Uncategorized
Wikipedia’s Information Intifada
Nuseir Yassin, of “Nas Daily” fame. Photo: Screenshot.
Wikipedia describes itself as “a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” guided by a “neutral point of view” and built on “verifiable, reliable sources.”
It aspires to collect and disseminate “the sum of all human knowledge.” That promise — open, collaborative, neutral — is what gives it authority. It is also what makes the erosion of that neutrality so consequential.
In many fields, Wikipedia muddles along imperfectly but credibly.
On Israel and Jewish history — and other politically charged flashpoints — the claim of neutrality collapses under scrutiny.
The problem is not criticism. Democratic states invite criticism. The problem is structural asymmetry: highly motivated ideological editors, operating fluently within Wikipedia’s rules, steadily tilt the terrain while insisting it remains level.
The recent episode involving Nas Daily and its creator, Nuseir Yassin, offered a public glimpse into how this works.
In a Facebook video, Yassin — who has more than 70 million followers — described how a small group of anonymous editors reshaped his Wikipedia biography after he became more vocal in condemning Hamas and advocating peace with Israel.
Because he is an Israeli Arab increasingly viewed as “too positive on Israel,” edits were inserted reframing an otherwise positive biography in a sharply negative light. Attempts to revise what he characterized as inaccuracies were reverted. The page was eventually locked with the disputed edits intact. What prevailed was not neutral adjudication but persistence — who could marshal citations that satisfied Wikipedia’s sourcing hierarchy and outlast opponents in procedural trench warfare?
If a globally recognized public figure can watch his biography bend in real time, what chance does a small state with barely one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population have when the same machinery turns against it?
Spend time on major entries — Zionism, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Apartheid, Gaza genocide accusation — and a pattern emerges.
Zionism, the modern national movement of the Jewish people, is framed primarily through the lens of European settler colonialism, despite the historical record that Jewish religious, linguistic, cultural, and legal traditions originated in the Land of Israel and that Jewish communities maintained a continuous presence there for millennia. The indigenous dimension is acknowledged but subordinated to colonial terminology as the dominant interpretive frame.
The term “apartheid” appears not simply as an allegation advanced by bitterly biased activists, but in ways that blur the line between advocacy and adjudicated legal finding — even though no international court has determined that Israel constitutes an apartheid state, and the application of the 1973 Apartheid Convention remains disputed.
Strikingly, Wikipedia rarely situates the term within a regional context where gender-based legal discrimination, religious supremacy, and criminalization of apostasy are codified in the laws of multiple Arab states
Across much of the Middle East, women inherit half of what men inherit under formal legal systems, religious minorities face structural discrimination, and conversion away from Islam can carry legal penalties. In Wikipedia, this entrenched hierarchy seldom anchors discussions of “apartheid.” The label is reserved almost exclusively for the region’s lone Jewish state.
Most jarring is the treatment of “genocide.” The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such.
That specific intent requirement is central. Allegations that Israel’s war against Hamas constitutes genocide hinge on proving an intent to destroy Palestinian Arabs as a group. Israel’s conduct during the war — including advance warnings to civilians, establishment of humanitarian corridors, facilitation of aid deliveries, and coordination of a 2024 polio vaccination campaign reaching more than one million Gazans — certainly complicates (really, eviscerates) any claim of group-destruction intent. Yet across Wikipedia entries, “genocide” often appears less as a contested legal allegation and more as an emerging consensus. The definitional threshold recedes, activist language advances.
Other examples are more granular but telling. On the Zionism page, the movement’s 19th-century articulation by Theodor Herzl as Jewish self-determination in a historic homeland is juxtaposed with colonial analogies implying foreign implantation, despite the First Zionist Congress (1897) explicitly defining its aim as establishing a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel.
On the Hamas Charter entry, the organization’s 1988 covenant — which calls for Israel’s destruction and invokes many antisemitic conspiracy tropes — is summarized, but its eliminationist doctrine is softened by emphasis on a 2017 political document that did not recognize Israel’s legitimacy and that Hamas leaders have not treated as superseding their foundational objective.
This is not accidental drift. Research on Wikipedia governance shows how a relatively small number of highly active editors can dominate contentious areas. Policies emphasizing consensus and “reliable sourcing” can be navigated — and exploited — by organized activists. Advocacy NGOs are cited as authoritative. Broader context is dismissed as “undue weight.” Editors who resist face procedural attrition. Over time, ideological stamina begins to resemble institutional authority.
Conflicts are fought with narratives as much as weapons.
On Wikipedia, narrative compression is visible. A Mideast century shaped by Ottoman collapse, British administration, the 1937 Peel Commission proposal, the 1947 UN Partition Plan and its rejection by Arab leadership, and multiple interstate wars is flattened into a morality tale with a single Jewish aggressor.
