RSS
Don’t Believe the Lie That Israel Is ‘Banning’ Journalists From Gaza
Palestinians carry aid supplies which they received from the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, in the central Gaza Strip, May 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed/File Photo
Some 130 news outlets and advocacy groups objected this week to Israel’s (non-existent) “ban” on journalism in Gaza. When pressed, journalists tend to admit that they actually do have access — but then claim that access is too limited (limits which are actually required by international law). Further complaints include: that journalists are being killed in Gaza in record numbers (even though a combatant with a press card is not a journalist under international law) and that Israel cannot reliably investigate itself (even though almost every modern Western democracy does so). It’s high time for a reality check.
The first claim, which is as common as it is absurd, is that the world cannot possibly know what’s happening in Gaza because Israel won’t allow the press to enter.
Just a few of the press outlets that have repeatedly entered Gaza over the past 19 months of conflict include: CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX News, The BBC, The New York Times, France24 and many, many more.
When confronted with this inconvenient truth, journalists (or activists) typically pivot to arguing that this massive access simply “doesn’t count” because it requires an IDF escort. This second claim is equally absurd: not only because the journalist is bizarrely contradicting their earlier claim that the access doesn’t exist at all, but also because, just like every conflict in the modern era, allowing the press unrestricted access to a combat zone violates international law.
Article 79 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions requires that military forces must protect journalists in combat zones. Western countries that follow international law almost universally understand this to mean that journalists must be either embedded with military forces, or must follow specific security restrictions, in order that they may be protected in the manner that international law requires.
In contrast to disingenuous claims by the Foreign Press Association that Israel’s restrictions are “unprecedented,” similar restrictions were implemented by: the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan (2001–2021), the United Kingdom during its Iraq mission (2003-2009), Canada during its Afghanistan mission (2006–2014), France during Operation Serval in Mali (2013–2014), Germany under its Bundeswehr guidelines in Afghanistan (2002–2014), Italy during its Afghanistan and Iraq missions (2003–2014), Australia’s ADF rules in Afghanistan (2009–2013), Norway during its Afghanistan mission (2002–2014) and Ukraine during its current conflict with Russia.
In conflicts around the world, the press often complain that restricting access results in a sanitized view of the war zone: what amounts to no more than government controlled propaganda. Yet legal scholars have long pointed out that the present system of embedding is freer, better, and safer than any alternative that could be realistically possible in the real world.
Israel serves as a case-in-point: international coverage of Israel is not always favorable — in fact quite the contrary. Yet even journalists who harshly, unfairly, and sometimes even untruthfully criticize Israel, continue to not only find negative stories to report, but also continue to enjoy full access without retribution. If this is “propaganda,” then Israel is clearly not very good at it.
Another common criticism is that a “record number” of journalists have been killed in Gaza. Put aside that the figures provided by the Hamas terror organization out of Gaza are not entirely reliable, as well as the unfair assumption that everyone who dies in Gaza is killed by Israel (and never by Hamas).
Never mind that the math doesn’t work — even the exaggerated and unreliable claims against Israel are not actually “record breaking.” Finally, ignore the irony of a journalist complaining about the dangers in Gaza, while simultaneously objecting to IDF protection. Even if none of that were the case, there is another, even more fundamental issue at play — many local “journalists” in Gaza are also members of Hamas or other militarily active terror organizations that habitually engage in war crimes. In some cases, these “journalists” have held Israelis hostage in their private homes, subjecting them to starvation, torture and rape.
Under the same Article 79 (subsection 2), a journalist who engages in combat, either directly or by aiding enemy combatants, loses their “civilian” status and becomes a legitimate military target pursuant to Articles 43 and 44 of the Protocol. This exception to Article 79 is essential: because if a country could never attack actual enemy combatants simply because they happen to carry a press ID, then international law would have effectively outlawed self defense.
Finally, some journalists object that Israeli information regarding events in Gaza cannot be trusted because Israel “investigates itself” over potential war crimes.
Again, the premise is absurd: almost all modern Western democracies investigate their own militaries, including: the US Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID), the United Kingdom’s Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA) Canada’s Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) France’s Gendarmerie prévôtale (Prévôté) Norway’s Military Police (Militærpolitiet) and Germany’s Militärische Abschirmdienst (MAD).
