Uncategorized
How Zohran Mamdani’s Ambiguous Words Echo in the Digital Sphere
Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS
When politicians speak out about Israel, antisemitism, or the Holocaust, what they omit can matter as much as what they say. In the digital arena, where nuance collapses within seconds, ambiguity often becomes ammunition.
The case of New York politician Zohran Mamdani, a progressive rising star who will likely become the mayor of New York City, illustrates this dynamic vividly. His statements about Israel, antisemitism, and the war in Gaza have sparked heated debate — not only for their content, but for the way strategic ambiguity allows them to be interpreted in starkly different ways.
Our research analyzed Mamdani’s rhetoric across multiple platforms — from television interviews to TikTok and YouTube — and traced how his words were reframed by influencers and audiences online.
The findings reveal how ambiguous political language can fuel polarization, distort Holocaust memory, and invite antisemitic readings that the speaker may never have intended.
The Power — and Peril — of Ambiguity
Ambiguity functions as a rhetorical strategy: it allows politicians to gesture in several directions at once, offering different audiences the interpretations they prefer. This flexibility provides plausible deniability, yet also creates an opening for distortion and hate.
Mamdani’s communication style is a textbook case. His remarks on Israel and antisemitism frequently hover between empathy and insinuation, critique and deflection — giving the impression of moral seriousness while avoiding clear commitments.
The effect is twofold: admirers see courage and compassion; critics see evasion and coded hostility. But the real consequences emerge online, where ambiguous statements are picked up by content creators, reframed through ideological lenses, and amplified to millions — often in ways that intensify division and resentment.
Omissions That Speak Volumes
Following Hamas’ October 7, 2023 massacre, in which terrorists murdered 1,200 Israelis and abducted more than 250, Mamdani issued a statement that conspicuously omitted any mention of Hamas or its victims.
Instead, he accused the Israeli government of preparing a “second Nakba.”
Such omissions are not neutral. In political communication, what is left unsaid shapes interpretation just as powerfully as explicit statements. By focusing solely on Israel’s alleged actions, Mamdani’s message erased the context of terrorism and Jewish suffering — effectively reframing a massacre as an act of “resistance.”
This pattern continued in later comments. Mamdani publicly repeated claims — later shown by independent investigations to be caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket — that Israel had bombed the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza and that pro-Israel students at New York protests had used “chemical weapons.” Both claims spread rapidly online before being debunked. Yet even after corrections, the emotional narrative — Israel as aggressor, Jews as oppressors — remained intact.
When asked about these inaccuracies, Mamdani rarely corrected himself. Instead, he shifted attention to alleged efforts to silence him. In one speech, he attacked the lobbying group AIPAC as “undermining American democracy.” In the version later posted to his social media, that line was quietly edited out — an omission that further invited speculation and conspiratorial readings.
The pattern is consistent: statements are made, outrage follows, then a revised version appears — leaving both supporters and detractors to project their own meanings onto the ambiguity.
Reframing and Decontextualization
Much of Mamdani’s rhetorical power lies in reframing contentious slogans. During debates and interviews, he defended the chant “From the River to the Sea” as an expression of “universal human emancipation,” detaching it from its historic associations with the destruction of Israel. Likewise, when confronted about the slogan “Globalize the Intifada,” he called it “a call for justice,” likening it to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
In the Bulwark podcast, he cited the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s translation of “intifada” as “uprising” — implying moral equivalence between Jewish resistance during the Holocaust and Palestinian militancy today. Such analogies, presented as scholarly nuance, flatten historical distinctions and convert Holocaust memory into a tool of political comparison.
This decontextualization serves two purposes: it universalizes Jewish suffering (suggesting it belongs equally to all oppressed peoples) and downplays antisemitic violence within the Palestinian movement.
The result is a moral narrative where Jewish trauma becomes a universal metaphor, detached from Jewish history — a rhetorical move with deep emotional resonance and troubling implications.
“Right to Exist” — With Conditions
Mamdani’s statements about Israel’s right to exist are similarly ambivalent. On The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, he affirmed support for Israel “as long as it abides by international law” — a condition that effectively renders recognition provisional. In a later debate, he reiterated that Israel has “a right to exist” but declined to say “as a Jewish state,” instead describing a hypothetical state “with equal rights.”
