequences closer to home, including physical threats by state-linked actors.”
Uncategorized
War Likely to Resume After Trump’s Rejection of Latest Proposal, Says IRGC General
Iranians carry a model of a missile during a celebration following an IRGC attack on Israel, in Tehran, Iran, April 15, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
i24 News – A senior Iranian military figure said that fighting with the US was “likely” to resume after President Donald Trump stated he was dissatisfied with Tehran’s latest proposal, regime media reported on Saturday.
The comments of General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, one of the top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, were relayed by the Fars news agency, considered as a mouthpiece of the the powerful paramilitary body.
“Evidence has shown that the Americans do not not adhere to any commitments,” Asadi was quoted as saying.
He further added that Washington’s decision-making was “primarily media-driven aimed first at preventing a drop in oil prices and second at extricating themselves from the mess they have created.”
Iranian armed forces are ready “for any new adventures or foolishness from the Americans,” he said, going to assert that the Iran war would prove for the US a tragedy comparable with what was for Israel the October 7 massacre.
“Just as our martyred Leader said that the Zionist regime will never be the same as before the Al‑Aqsa Storm operation [the name chosen by Hamas leadership for the October 7, 2023 massacre in southern Israel], the United States will also never return to what it was before its attack on Iran,” he said. “The world has understood the true nature of America, and no matter how much malice it shows now, it is no longer the America that many once feared.”
