Khalid Abdalla being introduced to speak on stage ahead of the Massive Attack headlining concert at the LIDO Festival in London’s Victoria Park on June 6, 2025. Photo: YouTube screenshot

An Israeli concertgoer received a full refund of his ticket to see the British group Massive Attack headline London’s LIDO Festival last week after complaining to festival organizers about the “really hostile” environment at the largely politicized, anti-Israel performance, the UK’s Jewish Chronicle reported.

The Israeli, whose identity was not revealed, told the JC he felt “ambushed and unsafe” during the show at London’s Victoria Park on June 6 as part of the two-week music festival. A longtime fan of Massive Attack, he attended the performance with four other British-Israeli friends.

“When we arrived at the festival in Victoria Park, we saw a lot of ‘Free Palestine’ pins and T-shirts. We didn’t make anything out of it,” the fan said. “I wanted to hear Massive Attack, as someone who grew up on their music. I had no idea about any of their political views … They lost me as a fan.”

Before Massive Attack began their performance, pro-Palestinian activist and “The Crown” actor Khalid Abdalla took to the stage to talk about Palestinian solidarity and lead the audience in chanting “free Palestine.” Abdalla, who was introduced as a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), claimed in his speech that the pro-Palestinian solidarity movement is “the civil rights movement, the anti-apartheid movement, [and] the anti-genocide movement of our time, and that is why so many Jewish people all over the world are at the core of this movement, fighting for a world in which ‘never again’ means never again for anyone, and in which this brutal Israeli occupation ends.”

Massive Attack also displayed on large screens by the stage a montage of anti-Israel videos, including real-life footage of slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar – the mastermind of the deadly terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 – as he walks in a Hamas tunnel. Another video called for the release of convicted Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti.

“The concept of giving terrorists a stage is beyond me,” the Israeli music fan, who had friends murdered in the Oct. 7 attack, told the JC. “When we see Sinwar walking in the tunnels, it means we see our families and other Israelis in the tunnels. For us, it was glorifying him.”

The Israeli audience member said the crowd at the Massive Attack concert felt “really hostile,” so he and his group of friends ultimately decided to leave the set. During their exit, they met others who “also felt intimidated,” “scared” and “very threatened.”

In total, around 15 people exited the concert, the JC reported. They approached festival promoters, expressed their concerns, and gave their contact information. The Israeli man said later that same night, he received an email from promoters with an apology. He also received a full refund for his ticket to the LIDO festival, travel expenses, and the amount he spent on drinks at the venue.

The Israeli music fan accused LIDO Festival organizers of false advertising for not warning ticket holders about the political nature of the event.

“Massive Attack have a right to do the show as they want to, but the fact that no one told us PSC were going to be on stage – that it would be an orchestrated political event – it’s not about me being pro-Palestinian or not,” he said. “I didn’t know I was going to see propaganda on stage. It caught us off guard completely. It was about organizing a political event. Massive Attack and PSC were selling official merchandise, T-shirts designed for this festival, allowing PSC to be on stage, allowing them to put videos on the big screen – it’s not a fluke. It was well coordinated and organized.”

A Bristol-based band, Massive Attack has participated in a cultural boycott of Israel since 1999 and are longtime critics of Israel, regularly accusing the country of war crimes, apartheid, occupation, and genocide. In a released statement, they claimed videos shown at the LIDO Festival do not glorify or celebrate “any of the featured subjects,” and were taken out of context.

The post Israeli Concertgoer Gets Full Refund After Complaining About Anti-Israel Messaging at Massive Attack Show first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

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.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei waves during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, May 20, 2025. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

On August 3rd, 1914, as dusk was settling over St. James’s Park in Westminster, Central London, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, stood at the window of his room at the Foreign Office with his friend John Alfred Spender, editor of the Westminster Gazette. 

It had been a grueling week of diplomatic back-and-forth as Europe continued to flounder following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the presumptive heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, who was killed together with his wife in Sarajevo at the end of June. Earlier that day, it had become clear that all diplomatic efforts had been to no avail, and what would turn out to be the most devastating war in history was about to begin with the German invasion of Belgium.

Grey, whose own role as the British Empire’s top diplomat was intimately bound up with the failures leading up to the war, gazed out the window and murmured words to his friend that would haunt him, and remain etched in history: “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime.”

Outside, the scene was peaceful — the soft glow of the gas lamps, the calm of a London evening. But inside Grey’s office, and in the corridors of power across Europe, the gears of war were already turning. In that moment of eerie calm, Grey’s dark words captured the sense of a world that had sleepwalked into disaster, with leaders who did nothing to stop the calamity that was about to engulf them all.

The series of events historians call the July Crisis is a textbook example of catastrophic leadership failure: Self-important aristocrats and diplomats, smug politicians, and gung-ho military experts, all aloof in their ivory towers, refusing to hear the voices of those who warned of the abyss ahead. Illusions of dignity and prestige that would be lost were prioritized over both the realities of a world order that was changing, and any thought that war was the worst possible alternative.

It makes you wonder: What would have happened if Europe’s leaders had actually listened to the voices of the people who would be affected? If they’d heard from the soldiers who would soon die in the trenches, the mothers who would soon be left to mourn, and the ordinary citizens and their descendants whose lives would be shattered for a century to come?

One of the great foundations of modern democracy is the ‘voice of the people’ — the idea that leaders are accountable to those they govern, and that power and justice are strongest when they emerge from the bottom up, not imposed from the top down. In his foundational work, Two Treatises of Government, the seventeenth-century English political philosopher John Locke argued that governments only derive legitimacy from what he called “the consent of the governed.”

Thomas Jefferson was a big fan of this idea, and together with America’s founding fathers, he ensured that it was enshrined in the US Constitution. Jefferson was also a devoted admirer of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it is therefore not surprising that this idea is embedded in the Torah. In an 1813 letter to the prominent Quaker William Canby, Jefferson expressed admiration for the “sublime philosophy of the Hebrew prophets,” calling it “the most precious” source of religious and moral guidance.

And indeed, in the Torah, we find a remarkable example of this very principle — a moment when leadership didn’t come from the top down, but rather emerged from the Israelites’ desert camp itself. Despite resistance toward it from an influential voice, Moshe, the paradigm of Jewish leadership, embraces the ‘voice of the people’ wholeheartedly.

The story can be found in Parshat Beha’alotecha after Moshe appoints seventy elders to share the burden of prophecy and leadership. Suddenly, two men — Eldad and Medad — begin to prophesy in the camp outside the carefully orchestrated gathering.

Their unexpected prophecy shakes the status quo, and Moshe’s devoted deputy Joshua suggests they be arrested and jailed for this shocking break with protocol. But Moshe’s reaction to Joshua’s suggestion is nothing short of remarkable: “Would that all of God’s people were prophets, that God would put His spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:29).

Moshe’s response stands as a timeless rebuke to those who cling to control and hierarchy at all costs. It recognizes that the strength of any group depends on nurturing the spirit of prophecy in every voice, not suppressing it in the name of protocol or power.

More importantly, it is a moment that reveals the essential Jewish approach to leadership: being a leader is not about imposing authority from above, but rather, it is about creating space for everyone’s potential to shine.

In contrast to the European leaders of 1914, who turned away from the people they served, Moshe understood that authentic leadership is about empowering the people’s voice. But there was no one like Moshe in the summer of 1914. Amid the swirling chaos of that fateful July, one voice of caution stood out: Jean Jaurès, who represented the French working class.

In the final days of peace, Jaurès warned passionately of the ruin that lay ahead, urging European leaders to be conscious of the looming catastrophe. On July 25th, he declared that France must not be drawn into this reckless conflict with unknown consequences — a calm, prophetic voice bravely highlighting the human cost of world war.

Just six days later, he was assassinated in a Paris café — silenced by a pro-war fanatic at the very moment he was trying to prevent cataclysmic devastation. The elevated elites eagerly marching into conflict hardly acknowledged his death, but when they did, they dismissed him as a traitor to the French nation.

His passing marking the disappearance of one of the few voices still calling for caution. He was a lone prophetic voice — an “Eldad and Medad” for his time — whose warnings were drowned out by those urging war.

We are seeing the same dynamic play out in our days — prophetic voices being ignored by the elites. Broadcaster and news blogger Mark Levin has long warned of the dangers of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a threat that many in the halls of power seem content to downplay or ignore.

Former US military intelligence officer and Middle East analyst Michael Pregent consistently highlights the risks of the West’s misguided alliance with Qatar, which bankrolls extremism even as it claims to be an ally.

And former IDF intelligence officer Yigal Carmon of MEMRI translates the words of jihadists who call for violence against the West, exposing the danger from those who harbor hatred toward the very countries they live in — yet his warnings fall on deaf ears.

These are today’s “Eldad and Medad,” raising their voices in the camp, warning of the abyss that lies ahead. And we ignore them at our peril. The lesson of Moshe in Beha’alotecha is that true leadership does not fear the grassroots voice — and that one must never suppress the prophet in the midst of the people. Those voices are always the ones that can save a nation from sleepwalking into disaster. “Would that all of God’s people were prophets, that God would put His spirit upon them!”

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California. 

The post We Must Heed the Words of Warning About Threats to Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.