These formulations sound reasonable, but they subtly shift the premise: from defending Israel’s right to exist as the world’s only Jewish homeland — a right enshrined after the Holocaust — to questioning the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination altogether.
Such framing enables both deniability (“I said they have a right to exist”) and accusation (“but they are violating it”).
How Digital Amplification Works
Our team analyzed hundreds of YouTube and TikTok videos discussing Mamdani’s remarks, focusing on content creators with large followings such as Hasan Piker, Kyle Kulinski, Sam Seder, Guy Christensen, and Vaush.
Across these channels, we coded the creators’ framing of Mamdani’s rhetoric and examined the first 200 comments per video.
The pattern was unmistakable: ambiguity in Mamdani’s statements invited radical amplification online. Influencers portrayed him as a victim of “smears,” “Islamophobia,” and “AIPAC propaganda.”
In turn, comment sections erupted into open antisemitic conspiracy theories.
- Denial and Inversion
Creators like Piker dismissed accusations of antisemitism as “fake nonsense,” claiming they were “weapons” to silence pro-Palestinian voices. Commenters echoed this denial, insisting that “antisemitism is a made-up shield” and calling the Anti-Defamation League the “Apartheid Defense League.”
This rhetorical inversion — portraying those who identify antisemitism as aggressors — transforms legitimate concern into alleged oppression. It blurs the line between defending free speech and trivializing hate.
- Competing Victimhood
Another recurring pattern was reversal of victimhood. Influencers framed criticism of Mamdani as evidence of Islamophobia, arguing that “Muslim politicians are automatically branded antisemitic.” In comment sections, this morphed into claims that Jewish concerns about antisemitism are “privileged” over Muslim experiences of discrimination.
This competitive framing pits minority groups against one another, eroding solidarity and obscuring the specific nature of antisemitism as a distinct, historically rooted form of hate.
- Conspiracy and Servility Tropes
When Democratic leaders criticized Mamdani, content creators claimed they were “doing AIPAC’s bidding.” Commenters took this further: “The Zionists control every dimension of life,” one wrote. Others invoked classic antisemitic imagery — “Follow the $$$ … puppets of Israel” — or even violent fantasies, predicting Mamdani would be “JFK’d” if he continued defying “the lobby.”
These narratives recycle centuries-old myths of Jewish financial and political control, now reframed in the language of internet populism.
- Normalizing Anti-Israel Rhetoric
Creators like Kulinski claimed Mamdani’s stance represented “mainstream Democratic opinion,” suggesting most Americans — even Jewish ones — share his criticisms of Israel. Commenters adopted this as fact, declaring that “the only thing Zionists fear is losing power.”
This normalization transforms hostility toward Israel into a marker of political authenticity. Within this logic, accusing someone of antisemitism becomes proof of their moral courage — a dynamic increasingly visible across progressive movements.
- Holocaust Inversion and Dehumanization
The most alarming finding was the reversal of Holocaust imagery. Influencers compared Israel to Nazi Germany; commenters fused the terms into slurs like “Zionazi” or “Isra-heil.” Some even glorified violence, cloaking assassination fantasies in gaming metaphors: “Trump and Netanyahu in NY? Perfect 2-for-1 moment for the Mario Brothers.”
While such remarks may seem fringe, they accumulate into a broader culture of digital derision — a climate where violent and dehumanizing speech becomes normalized through humor, irony, or moral outrage.
From Ambiguity to Escalation
The progression across these layers — Mamdani’s original statements, influencers’ reinterpretations, and audience reactions — shows how strategic ambiguity can spiral into participatory hate.
- Primary discourse: Mamdani’s words, open-ended and self-protective, avoid explicit antisemitism while enabling multiple readings.
- Secondary discourse: Influencers reframe his critics as tools of oppression, inverting accusations and legitimizing resentment.
- Tertiary discourse: Audiences collapse nuance entirely, producing overt antisemitic language and violent fantasies.
As meaning travels outward from the politician’s mouth to millions of screens, moral ambiguity collapses into moral abdication. This discursive spiral is not unique to Mamdani. It reflects a broader trend in digital politics, where rhetorical vagueness is weaponized by audiences seeking validation rather than understanding.