Israel’s Military Advocate General (MAG) office has even more investigative independence than its international peers, because it exists outside of the military chain of command, reporting instead directly to the Attorney General: a level of independence almost unheard of in the modern world. Israel’s Attorney General, in turn, is a civilian position, and enjoys significant judicial protection against outside influences, even by the elected government itself.
Israel has a notoriously independent judicial system, a truth that came into the spotlight during the judicial reform protests of 2022-3. At the time, some Israelis argued that the judiciary’s enormous independence is excessive while others asserted that it is the correct amount, but there was no question that the level of judicial independence is quite a lot- – even compared to other countries.
Israel’s highly independent judiciary, which is often antagonistic toward its own government, has consistently ruled that the IDF’s policies (including those regarding journalist access to Gaza) comply with local and international law. In the rare cases where individual soldiers violate the IDF’s rules of conduct, Israel’s MAG and the wider judicial system have never been shy about bringing prosecutions, and where appropriate, criminal penalties as well.
In short, the major journalistic complaints against Israel appear to be: 1. that the IDF follows international law (even though some journalists seem to feel that international law shouldn’t apply to them); and 2. that Israel acts similarly to other modern, Western democracies when conducting and investigating military activities. In the world after October 7, 2023, which was the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, there are much greater criticisms to be made against much worse parties than a modern, Western democracy that follows international law.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Don’t Believe the Lie That Israel Is ‘Banning’ Journalists From Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
US Envoy Says Israel Should ‘Comply’ With Lebanon Plan to Disarm Hezbollah
US Ambassador to Turkey and US special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack speaks after meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, in Beirut, Lebanon July 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
Top US envoy Thomas Barrack said on Monday Israel should comply with a plan under which Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah would be disarmed by the end of the year in exchange for a halt to Israel‘s military operations in Lebanon.
The plan sets out a phased roadmap for armed groups to hand in their arsenals as Israel‘s military halts ground, air, and sea operations and withdraws troops from Lebanon‘s south.
Lebanon‘s cabinet approved the plan‘s objectives earlier this month despite Iran-backed Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm, and Barrack said it was now Israel‘s turn to cooperate.
“There’s always a step-by-step approach, but I think the Lebanese government has done their part. They’ve taken the first step. Now what we need is Israel to comply with that equal handshake,” Barrack told reporters in Lebanon after meeting Lebanese President Joseph Aoun.
Barrack described the cabinet decree as a “Lebanese decision that requires Israel‘s cooperation” and said the United States was “in the process of now discussing with Israel what their position is” but provided no further details.
Under phase 1 of the plan, which was seen by Reuters, the Lebanese government would issue a decision committing to Hezbollah’s full disarmament by the end of the year and Israel would cease military operations in Lebanese territory.
But Israel has continued strikes against Lebanon in the weeks since the cabinet approved the plan.
In a written statement after his meeting with Barrack, Aoun said that “other parties” now needed to commit to the roadmap’s contents.
Calls for Hezbollah to disarm have mounted since a war with Israel last year killed 5,000 of the group’s fighters and much of its top brass and left swathes of southern Lebanon in ruins.
But the group has resisted the pressure, refusing to discuss its arsenal until Israel ends its strikes and withdraws troops from southern Lebanon.
On Friday, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem raised the specter of civil war, warning there would be “no life” in Lebanon should the state attempt to confront or eliminate the group.
RSS
Hamas Accepts Proposed Deal for Ceasefire With Israel and Hostage Release, Egyptian Source Says
A displaced Palestinian man fleeing northern Gaza gestures atop a vehicle loaded with belongings while he heads south as the Israeli military prepares to relocate residents to the southern part of the enclave, in Gaza City, Aug. 18, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mahmoud Issa
Hamas has accepted the latest proposal for a 60-day ceasefire with Israel that includes the return of half the hostages the terrorist group holds in Gaza and Israel‘s release of some Palestinian prisoners, an Egyptian official source said on Monday.
Senior Hamas official Basem Naim wrote on Facebook: “The movement has handed over its approval to the new proposal presented by the mediators.”