Meanwhile, uncomfortable chapters of Palestinian Arab political history receive less narrative gravity.
Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, met Adolf Hitler in Berlin in November 1941, lived in Germany during the war, broadcast pro-Nazi propaganda in Arabic, and recruited Muslims for Waffen-SS units in the Balkans. These ideological crosscurrents between European fascism and segments of Arab nationalist and later Islamist movements are historical facts. They are acknowledged on Wikipedia. But they are rarely treated as structurally significant.
Similarly, Hamas’ founding charter invokes hadiths about killing Jews and frames its struggle in explicitly religious and eliminationist terms. Those elements are central to understanding the conflict. Yet they occupy less narrative weight than allegations leveled against Israel.
Wikipedia’s defenders argue that it merely reflects “reliable sources.” But source designation itself is political.
Wikipedia considers outlets like Al Jazeera — funded by the Qatari state — generally reliable for news reporting, while treating some US outlets, including Fox News, as generally unreliable for factual claims outside opinion content. When advocacy organizations are elevated and contextual scholarship is marginalized, neutrality becomes branding rather than practice. Wikipedia does not invent accusations; it curates them. Curation is power.
The consequences extend far beyond one website. Wikipedia is often the first stop for students, journalists, diplomats, and policymakers. Artificial intelligence systems ingest its summaries as baseline knowledge. When framing tilts there, the tilt does not dissipate; it amplifies.
History offers reminders. Medieval blood libels were recorded as fact before they became pretexts for violence. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion circulated as documentary evidence before it was exposed as fabrication. Both were dressed in the language of scholarship. Both hardened into assumed truth before they cracked.
Racist distortion rarely arrives announcing itself. It condenses quietly.
This is not a plea to shield Israel from criticism. It is a warning about structural asymmetry — and a call to stop treating Wikipedia as a neutral authority until it confronts and corrects its institutional failures. When Jewish indigeneity is minimized, when eliminationist ideologies are relegated to footnotes, and when grave legal terms are repurposed as political weapons, neutrality has already been compromised.
Neutrality is not a branding exercise. It is a discipline that requires enforcement, transparency, and accountability. If Wikipedia cannot uphold that discipline in politically charged domains, then universities, media outlets, policymakers, technology companies, and researchers should stop defaulting to it as an authoritative source.
Conventional wisdom is formed in real time on its pages. If those who value intellectual integrity continue to outsource their baseline knowledge to a system structurally vulnerable to ideological capture, they become complicit in the distortion. Wikipedia reform must precede Wikipedia reliance.
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, and Jewish history. He serves on the board of Herut North America.
Uncategorized
Israel Warns Lebanon of Strikes if Hezbollah Enters Any US-Iran War, Lebanese Officials Say
A man works on an electric pole next to a damaged building, in the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Friday, in Tamnine el Tahta, Bekaa valley, Lebanon, Feb. 21, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Israel has warned Lebanon that it would strike the country hard, targeting civilian infrastructure including the airport, in the event that Hezbollah gets involved in any US-Iran war, two senior Lebanese officials said on Tuesday.
The Lebanese officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Israeli message was delivered indirectly. The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Lebanese presidency did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Iran and the US will hold a third round of nuclear talks on Thursday in Geneva, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on Sunday, amid growing concerns about the risk of military conflict.
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, whose government has sought the disarmament of Iran-backed Hezbollah since taking office a year ago, urged the terrorist group not to take Lebanon into “another adventure,” speaking in a newspaper interview published on Tuesday.
Israel dealt heavy blows to Hezbollah during a war in 2024, killing its leader Hassan Nasrallah along with thousands of its fighters and destroying much of its arsenal.
Shi’ite Muslim Hezbollah was established by Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards in 1982.
Hezbollah‘s new leader Naim Qassem said in a televised address last month that the group was “not neutral” in the standoff between Washington and Tehran, and that it was “targeted by the potential aggression.”
“We are determined to defend ourselves. We will choose in due course how to act, whether to intervene or not,” Qassem said.
Hezbollah‘s last war with Israel began after it opened fire in solidarity with its Palestinian ally Hamas at the start of the Gaza conflict in 2023, prompting months of cross-border fighting before Israel mounted its devastating offensive.
PM SALAM WARNS HEZBOLLAH AGAINST ‘ANOTHER ADVENTURE’
“The Gaza adventure imposed a big cost on Lebanon. We hope that we will not be dragged into another adventure,” Salam told Nida al-Watan newspaper in the interview published on Tuesday.
The US State Department is pulling out non-essential government personnel and their eligible family members from the US embassy in Beirut, a senior State Department official said on Monday.
Since a US-backed ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon in 2024, Israel has carried out regular strikes against what it has identified as Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, accusing the group of seeking to rearm.