The Broader Challenge
Mamdani’s case highlights a growing dilemma for democracies: how to handle rhetoric that inflames division without crossing into illegal hate speech. Platforms and policymakers still struggle to address this “gray zone,” where statements remain technically permissible yet have corrosive downstream effects.
Democracy depends not only on freedom of speech but also on responsibility in speech. Politicians who wish to champion justice cannot outsource the meaning of their words to online mobs. Clarity is not censorship; it is accountability.
As the digital public sphere amplifies every utterance, the boundary between rhetoric and radicalization narrows. Mamdani’s example should serve as a warning: when ambiguity becomes a political habit, amplification becomes inevitable — and the cost is borne by those targeted in its echoes.
Dr. Matthias J. Becker is a Researcher in discourse studies at the University of Cambridge and New York University, and Research Lead at AddressHate. He directs the “Decoding Antisemitism” research project, which analyzes how antisemitic ideas spread in digital communication.
Gabrielle Beacken is a PhD student in Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research focuses on propaganda, disinformation, and online antisemitism across social media and emerging technologies. She is a Research Assistant at the Center for Media Engagement’s Propaganda Research Lab.
Liora Sabra is a PhD student in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University. Her research explores antisemitism, Holocaust memory, and propaganda, focusing on definitional debates and their reflection in public discourse. She works at NYU’s Center for the Study of Antisemitism, contributing to research on prejudice and political communication.
Uncategorized
US soldiers stationed in Kiryat Gat turn sleepy Israeli city into an unexpected hotspot
At one of Kiryat Gat’s main shopping complexes, U.S. Army camouflage does everything but blend in.
American troops in fatigues move between shawarma stands and sports-shoe stores, a new presence in the southern industrial city, part of a multinational civil-military coordination center set up to monitor the Gaza ceasefire. The center, housed in a converted logistics building about 15 miles from the Gaza border, opened last week with roughly 200 American personnel as well as smaller contingents from at least eight other countries.
By the weekend, the sight of Americans in uniform had become routine. “Big guys, all in perfect formation,” one shopkeeper at the BIG mall told the Walla news site, “like they came out of a Hollywood movie.”
Cafes, restaurants, and food delivery services have been “working around the clock” to accommodate the city’s new foreign guests. On social media, commenters called the deployment “a new world order,” noting that Kiryat Gat was trending for the first time in years — and not because of pop star Ninet Tayeb, still the city’s most famous export.
City officials have leaned into the moment. Mayor Kfir Swisa publicly welcomed the deployment, telling residents the personnel were “received with open arms,” framing the center as both a security asset and an unexpected local boon. Senior U.S. officials have visited the site in quick succession, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said U.S. ambassador to Yemen Steven Fagin would oversee the civilian side of operations, while U..S Central Command’s Adm. Brad Cooper would handle the military track, including Hamas’s disarmament.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks alongside Steve Witkoff, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of the United States Central Command, and Jared Kushner, during a press conference following a military briefing at the Civilian Military Coordination Center in Kiryat Gat Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. (Nathan Howard for The New York Times)
During an interview on Channel 12’s current-affairs program, host Avri Gilad asked Swisa whether the arrival of the Americans had changed life in the city. Swisa replied that it “puts Kiryat Gat on the map,” adding that “now the Americans have also realized what many young Israelis already know” — that the city’s location near the cross-country Highway 6, its rail link, and its “rich cultural and sports scene” make it an appealing place to be.
Gilad cut in, “They didn’t come here for the sports life.” He went on to ask if there had been “any new love interests,” echoing online chatter about whether romances might bloom between U.S. soldiers and local women, before inquiring how many McDonald’s branches Kiryat Gat has.
“They haven’t asked for a hamburger yet,” Swisa said. “They’re enjoying the local Kiryat Gat food.”
US troops that are the core of Gaza implementation framework shopping near base inside Israel (Kiryat Gat).
VP @JDVance enroute for photo-op. But remote control Hamas disarmament is a longshot and beyond. Watch this space pic.twitter.com/PiX4vlrj1V
— Prof Gerald M Steinberg (@GeraldNGOM) October 21, 2025
The BIG shopping complex where the American soldiers have been spotted is in Carmei Gat, a neighborhood whose rapid growth prompted one mainstream Israeli newspaper to dub Kiryat Gat as the new capital of the Negev, overtaking Beersheba as the region’s commercial hub. A new housing agreement set to be signed later this week in the presence of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will add 21,000 apartments in Carmei Gat, doubling Kiryat Gat’s size and making it one of the 10 largest cities in Israel.
The neighborhood is also home to evacuees from Nir Oz, the Gaza envelope kibbutz that was relocated there after being attacked on Oct. 7. One convenience store owner, Shai Avisror, himself displaced from Kibbutz Zikim, said anyone arriving in uniform gets a free coffee or cold drink.
“Soldiers are the holy of holies,” he told one reporter, though it’s unclear if the same rule applies to the Americans.
School kids welcome residence of Nir Oz as they arrive at the temporary housing location in Kiryat Gat on Jan. 2, 2024. (Ilia Yefimovich/picture alliance via Getty Images)
Not everyone shared Swisa’s enthusiasm, with some residents warning that the American presence would endanger the city. “Until now it was relatively quiet here, and now we have become a strategic target,” one commenter wrote. Another wrote that the deployment would give “Hamas, Iran and the Houthis a reason to launch missiles” at the city, and advised homeowners to start selling apartments quickly because “Kiryat Gat is about to become Ofakim” — a reference to the Gaza envelope town that was attacked on Oct. 7. A third commented that while the city now boasted “a U.S. command center,” it still lacked “a cinema, a vehicle-testing station, a pub or even one good restaurant open on weekends.”
He added, “Thank God we are on Highway 6 and can get away fast.”
One commenter went further, alleging that the Americans were “FEMA soldiers” forming a multinational force that would eventually replace the IDF and police “in preparation for a single world government,” a conspiracy theory tied to claims about “Agenda 2030.”
Much of the commentary reflected a broader unease over who is now directing events in Gaza. One user warned that “the Americans are only the beginning,” predicting “an airlift of Turkish and Indonesian soldiers soon and God knows who else they’ve sold us to.” Referring to Netanyahu as “Trump’s prime minister,” one commenter tied the moment to the dispute over the haredi draft, writing that with ultra-Orthodox men refusing to enlist, “there’s no choice now but to bring in American reinforcements.”
Netanyahu has said he would not allow the deployment of Turkish troops in Gaza and insisted that Israel remains fully sovereign, telling his cabinet that it “does not seek anyone’s approval” for actions carried out there.
Critics say the Kiryat Gat command center reflects a mismatch between its stated purpose and Israel’s main security priorities, focusing on humanitarian coordination and ceasefire maintenance rather than disarmament and anti-smuggling operations. Meir Ben Shabbat, head of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy and a former national security adviser, wrote in the Israel Hayom daily that Israel “must eliminate the vagueness concerning headquarters and mediation and coordination entities” and explain what the center will actually contribute toward achieving Israel’s objectives in Gaza.
But for now, the relationship between the U.S. soldiers and their newly adopted city is still in a honeymoon period. An AI-generated video circulating on social media and shared by the city showed an American soldier speaking fluent Hebrew and praising Kiryat Gat’s “falafel, with tahina and amba — just delicious.”
—
The post US soldiers stationed in Kiryat Gat turn sleepy Israeli city into an unexpected hotspot appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Not a Jew With Trembling Knees’: US Rep. Randy Fine Claps Back After Qatar Issues Letter Condemning Lawmaker
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) leaves the US Capitol after the last votes of the week on Sept. 4, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
US Rep. Randy Fine, a Jewish Republican from Florida, on Monday indicated he has no intention of backing down after receiving a sharp repudiation from the Qatari embassy in Washington following remarks he made suggesting Qatar was funding unrest on American college campuses and posing a threat through Muslim fighter pilots training in the United States.
In the two-page letter, Qatar’s ambassador to Washington, Meshal Al Thani, accused Fine of making “observations about Qatar that are not accurate,” after the Florida Republican’s appearance on “Loomer Unleashed,” the podcast hosted by Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and ally of US President Donald Trump.
Fine reportedly claimed that Qatar “funds most of the institutions that are damaging” the United States and is “responsible for” anti-Israel protests on US campuses. The ambassador strongly denied those assertions, citing US intelligence reports and congressional testimony that found no evidence linking Qatar to antisemitic incidents or unrest at American universities.
“Qatar condemns antisemitism, and all forms of religious or ethnic intolerance,” Al Thani wrote.
The letter emphasized that most of Qatar’s financial contributions to American universities fund the operating costs of six branch campuses in Doha, not US-based programs, and claimed that the country ranks 35th among foreign donors to American universities, behind Thailand, with $312.5 million in gifts.
Various reports, however, have found that Qatar, which the US government has designated as a “major non-NATO ally,” has in total given billions of dollars to US universities.
In June, for example, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism Policy (ISGAP) released a study showing that Georgetown University has received over $1 billion in funding from the Qatari government over the last two decades.
ISGAP found in a previous report that, from 2014-2019, Qatar gave American universities a striking $2.7 billion in undocumented funds, topping its list of foreign countries.
Doha has reportedly poured nearly $6 billion into US universities since 1981, making it the largest Arab donor in American higher education. Just between 2023 and 2024, it donated $527 million.
US lawmakers have grown increasingly critical of Qatari donations to American universities, expressing concern that such funding could influence academic discourse, especially since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. Doha has backed the Palestinian terrorist group for years, providing Hamas with money and diplomatic support while hosting and sheltering its top leadership.
Beyond education, the Middle East Forum released its own report in May exposing the extent of Qatar’s far-reaching financial entanglements within American institutions, shedding light on what experts described as a coordinated effort to influence US policy making and public opinion in Doha’s favor. The findings showed that Qatar has attempted to expand its soft power in the US by spending $33.4 billion on business and real estate projects, over $6 billion on universities, and $72 million on American lobbyists since 2012.
Fine has also criticized the seemingly cozy relationship that Trump shares with Qatar, suggesting that the American leader has been too friendly to the monarchal country with deep ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
“Look, I trust President Trump’s judgment. And I think he has adopted the approach that by trying to embrace them, by trying to pull them and show them the benefits of working with America, he can get them to be a good actor on the world stage. But I am not a fan of Qatar. Let me be clear,” Fine said on “Loomer Unleashed.”
Trump has received criticism even from political allies regarding his relationship with and conduct toward Qatar. pointing to his highly controversial decision to accept a $400 million jet from the Qatari government.
Trump also raised eyebrows after allowing the Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, to board Air Force One on Friday. Trump and the Qatari royal were pictured smiling and jovially chatting aboard the aircraft after it landed for refueling at Al-Udeid Air Base, the largest US military base in the Middle East, on the way to Malaysia.
In the second page of the Qatari letter, the ambassador also addressed comments Fine made about Muslim fighter pilots training at a US Air Force base in Idaho, an arrangement Al Thani described as routine among American allies.
The ambassador added that Qatar’s F-15 purchases and training programs contribute “thousands of jobs” in the US defense sector and strengthen military cooperation between the two countries.
Al Thani further urged Fine to avoid conflating criticism of Qatar with fear of Muslims, noting that 3.5 million Muslims live in the United States — including 127,000 in Florida.
The letter closed on a diplomatic note, with Al Thani offering to answer any questions Fine might have about Qatar’s role as “an ally and friend of the United States,” referencing Qatar’s mediation in the Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release negotiated with US assistance.
The Algemeiner has reported in recent weeks about growing concern among Israel and other US allies in the Middle East that Qatar may use its influence to strengthen Hamas amid reconstruction efforts in Gaza.
Since entering the US Congress, Fine has established himself as an outspoken advocate for Israel and critic of Islam. Earlier this month, Fine posted online that “Dear of Islam is rational. Islamophobia is a lie.” He also wrote that Islam is not “compatible with American values” and has argued that radical Islam poses an existential threat to the United States and Jewish Americans in particular.
Uncategorized
British Airways breaks ties with Louis Theroux after interview with ‘Death to the IDF’ artist Bob Vylan
British Airways has dropped its sponsorship of documentarian Louis Theroux’s podcast following an interview with British punk musician Bobby Vylan where the artist defended his chants of “death, death to the IDF” at the Glastonbury music festival.