There was no immediate response from Israel.
The Egyptian official source said the latest proposal included a suspension of Israeli military operations for 60 days and a path to a comprehensive deal to end the nearly two-year war.
A source familiar with the matter said the proposal was nearly identical to one put forward previously by US special envoy Steve Witkoff, which Israel had accepted.
Israel‘s plans to seize control of Gaza City have stirred alarm abroad and at home where tens of thousands of Israelis on Sunday held some of the largest protests since the war began, urging a deal to end the fighting and free the remaining 50 hostages held in Gaza since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023. Israeli officials believe 20 are alive.
The planned offensive has spurred Egyptian and Qatari ceasefire mediators to step up efforts to forge a deal.
Thousands of Palestinians fearing an imminent Israeli ground offensive have left their homes in eastern areas of Gaza City, now under Israeli bombardment, for points to the west and south in the shattered territory.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described Gaza City as Hamas‘s last big urban bastion. But, with Israel already holding 75 percent of Gaza, the military has warned that expanding the offensive could endanger hostages still alive and draw troops into protracted and deadly guerrilla warfare.
Dani Miran, whose son Omri was taken hostage on Oct. 7, said he feared the consequences of an Israeli ground offensive in Gaza City. “I’m scared that my son would be hurt,” he told Reuters in Tel Aviv on Monday.
In Gaza City, many Palestinians have also been calling for protests to demand an end to a war that has demolished much of the territory, and for Hamas to intensify talks to avert the Israeli ground offensive.
An Israeli armored incursion into Gaza City could displace hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom have been uprooted multiple times during the war.
Ahmed Mheisen, Palestinian shelter manager in Beit Lahiya, a war-devastated suburb abutting eastern Gaza City, said 995 families had departed the area in recent days for the south.
A protest by unions is scheduled for Thursday in Gaza City, and people took to social media platforms vowing to participate, which will raise pressure on Hamas.
DIPLOMATIC DEADLOCK
The last round of indirect ceasefire talks ended in deadlock in late July with the sides trading blame for its collapse. Israel and the US both recalled their negotiators from the talks in Qatar, with Witkoff saying at the time that Hamas had not been acting in good faith and “clearly shows a lack of desire” to reach a deal.
Israel says it will agree to cease hostilities if all the hostages are released and Hamas lays down its arms – the latter demand publicly rejected by the Islamist group until a Palestinian state is established.
A Hamas official told Reuters earlier on Monday the terrorist group rejects Israeli demands to disarm or expel its leaders from Gaza.
Sharp differences also appear to remain over the extent of an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and how humanitarian aid will be delivered around the enclave.
US President Donald Trump wrote on his social media platform on Monday: “We will only see the return of the remaining hostages when Hamas is confronted and destroyed!!! The sooner this takes place, the better the chances of success will be.”
On Saturday, the Israeli military said it was preparing to help equip Gazans with tents and other shelter equipment ahead of relocating them from combat zones to the south of the enclave. It did not provide further details on quantities or how long it would take to get the equipment into the enclave.
The war began when Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists stormed across the border into southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing power in the enclave.
RSS
The Sacred and the Subverted: Resisting the Weaponization of Faith Against Israel’s Right to Exist
Tucker Carlson speaks on July 18, 2024 during the final day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo: Jasper Colt-USA TODAY via Reuters Connect
In a world that is increasingly polarized, few tactics are as dangerous as the deliberate perversion of sacred texts to undermine legitimate national existence and justify political agendas.
This disturbing trend is particularly evident in the ongoing efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel, often leveraging the Christian faith to do so. From the outright fabrications peddled by figures like Nun Agapia to certain theological interpretations that inadvertently — or even directly — question Israel’s very foundations, this campaign demands a robust and principled counter-argument. It’s time to expose how the Christian faith is being weaponized, not only by outright anti-Zionists, but sometimes even by those within the Church who, perhaps unintentionally, give succor to such narratives.
Consider the recent spectacle of Orthodox Nun Agapia Stephanopoulos on Tucker Carlson’s program.