Israeli strikes have killed around 400 people in Lebanon since the ceasefire, according to a Lebanese toll.
Hezbollah says it has respected the ceasefire in southern Lebanon. In January, the US-backed Lebanese army said it had established operational control over the south, in line with the objective of establishing a monopoly on arms.
Israel said the effort was an encouraging beginning but far from sufficient.
Uncategorized
EU Memo Raises Security Concerns Over Mass Escape From Islamic State-Linked Syria Camp
Members of the Syrian government security forces stand guard as a group of female detainees gather at al-Hol camp after the government took control of it following the withdrawal of Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), in Hasaka, Syria, Jan. 21, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
An EU internal memo has raised security concerns about the escape of thousands of people from a detention camp holding relatives of suspected Islamic State fighters in northeastern Syria, suggesting terrorist groups could recruit from them.
The memo, sent from the Cyprus presidency of the Council of the European Union to member states and dated Feb. 23, said the status of third-country nationals who had fled the camp at al-Hol remained unclear and that it was reported that a majority of them had escaped.
“This raises concerns about how terrorist groups might seek to capitalize on the current situation to increase recruitment efforts among escapees,” said the memo, which was reviewed by Reuters.
PRISONERS INCLUDED THOUSANDS OF FOREIGNERS
Al-Hol, near the Iraqi border, was one of the main detention camps for relatives of suspected Islamic State fighters who were detained during the US-backed campaign against the jihadist group in Syria.
Control of the camp changed hands in January, when Syrian government forces under President Ahmed al-Sharaa drove the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces from the area.
The SDF had guarded the facility for years.
The camp‘s population was 23,407 people the day before the government takeover, including 6,280 foreigners from more than 40 nationalities, Reuters reported last week, citing official data from the camp.
The US military said on Feb. 13 it had completed a mission to transfer 5,700 adult male Islamic State fighters from jails in Syria to Iraq. It had originally said up to 7,000 prisoners could eventually be transferred. The EU memo noted that the initial target was not met.
‘CHAOTIC TAKEOVER‘
In a section entitled “Security concerns stemming from the evolving situation in northeast Syria,” the EU memo said the “chaotic takeover led to the collapse of security and services in the al-Hol camp, triggering the escape of a significant portion of its population.”
The UN refugee agency in Syria and the Syrian government “have confirmed that an uncontrolled exodus has occurred over the past few weeks,” it added.
Damascus has accused the SDF of withdrawing from al-Hol on Jan. 20 without any coordination. The SDF has said its forces had been “compelled” to withdraw from the camp to areas surrounding cities which it said were under threat.
A Syrian government security source told Reuters last week that the security authorities, working in cooperation with international partners, had established a unit to “pursue those who are wanted.”
The SDF had guarded prisons holding thousands of Islamic State militants in northeast Syria, in addition to al-Hol and a second camp at Roj, which also holds relatives of suspected jihadists.
The EU memo said the capacity of Damascus “to manage these facilities is assessed as limited and facing significant operational challenges.” It noted that the government’s stated intent to gradually phase out al-Hol camp had “been overtaken by recent events, which raise grave security concerns.”
The EU memo said that al-Hol and Roj camps were hosting around 25,000 people, primarily women and children, “with many of these being highly radicalized and living in degrading humanitarian and security conditions.”
Roj camp remains under the control of the SDF for now.
Last week, the SDF released 34 Australian nationals from Roj, only for them to return later. The Australian government has ruled out helping families of IS terrorists return home. Roj is also home to British-born Shamima Begum.
The EU memo said there was “reason for concern regarding the possible escape of families” from Roj once the Syrian government takes control.
Syria‘s Information Ministry and the US Central Command did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The memo came amid an uptick of Islamic State violence in Syria.
Islamic State terrorists killed four Syrian government security personnel in northern Syria on Monday, the Syrian state news agency reported, in what would be the group’s deadliest attack on government forces since the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad.
The assault on a checkpoint west of Raqqa city underlined an escalation in attacks by the jihadist group against President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s government, two days after the jihadist group declared “a new phase of operations” against it.
Islamic State issued no immediate claim of responsibility for Monday’s attack. On Saturday, the group claimed two attacks targeting Syrian army personnel in northern and eastern Syria, in which a Syrian soldier and a civilian were killed.
The Syrian state news agency said forces foiled Monday’s attack and killed one of the militants. It quoted a security source as saying Islamic State carried out the attack.
The terrorist group, however, only claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a separate attack on an army headquarters in the city of Mayadin in Deir al-Zor in eastern Syria that killed one soldier.
The group had carried out an attack in the same city days earlier.
The Syrian government joined the US-led coalition to combat Islamic State last year. In January, government forces seized control of Raqqa from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, along with much of the surrounding territory in northern and eastern Syria.
Meanwhile, US forces on Monday began withdrawing from their largest military base in the northeast, according to three Syrian military and security sources – part of a broader pullout of US troops who deployed to Syria a decade ago to fight Islamic State.
Uncategorized
Iran Nears Deal to Buy Supersonic Anti-Ship Missiles From China
An Iranian newspaper with a cover photo of an Iranian missile, in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 19, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Iran is close to a deal with China to purchase anti‑ship cruise missiles, according to six people with knowledge of the negotiations, just as the United States deploys a vast naval force near the Iranian coast ahead of possible strikes on the Islamic Republic.
The deal for the Chinese‑made CM‑302 missiles is near completion, though no delivery date has been agreed, the people said. The supersonic missiles have a range of about 290 kilometers and are designed to evade shipborne defenses by flying low and fast. Their deployment would significantly enhance Iran’s strike capabilities and pose a threat to US naval forces in the region, two weapons experts said.
Negotiations with China to buy the missile weapons systems, which began at least two years ago, accelerated sharply after the 12‑day war between Israel and Iran in June, according to the six people with knowledge of the talks, including three officials who were briefed by the Iranian government as well as three security officials. As talks entered their final stages last summer, senior Iranian military and government officials traveled to China, including Massoud Oraei, Iran’s deputy defense minister, according to two of the security officials. Oraei’s visit has not been previously reported.
“It’s a complete gamechanger if Iran has supersonic capability to attack ships in the area,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence officer and now senior Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies think tank. “These missiles are very difficult to intercept.”
Reuters could not determine how many missiles were involved in the potential deal, how much Iran had agreed to pay, or whether China would go through with the agreement now given heightened tensions in the region.
“Iran has military and security agreements with its allies, and now is an appropriate time to make use of these agreements,” an Iranian foreign ministry official told Reuters.
In a comment sent after publication, China‘s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was not aware of the talks about a potential missile sale that Reuters had reported. China‘s defense ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
The White House did not directly address the negotiations between Iran and China over the missile system when asked by Reuters. US President Donald Trump has been clear that “either we will make a deal or we will have to do something very tough like last time,” a White House official said, referring to the current standoff with Iran.
The missiles would be among the most advanced military hardware to be transferred to Iran by China and defy a United Nations weapons embargo that was first imposed in 2006. The sanctions were suspended in 2015 as part of a nuclear deal with the US and allies, and then reimposed last September.
US FORCES GATHERING NEAR IRAN
The potential sale would underscore deepening military ties between China and Iran at a moment of heightened regional tension, complicating US efforts to contain Iran’s missile program and curb its nuclear activities. It would also signal China’s growing willingness to assert itself in a region long dominated by US military might.
China, Iran, and Russia hold annual joint naval exercises, and last year the US Treasury Department sanctioned several Chinese entities for supplying chemical precursors to Iran‘s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for use in its ballistic missile program. China rejected those allegations, saying it was unaware of the cases cited in the sanctions and that it strictly enforces export controls on dual-use products.
While hosting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for a military parade in Beijing in September, Chinese President Xi Jinping told the Iranian leader that “China supports Iran in safeguarding sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national dignity.”
China joined Russia and Iran in a joint letter on Oct. 18 to say they believed the decision to reimpose sanctions was flawed.
“Iran has become a battlefield between the US” on one side and Russia and China on the other, said one of the officials who was briefed by Iran’s government on the missile negotiations.
The deal comes as the US assembles an armada within striking distance of Iran, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group. The USS Gerald R. Ford and its escorts are also heading to the region. The two ships together can carry more than 5,000 personnel and 150 aircraft.
“China does not want to see a pro-Western regime in Iran,” said Citrinowicz, the Israeli specialist on Iran. “That would be a threat to their interests. They are hoping that this regime will stay.”
Trump said on Feb. 19 he was giving Iran 10 days to reach an agreement over its nuclear program or face military action. The US is preparing for the possibility of sustained, weeks-long operations against Iran if Trump orders an attack, Reuters reported on Feb. 13.
A DEPLETED ARSENAL
The CM-302 purchase would be a significant improvement in an Iranian arsenal depleted by last year’s war, said Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
China’s state-owned China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) markets the CM-302 as the world’s best anti–ship missile, capable of sinking an aircraft carrier or destroyer. The weapons system can be mounted on ships, aircraft, or mobile ground vehicles. It can also take out targets on land.
CASIC did not respond to a request for comment.
Iran is also in discussions to acquire Chinese surface‑to‑air missile systems, so-called MANPADS, anti‑ballistic weapons, and anti-satellite weapons, the six people said.
China was a major arms supplier to Iran in the 1980s, but large‑scale weapons transfers dwindled by the late 1990s under international pressure. In recent years, US officials have accused Chinese companies of providing missile-related materials to Iran but have not publicly accused it of supplying complete missile systems.