Following the band’s Glastonbury performance in June, the two members of Bob Vylan had their U.S. visas revoked by the State Department ahead of a planned tour this month. The BBC also said the livestream of the performance broke its guidelines because Bob Vylan’s chants could “fairly be characterised as antisemitic.”
Bob Vylan’s frontman, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, Theroux that he did not regret the chants during the interview.
“If I was to go on Glastonbury again tomorrow? Yeah, I would do it again. I’m not regretful of it,” said Vylan. “I’d do it again tomorrow, twice on Sundays. I’m not regretful of it at all. Like, the subsequent backlash that I’ve faced is minimal. It’s minimal compared to what people in Palestine are going through.”
Robinson-Foster also criticized a report by the Community Security Trust, British Jewry’s antisemitism watchdog, that found antisemitic incidents had spiked the day after Bob Vylan’s set, telling Theroux that it was unclear what the group was “counting as antisemitic.”
“I don’t think I have created an unsafe atmosphere for the Jewish community,” said Robinson-Foster. “If there were large numbers of people being like, going out and ‘Bob Vylan made me do this,’ then maybe I might go, woof, I’ve had a negative impact here. Again, in that report, what definition are they going by? We don’t know that.”
During the interview, Robinson-Foster also said that the “focus” should not have been placed on the “death to the IDF” chant, but rather “on the conditions that allow for that chant to exist.”
“Ultimately, the fight is against white supremacy, right?,” said Robinson-Foster. “That is what the fight is against. And I think white supremacy is displayed so vividly in Zionists.”
In response, Theroux replied, “They say we’re not white, we’re Jewish, right?”
Later, Theroux appeared to agree with Robinson-Foster’s assertion that the “Zionist movement and the war crimes being committed by Israel” should be viewed through the “lens of white supremacy.”
“I think I’d add to that, there’s an even more macro lens which you can put on it, which is that Jewish identity in the Jewish community, as expressed in Israel, has become almost like an acceptable quote, unquote, way of understanding ethno-nationalism,” said Theroux, later adding that “this sense of post-Holocaust Jewish exceptionalism or Zionist exceptionalism, has become a role model on the national stage for what these white identitarians would like to do in their own countries.”
Following the interview, Theroux drew criticism for failing to challenge Robinson-Foster’s defense of his chants during the interview.
“Louis Theroux has every right to interview whoever he wants, but with that right comes responsibility,” Jewish film producer Leo Pearlman told the British outlet Jewish News. “When you give a microphone to someone who proudly repeats a genocidal chant that played a part in inspiring attacks on Jews across Britain, you’re not probing hate, you’re amplifying it.”
Dave Rich, the head of policy at the Community Service Trust, wrote in a blog post that he had been distressed that Theroux did not note that Robinson-Foster had publicly undercut the idea that his chant of “death to the IDF” was not meant as a call to voice when he commented at another concert, “We are for an armed resistance. We wanna make that explicitly f–king clear.” Rich also criticized the decision to release the interview even after the attack on a Manchester, England, synagogue in which two people were killed on Yom Kippur.
“Theroux’s podcast was recorded before the Manchester attack, which he acknowledges in the introduction,” Rich wrote. “But they still went ahead and published it anyway, as if the death of two Jews due to an Israel-hating jihadist doesn’t change the context of an interview with someone who became famous for calling for death for Israelis.”
After the interview aired on Spotify last Friday, British Airways issued a statement to announce it had dropped its sponsorship of Theroux’s show.
“Our sponsorship of the series has now been paused and the advert has been removed,” the airline wrote in a statement shared with the British outlet Jewish News. “We’re grateful that this was brought to our attention, as the content clearly breaches our sponsorship policy in relation to politically sensitive or controversial subject matters.”
The episode follows the release, in April, of a documentary by Theroux titled “The Settlers” that served a searing portrayal of the far-right Israeli settler movement in the West Bank.
—
The post British Airways breaks ties with Louis Theroux after interview with ‘Death to the IDF’ artist Bob Vylan appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.