Dressed in the robes of spiritual authority, she spun a narrative rife with historical falsehoods and theological distortions. Her claims of Palestinians as unique “Canaanite descendants” and the “first Christians” are not merely inaccurate; they are calculated fabrications designed to strip away the millennia-long, unbroken Jewish connection to the Land of Israel.
This narrative isn’t about historical truth; it’s about manufacturing a theological supersessionism, implying that Christian claims somehow negate or outweigh Jewish indigeneity and self-determination in their ancestral homeland. This is weaponization: taking a faith tradition and twisting its tenets to serve an overtly political, anti-Zionist agenda.
This problematic trend extends to how some Christian scholars interpret Biblical texts in the context of the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Take, for instance, Father David Neuhaus, a German-Israeli Jesuit priest, in his recent L’Osservatore Romano article, “Leggere la Bibbia dopo la distruzione di Gaza.”
Father Neuhaus grapples with the agonizing question of how Christians should read Biblical passages that speak of conquest or judgment. He specifically criticizes the use of texts like Deuteronomy 20:16-17 or the Amalek passage by figures like David Ben-Gurion and Benjamin Netanyahu, asserting they constitute a “dangerous biblicism” that can “promote war and hatred” and legitimize military actions or dispossession.
While Father Neuhaus’s Christian conscience may lead him to question certain interpretations, his critique, by linking Israeli leaders’ use of Biblical references to concepts of “dispossession” and “dangerous biblicism,” unwittingly feeds into narratives that undermine Israel’s historical and theological legitimacy. It implies that the deep, covenantal bond between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, as understood and articulated by Jewish leaders, is somehow problematic or even a misuse of scripture when applied to modern national self-determination.
Such a perspective risks placing a Christian lens above Jewish self-understanding of their own foundational texts and national aspirations. It fails to adequately distinguish between modern political actions and the millennia-old, unbroken spiritual, and historical claim of the Jewish people to their homeland, a claim rooted in the very same Biblical narratives.
The core issue isn’t whether modern nations should live by ancient laws of war, which they clearly do not. It’s the implicit suggestion that a Jewish understanding of their historical and Biblical ties to the land, expressed by their leaders, is inherently “dangerous” when it pertains to their national rebirth and defense. This interpretation, while perhaps well-intentioned from a Christian perspective, can inadvertently echo the very arguments used by those who seek to deny Israel’s fundamental right to exist. It opens the door for anti-Zionist Christian movements to further weaponize their faith by claiming that Israel’s very existence, particularly its defense of its borders, is somehow contrary to divine will or proper Biblical understanding.
These anti-Zionist groups employ a perverse form of “replacement theology” — often cloaked in social justice rhetoric — that argues the Church has superseded the Jewish people, thereby nullifying God’s covenant with Israel and, by extension, its modern re-establishment. They take the nuanced, often challenging, Biblical narrative of a particular people’s covenant and twist it into a universalistic dismissal of Jewish national aspirations. They don’t merely critique Israeli policies; they systematically dismantle the theological foundations for Israel’s legitimacy in the eyes of their Christian followers.
The implications for societies and interfaith relations are dire. This weaponization of Christian faith fosters deep distrust between Jews and Christians, undermining decades of good-faith interfaith dialogue. It provides moral cover for those who advocate for Israel’s dismantling, transforming political animosity into a religiously sanctioned imperative. It emboldens antisemitism by clothing ancient prejudices in modern theological language, painting Jews as occupiers or oppressors defying divine will. And it deeply wounds the vast majority of Christians worldwide who stand in genuine solidarity with Israel, recognizing its historical, Biblical, and democratic significance.
For all who value truth, justice, and the integrity of faith, the task ahead is clear and urgent. There must be an unequivocal rejection of the ideological hijacking of sacred texts for political ends, whether those ends are to deny national self-determination or to demonize a nation. It is crucial to firmly challenge interpretations, even from well-meaning scholars, that inadvertently undermine the Jewish people’s unique and enduring connection to their land. The sacred bond between the Jewish people and their land, affirmed throughout scripture, must be understood and respected on its own terms. The Christian faith, at its best, is a source of profound love, compassion, and reconciliation. It must never be perverted into a destructive force, manipulated to deny the legitimate aspirations and very existence of the Jewish State.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx