Connect with us

RSS

How Israel Lost a Battle to Al Jazeera — and How It Must Do Better Next Time

The Al Jazeera Media Network logo is seen on its headquarters building in Doha, Qatar, June 8, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon

If you are going to kill someone famous, be prepared to justify your actions.

On July 31, an Israeli airstrike killed Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul along with his cameraman and a 17-year-old bystander. The strike came in broad daylight, and footage of al-Ghoul’s decapitated body began to circulate on social media. A wave of stories reported the death of another journalist in Gaza. The Israeli military had no comment.

The next day, the IDF released a statement on social media asserting that Ghoul was a Hamas military operative and part of the Nukhba force that carried out the October 7 massacre.

Surging global media coverage took note of the Israeli statement, but its emphasis remained on the tragic death of a young reporter who left behind a widow and one-year-old daughter. After two additional days, the IDF returned to social media, posting an image of a captured Hamas spreadsheet from 2021 that identified Ghoul as an operative, along with his rank, specialty, and official ID numbers. But the news cycle had moved on.

If the story ended there, the lesson would be straightforward: The IDF should have a dossier of declassified intelligence ready to publicize the moment it strikes a Hamas terrorist with a high-profile civilian day job.

Yet in the case of Ismail al-Ghoul, it is not classified documents, but his own social media posts that provide much of the relevant information about his attachment to Hamas.

The journalists who covered Ghoul’s demise clearly did not conduct basic due diligence. Yet the IDF shares responsibility; Israeli intelligence should pay close attention to its targets’ social media activity.

The first clue that Ghoul’s social media deserved closer scrutiny was his decision to open a series of new accounts — and delete or suspend the old ones — shortly after he began working for Al Jazeera during the first weeks of the fighting in Gaza. He created a new Instagram account in November, as well as a new Telegram channel. Next came a new Facebook page in December, and a second new page in January. That same month, he launched two new X accounts and one on TikTok. In February, he launched another Telegram channel.

The names of these new accounts incorporated some version of Ghoul’s name along with the number two, suggesting they were successors to an earlier account.

For example, he chose “ismail_gh2” as the handle for both his Instagram account and one of the two on X. The former now has more than 650,000 followers, while the latter has more than 100,000. One of the two Facebook pages has another half million followers while more than 45,000 users follow him on Telegram. If nothing else, this should have made it clear to the IDF that they were dealing with a target whose death could have a major political impact.

Although Ghoul disabled his original account on X, most of its contents remain available thanks to the Internet Archive.

Eitan Fischberger, an Israel army veteran turned media analyst, examined Ghoul’s posts in March. In a post from April 2020, the second month of the Covid-19 pandemic, Ghoul opined that the real disease is “the Israeli entity and every Arab trying to normalize it,” adding the hashtag #COVID48, a reference to the year of Israel’s founding.

In July of that year, Ghoul tweeted a graphic celebrating young Palestinians’ use of “alternative tools” against Israelis: knives, axes, rocks, and Molotov cocktails.

Yet the most important piece of information to glean from Ghoul’s old X account is the fact that he previously worked for two other media outlets — Felesteen and al-Resalah — both aligned with Hamas.

Felesteen debuted in May 2007, becoming Palestinians’ fifth daily newspaper. Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader recently assassinated in Iran, spoke at a pre-launch reception for Felesteen. An interview with Haniyeh was the centerpiece of its first edition. The Associated Press, which covered the publication’s debut, described it as “a 24-page newspaper catering largely to Hamas supporters and seen as an attempt by the Islamic militant group to increase its influence.”

The precise nature of Ghoul’s work at Felesteen and al-Resalah is not clear; his name does not appear on old bylines. Yet both publications lionize Hamas.

In a brief article on August 7, 2024, al-Resalah reported the selection of Yahya Sinwar as Hamas’ new leader while noting the “brave, wise, and open-minded leadership” of Ismail Haniyeh, Sinwar’s late predecessor. During his time at al-Resalah, Ghoul said an Israeli soldier shot him, injuring his hand with shrapnel, while he was covering protests at the Gaza-Israel border in 2018.

Despite Ghoul’s reinvention of his social media presence during the current war, he chose to leave intact his personal Facebook profile, which remains public. The clearest indication of his disposition toward Hamas is a photo he posted in 2021, showing Yahya Sinwar sitting defiantly in the ruins of his Gaza home.

Ghoul said of Sinwar, “May Allah protect you.” Ghoul also left no doubt that he celebrated violence. In September 2023, he reposted another well-known image, this one of Palestinian teenager Basel al-Shawamrah, who stabbed two Israelis outside the Jerusalem Central Bus station. A photographer captured Shawamra grinning contentedly while lying on a stretcher after he was shot. Ghoul captioned the photo “The Smile of Victory.” On numerous occasions, Ghoul shared photos of rocket fire from Gaza, calling the rockets “the pride of local industry.”

According to the IDF, two of Ghoul’s cousins were also Hamas operatives. In February, the IDF announced the death of Ahmed al-Ghoul, commander of the Shati Battalion, “who participated in the massacre on October 7” and later held one of the Israeli hostages, Cpl. Noa Marciano, whose remains were later found near al-Shifa hospital.

In May, a second announcement reported the death of Naim al-Ghoul, a fighter in the Shati Battalion, who also held Marciano before her death. Ismail al-Ghoul posted photos of himself at his cousin’s funeral, shovel in hand, wearing a blue flak jacket displaying the English word “PRESS” in large capital letters. Ghoul described his cousin as “a man of humanity who continued to perform his humanitarian duty sincerely.”

One source of support Ghoul could rely on was his wife, who posted many verses in honor of Hamas’ military wing, the Qassam Brigades.

During the clash the IDF calls Operation Protective Edge, she wrote to the Qassam fighters, “May God protect you, make you steadfast and be with you.” Above a photo of a Palestinian fighter she posted, “Fire your guns, don’t be merciful.” Her timeline also includes commemorations of fighters such as Yahya Ayyash, the bombmaker who equipped many suicide operatives in the 1990s.

She also denounced Palestinians who reject Hamas as agents of the Jews. Above a photo of Jews dancing in Jerusalem on the anniversary of the IDF’s reclaiming the city in 1967, Ghoul’s wife lamented, “Is there a more hideous sight than this?”

None of this material on Facebook amounts to evidence that Ghoul was a Hamas military operative. Nor do expressions of support for Hamas, nor even justifications of its violence, render Ghoul a legitimate military target. Yet they show he was an extremist and belie the post-mortem claims by Al Jazeera that Ghoul was a model journalist. The network’s managing editor, Mohamed Moawad, wrote, “Ismail was renowned for his professionalism and dedication, bringing the world’s attention to the suffering and atrocities committed in Gaza.”

Did the network know of Ghoul’s support for Hamas when it hired him? His previous work on behalf of Felesteen and al-Resalah would have made his affinity obvious. A review of Ghoul’s social media would not have required much effort. Had the IDF prepared a suitable dossier with selections from Ghoul’s postings, it might have turned the tables on Al Jazeera, pushing Western journalists to press the network for answers. Instead, Western media uncritically reprinted testimonials to Ghoul from admiring colleagues.

While the news cycle has passed, the IDF should nevertheless commit the manpower necessary to produce a full dossier on Ghoul, including both declassified intelligence and publicly available material. There is a tendency for past incidents to become the subject of intense re-litigation. In January, an Israeli airstrike killed two of Ghoul’s colleagues at Al Jazeera, Hamza Dahdouh and Mustafa Thuraya. Three days later, the IDF released a screenshot of what it said was a personnel roster from Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Hamas partner, showing that Dahdouh belonged to an electronic engineering unit. Two months later, The Washington Post published a detailed investigation asserting the innocence of Dahdouh and Thuraya, while casting doubt on the document shared by the IDF. In response to inquiries from the Post, the IDF simply responded, “We have nothing to add.”

While the IDF may question the fairness of the Post’s coverage, its non-response amounts to unilateral disarmament. When the re-litigation of Ghoul’s death begins, the IDF should be better prepared. For instance, it should be able to demonstrate the authenticity of the spreadsheet listing Ghoul as a Hamas operative. On its own, the document has shortcomings. For example, there is a column that lists the “Date of military rank” for each of the individuals listed. Yet in the case of Ghoul and many others, this date precedes the “Date of recruitment” by several years.

Other parts of the document hold up better under scrutiny. One column provides a nine-digit ID for each individual. All of these have the correct format for the numbers that the Israeli Ministry of the Interior assigns to Palestinians. Five of the 33 names in the document also appear on the Gaza Health Ministry’s list of the dead. Of those, two reportedly died on October 7, according to a Palestinian NGO that tracks fatalities.

Four of the names on the spreadsheet belong to individuals that Ghoul’s Facebook account lists as friends. One is Samer Balawi, who has not posted on Facebook since May, yet his final post shows him standing side by side with Ghoul, both smiling. It reveals little about their relationship, but underscores the importance of synthesizing information from open source and classified materials.

While the IDF may have lost the battle with Al Jazeera that followed Ghoul’s death, the battle is not the war. The question is whether the IDF will learn from this setback and be better prepared for the next round.

David Adesnik is a senior fellow and director of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

The post How Israel Lost a Battle to Al Jazeera — and How It Must Do Better Next Time first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 384
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

The BBC Documentary That Paints Every Israeli as an Extremist

The Jewish community of Beit El in Judea and Samaria. Photo: Yaakov via Wikimedia Commons.

Louis Theroux first visited the West Bank in 2011 to film a documentary titled Louis and the Ultra-Zionists, part of his long-running series for the BBC. Back then, he at least seemed to possess a trace of journalistic curiosity. Even the title signaled a degree of editorial caution — framing his subjects as a small, ideological fringe rather than representative of Israeli society as a whole.

At the time, Theroux made an effort to clarify that he was profiling a narrow segment of Israelis. He showed legally purchased Jewish homes (sold by Arab landowners, no less) and acknowledged the regular — and at times deadly — terror attacks faced by Israeli civilians living in the area, often requiring military protection. There was condescension, certainly. But there was also context.

Fast-forward to 2024, and the curiosity is gone — though the bemused, slightly smug expression remains. His new BBC documentary, Louis and the Settlers, drops even the soft qualifiers. No “ultra.” No nuance. Just “settlers.” And with that, Theroux makes it clear: half a million Israelis living in the West Bank are one and the same — extremists who, we’re told, want every last Palestinian removed from the land.

This time, the documentary doesn’t begin with questions. It begins with conclusions. And Theroux uses a brief, unrepresentative snapshot of life in the West Bank to draw sweeping indictments of the entire Israeli state.

The message is unmistakable: Israel is the problem. Settlers are the villains. And Palestinians are passive, blameless victims of a colonial project.

Within the opening minutes, Theroux plants his ideological flag. He refers to the West Bank as “Palestinian territory” and describes every Israeli community within it as illegal under international law — a sharp departure from his more qualified approach 14 years earlier.

And while his personal views seep in throughout the film, they become crystal clear during one exchange at a checkpoint, where an Israeli soldier casually refers to their location as “Israel.” Theroux shoots back: “We’re not in Israel, are we?”

And just like that, the BBC and Louis Theroux have redrawn Israel’s borders. No Knesset debate needed.

Erasing History to Blame the Massacre

The timing of this return trip is no accident. The film comes in the shadow of the October 7 Hamas massacres — the day 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered, families were burned alive in their homes, and children were dragged into Gaza. And yet, Theroux barely mentions it.

The few passing references to October 7 serve not to inform the audience — but to imply that Israel may be exploiting its own dead to justify further expansion. It’s not an investigation. It’s an accusation. And it allows him to skip over thousands of years of Jewish history in order to frame the current war in Gaza as a convenient cover story for Israeli “aggression.”

Take Hebron, for example. Theroux tells viewers that “in 1968, the year after [the West Bank] was occupied by Israel, a community of Jewish settlers moved in illegally. They now number some 700.” He fails to mention that in 1895 — decades before the modern state of Israel existed — Hebron had a Jewish population of 1,429.

Jews have lived in Hebron since antiquity — it’s where, according to Jewish tradition, Abraham purchased the Cave of the Patriarchs. Modern records date the community back centuries, despite discrimination under Ottoman rule and bans on Jewish prayer at holy sites. In 1929, Arab rioters carried out a massacre, wiping out Hebron’s Jewish population. Dozens were murdered; the rest were expelled. Under Jordanian rule from 1948 to 1967, Jews were banned from the city entirely. When they returned after the Six-Day War — not as colonists, but as a displaced community coming home — Theroux picks up the story there and calls it “illegal.”

On the Six-Day War itself, Theroux offers no context. No mention of the Arab armies preparing to destroy Israel. No mention of Israel’s preemptive strike against an existential threat.

According to The Settlers, Israel simply “occupied” — full stop.

Palestinian Terrorism? Not Even a Footnote.

Theroux visits Evyatar, a small Jewish community near the Palestinian town of Beita, and uses it as a stand-in for the entire West Bank. Beita is depicted as a symbol of peaceful resistance: a proud, ancient Palestinian village standing firm against violent settlers backed by IDF soldiers.

It’s a neat story. Too neat. Because missing from the story are years of organized, violent riots from Beita — complete with Molotov cocktails, burning Stars of David, and Nazi swastikas. All carefully omitted to preserve the narrative: Palestinians peaceful, settlers aggressive. Facts that don’t fit? Left on the cutting room floor.

Meanwhile, Israeli nationalism is treated as something sinister and unsettling — a moral aberration to be examined. The notion that Jews might want sovereignty or security is met with thinly veiled suspicion. Yet Hamas’ goal of a Jew-free Palestine, explicitly laid out in its charter, is never mentioned. Nor is the Palestinian Authority’s “pay-for-slay” policy, which literally incentivizes terrorism by rewarding those who murder Israelis — including women and children.

These aren’t fringe details. They’re central to understanding the region. And Theroux knows it. He just doesn’t care.

The BBC’s Complicity

That The Settlers aired on the BBC — a publicly funded broadcaster once seen as a gold standard of global journalism — says plenty. Not just about Louis Theroux’s agenda, but about the institutional direction of the BBC itself. This wasn’t a rogue filmmaker sneaking bias past the editors. This was bias built into the foundation — signed off, packaged, and broadcast under the banner of credibility.

There is, of course, no problem with scrutinizing Israeli policy, and no issue with questioning the settlement enterprise or highlighting the tensions in the West Bank. But journalism — real journalism — demands context. It demands precision. It demands at least a passing familiarity with the full scope of the story.

Theroux offers none of that. He arrives with a predetermined script and casts his roles accordingly: Hero. Villain. Victim. Oppressor. And when reality refuses to cooperate? It’s left out.

Louis Theroux didn’t return to Israel to understand it. He returned to flatten it. To reduce its complexity to a morality play — and to ensure everyone knows the antagonist is.

The Settlers isn’t a documentary. It’s a hit piece. And the BBC handed him the camera — then applauded the performance.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post The BBC Documentary That Paints Every Israeli as an Extremist first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 20
Continue Reading

RSS

Indian Army Kills Islamist Terrorist Linked to 2002 Murder of Jewish-American Journalist Daniel Pearl

Jewish-American Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan in 2002. Photo: Screenshot

The Indian government announced on Thursday that its military forces had killed “Pakistan’s most wanted terrorist,” who was connected to the 2002 murder of Jewish-American Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl.

On Wednesday, India launched “Operation Sindoor,” which the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) claims is targeted at dismantling “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The operation came after Pakistani terrorists killed 26 Hindu tourists in Kashmir last month amid escalating tensions between the two countries.

In a post on X, the BJP confirmed that during this week’s operation, the Indian army killed Islamist terrorist Abdul Rauf Azhar, who was involved in numerous terrorism plots, including the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines flight, the 2001 terror attack on the Indian Parliament, and the 2016 Pathankot Air Force base attack.

Azhar’s involvement in the 1999 hijacking led to the release of Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British-born al-Qaeda member with close ties to Pakistan’s intelligence services, who later was involved in the kidnapping and subsequent murder of 38-year-old Pearl, who was covering the war on terror as a journalist when he was abducted.

In a statement on X, Pearl’s father, Judea, addressed initial reports regarding Azhar’s death and his connection to his son’s murder.

“I want to clarify: Azhar was a Pakistani extremist and leader of the terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammed. While his group was not directly involved in the plot to abduct Danny, it was indirectly responsible. Azhar orchestrated the hijacking that led to the release of Omar Sheikh — the man who lured Danny into captivity,” he said.

In 2002, the Jewish-American journalist was abducted and killed by a group of Islamist terrorists connected to Azhar’s militant network, which had ties to al-Qaeda and Jaish-e-Mohammed, a terror group aiming to separate Kashmir from India and incorporate it into Pakistan.

On Jan. 27, 2002, an email was sent to several Pakistani and US media organizations, which included several photos, stating that Pearl was being held in “inhumane” conditions to protest the US treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners in Cuba. Photo: Screenshot

Originally stationed in New Delhi as the South Asia bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, Pearl later moved to Pakistan to investigate terrorism following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City.

After kidnapping Pearl at a restaurant in Karachi, southern Pakistan, the Islamist terrorists, who identified themselves as the National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty, accused him of being an Israeli spy and sent the United States a list of demands for his release.

However, Washington did not meet their demands, and Pearl was ultimately executed after being held captive for five weeks.

His wife, Mariane Pearl, gave birth to a baby boy, Adam D. Pearl, in Paris later that year. On the Daniel Pearl Foundation website, she said, “Adam’s birth rekindles the joy, love, and humanity that Danny radiated wherever he went.”

The post Indian Army Kills Islamist Terrorist Linked to 2002 Murder of Jewish-American Journalist Daniel Pearl first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 28
Continue Reading

RSS

Jewish Jewelry Shop Owners Brutally Assaulted in Tunisia Days Before Annual Pilgrimage

A Jewish jewelry shop owner in Djerba, Tunisia, was brutally attacked by a man wielding a machete. Photo: Screenshot

A Jewish jewelry shop owner in Djerba, Tunisia, was brutally attacked by a man wielding a machete just days before the Tunisian island was set to host its annual Jewish pilgrimage, which is expected to draw thousands of visitors.

On Wednesday morning, two Jewish men — owners of a jewelry shop in the center of the island, located off Tunisia’s southeast coast — were physically assaulted by a man carrying a large knife.

Although the attack was halted when one of them screamed — alerting members of the local Jewish community who subdued the assailant — one of them was left severely injured.

According to local media reports, the attacker had surveyed the island the day before, visiting several stores to identify those owned by Jews. Local police arrested him shortly following the assault.

After the attack, one of the owners was admitted to the hospital with severe injuries. The 50-year-old Jewish man had his fingers severed during the assault and underwent surgery to reattach them.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar condemned the attack and expressed his wishes for a swift recovery to the victims.

“This attack comes two years after the previous deadly assault that claimed Jewish lives and the lives of security personnel during the Lag BaOmer celebration,” the top Israeli diplomat wrote in a post on X.

“I call on the Tunisian authorities to take all necessary measures to protect the Jewish community,” Saar continued.

Djerba is home to the majority of Tunisia’s Jewish community, numbering about 2,000 people, and is also where the renowned El Ghriba Synagogue, one of North Africa’s oldest synagogues, is located.

The attack comes just a week before Jewish pilgrims are expected to arrive on the island for the Lag B’Omer holiday, when thousands gather annually for three days of festivities. The annual pilgrimage to El Ghriba Synagogue, scheduled for May 15 and 16 this year, draws visitors from around the world.

The synagogue has been targeted in multiple terrorist attacks over the years, including in 1985, 2002, and 2023.

Two years ago, a shooting at the synagogue claimed the lives of two Jewish cousins and three police officers. Aviel Hadad, a 30-year-old Israeli goldsmith, and Ben Hadad, a 42-year-old Frenchman who had traveled to join the festivities, were among the victims.

The post Jewish Jewelry Shop Owners Brutally Assaulted in Tunisia Days Before Annual Pilgrimage first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 24
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News