Facts matter — especially when they involve blood libels and mobs with pitchforks over the latest news from Gaza.

The original blood libel, for centuries, was something akin to the “Jews make matzah with the blood of children,” and other horrific things, which makes the current allegation in 2025 of starvation of children in Gaza into an equally horrific act. It could be modern blood libel, except we collectively can’t seem to tell fact from fiction at this point.

Is there a grain of truth in the hideous photographs of starving children in Gaza? Are the facts on the ground, as the media would have you believe, as awful as they look ? I asked myself this as I found myself swimming in photographic-based horror. The children need to eat, this is clear.

In reality, there appear to be multiple factors and bad actors to blame on the current round of hideous accusations. There are the letters from various rabbis, there are the doctors within Gaza, and then there’s the UN, all declaring a horrible famine and with Israel being accused as the culprit.

Never mind that the UN is not properly delivering food aid, that terrorists on the ground are attacking and robbing trucks, Hamas terrorists are shooting civilians, and many other truths. Ignore The New York Times article declaring Hamas “not guilty” of stealing aid — despite serious evidence to the contrary.

Israel is the villain in every single story around the globe.

We’re told to accept the venomous narrative without question, and not to notice that the child in the viral starving photo has cerebral palsy and is suffering from hypoxia. No one wants to examine the facts — which also might implicate Hamas as co-creators of the despicable debacle.

No one in the online mob wants to point out that photos of children are being exploited based on medical conditions. None of these attacking articles mention the loaded aid trucks that the UN chooses not to deliver. Yes, Netanyahu’s siege is a direct cause of the famine. Yes, the UN has a part and responsibility to deliver food from the aid trucks.  Yes, Hamas has been stealing aid. Yes, Hamas members appear rather chubby and are definitely not starving. Yes, Israel has a blockade. Yes, Hamas also has done a thousand other things to facilitate this famine, including refusing a ceasefire just last week, which again would stop the fighting and bring in aid.

Israel even allows aid to enter and be delivered from the air, and what does the media immediately do? The media calls it “Grotesque” in headlines over the weekend. The media condemns Israel no matter if they let in aid, or don’t let in aid.

The media condemns Israel now for allowing air drops, because “the airdrop might hit someone.”

The media bias is so obvious and so sickening at this point, because every single story, every single article is written to paint the nation of Israel as the evil villain.

Rarely if ever, does anyone ask, how are the numbers verified ? Who is in charge of delivering the aid, why is Hamas not being held accountable? Why did the UN not choose delivery routes for all the trucks ? Why isn’t Egypt opening its gate and delivering aid?

The double standard is utterly appalling. No matter the facts, no matter Israel’s efforts to negotiate a ceasefire, to offer aid, anything and everything is condemned by a rabid crowd who shrugs and says, “who cares who is to blame” before again condemning and demonizing Israel.

It’s become a complete waste of time to even bother writing or speaking with the anti-Israel crowd online, they don’t want to hear anything. “So what, who cares?” Because the truth be told, they only want to demonize Israel. If there are other factors such as the UN refusing to coordinate with the Israeli government, then the online mobs with pitchforks don’t want to even consider it. The double standard, the blind eye towards all the other factors contributing to the situation, will never be contemplated by the angry mob.

These same people don’t mention horrific conditions — and worse food insecurity situations all across the globe — because Israel can’t be blamed. We don’t know how much is true or false because there is so much villainizing, now aided by AI and photographs from other conflicts around the world, used without verification and with impunity.

Nothing will stop the mobs with pitchforks, even when the food situation improves. They don’t care about any of the other factors contributing to it.  You will never hear their voices raised for the starving children of Yemen, Sudan, or anywhere else — because they only raise their voices to villainize the state of Israel.

It’s impossible to ignore the hatred right in the open. The angry online mob only wants to point fingers and scream; they won’t care or look at themselves when their poisonous words become actions on the ground that result in the murder of Jewish people thousands of miles away. Instead, they will feel justified — and that is a very dangerous thing for the entire world.

Alix Kahn is a writer of essays, poetry, short stories and more.  

When terror becomes diplomacy’s last option, how does a democratic state retain its moral compass?

This is the cruel paradox confronting Israel today.

Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas unleashed its brutal and barbaric assault, the Jewish State has found itself at war, not only on the battlefield but in boardrooms, media rooms, and behind closed diplomatic doors.

Among the countless tragedies that followed, one issue continues to haunt both politicians and ordinary citizens alike: What should Israel do about the hostages?

Approximately 50 people — both living and dead — remain captive in Gaza, used as bargaining chips by a terrorist regime that thrives on civilian suffering. Hamas is not just holding people; it is holding the Israeli national conscience hostage.

Israel’s founding ethos has always been to bring every citizen and soldier home. But how do you uphold that sacred duty without empowering your enemy?

The world loves slogans: “We do not negotiate with terrorists.” But reality is a murkier battlefield than Hollywood or soundbites will admit.

Israel is not alone in this grey zone. The United States has spoken with the Taliban. European governments have discreetly paid ransoms. Red Cross convoys and Vatican mediators operate in shadows where diplomacy officially cannot.

So why is Israel judged so harshly when it faces the same impossible choices?

Because Israel is expected to act with perfect ethics even when surrounded by terrorists and murderers.

Despite popular assumptions, there is no binding international law that prohibits negotiation with terrorist groups. The United Nations urges states not to legitimize or finance terrorism. Hostage-taking is criminalized. But negotiation itself? That falls into a murky, political no-man’s land.

That ambiguity leaves countries to make deeply personal calculations. And for Israel, the calculus is always emotional, often painful, and rarely applauded.

Israel’s history offers stark examples. The 2011 Gilad Shalit exchange, in which one Israeli soldier was traded for over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, many with blood on their hands, split the nation’s soul.

Some hailed it as a triumph of humanity. Others feared it was a costly encouragement to Hamas to kidnap again.

They were both right.

In practice, most governments do negotiate with terrorists. They just do it through third parties — such as Qatar, Egypt, Norway, and others. These mediators offer plausible deniability and soften the political fallout.

It’s a game of shadows: moral clarity sacrificed on the altar of realpolitik.

Israel has played this game too. Sometimes it succeeds in bringing people home. Sometimes it pays a terrifying price. But unlike authoritarian regimes, it has to answer to its people and to the families who refuse to accept “collateral damage” as a final verdict.

What makes the Israeli dilemma unique is its combination of vulnerability and moral expectation:

• A democracy surrounded by terror groups.
• A nation that values human life more than most of its enemies do.
• A state expected to fight like a Western power but judged like an empire

This is the Israeli paradox: being moral in an immoral world.

Is it wrong to speak with terrorists? Probably. Is it wrong to leave your citizens behind? Absolutely. Is there a path that avoids both sins? Tragically, not always.

So Israel walks the tightrope, every step scrutinized by a hostile international community and a grieving, demanding public.

Each decision is weighed not just in strategy, but in souls. In the faces of kidnapped children. In the eyes of mothers who refuse to stop waiting.

And while activists scream slogans and foreign leaders posture, the truth remains: In war, sometimes, there are no good choices — only the least terrible ones.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of “Time to Stand Up for Israel.”

The general media narrative on Israel’s decision to allow airdrops of aid and its action to “improve” the humanitarian situation in Gaza were an admission of guilt. They claimed that Israel had finally seen the error of its evil ways after mounting international pressure.

Yet, the demonization still remained — because on top of saying that Israel was “making right” and finally taking responsibility, there was an accusation that it was also just trying to placate the international community with some useless show of public effort to deliver aid from the sky.

But the truth? Israel’s public shaming of the UN worked, and now about 50% of the aid that was left to rot on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom border crossing has been collected, a deal for safe passage for that aid was made between the UN and Israel, Egypt opened the Rafah border crossing, and — on top of that — Israel, Jordan, and the UAE resumed airdrops.

And let’s get the facts straight here. The current humanitarian crisis in Gaza is Hamas’ responsibility.

You wouldn’t know that from Western media, though.

This was the theme of Jeremy Bowen’s portrayal for the BBC. It’s evidence that no matter what Israel does, there will always be an issue:

While Israel continues to insist it is not responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and does not impose restrictions on aid entering Gaza, those claims are not accepted by its close allies in Europe, or the United Nations and other agencies active in Gaza.

The new measures might be a tacit admission by the Israelis that they need to do more.

More likely they are a gesture to allies who have issued strong statements blaming Israel for starvation in Gaza.

In other words, Israel’s carrying out airdrops of humanitarian aid had an ulterior agenda and was a silent admission of guilt — nothing more.

Not to mention, Bowen has relieved Hamas of responsibility, and made it an uninvolved party (because why hold a terror group that oppresses the people it rules responsible?).

The only times Hamas is mentioned are when it condemns Israel for trying to deceive the international community and to dismiss claims by the IDF about Hamas systematically stealing aid.

Bowen goes on to describe his experience with airdrops post-Gulf War. To legitimize his perspective, he starts this way:

Air dropping aid is an act of desperation. It can also look good on television, and spread a feel-good factor that something, at last, is being done.

Yes, this is clearly a desperate situation, as the world is insisting. Israel is doing what it can to help improve the situation, and this may also be the most efficient and quickest way to deliver aid to certain areas of the Strip:

Professionals involved in relief operations regard dropping aid from the sky as a last resort. They use it when any other access is impossible. That’s not the case in Gaza. A short drive north is Ashdod, Israel’s modern container port. A few more hours away is the Jordanian border, which has been used regularly as a supply line for aid for Gaza.

Unfortunately, it seems like other ways of delivering aid hadn’t panned out any better until now.

It’s unclear what is meant by listing the Ashdod port or the Jordanian border as options for aid delivery, but here are some quick reminders:

1. The Western media and the UN have complained when aid has to be driven through Gaza as the trucks get looted. Bowen ignores that the UN had been declining Israeli protection for aid in transit until last week. His silence absolves the UN for its own guilt in this mess.
2. The media and the UN will also say that it’s a deadly mission for Gazans to retrieve aid themselves, as reports of dozens killed per day have been headlining newspapers since May.
3. And remember the US pier that brought in tons of aid? Most of that aid just sat to rot.

Perhaps the idea is to try to get aid to the people who need it in any way possible? Airdrops are evidently flawed and some of the aid likely falls into the wrong hands, but it’s worth a try.

Another report by Sky News on Sunday frames Israel as a bad actor by backing airdrops, which aid agencies like the UN say are insufficient and dangerous. Meanwhile, Jordan and the UAE were involved aside from Israel, and the operation was backed by the UK. But the goal seems always to paint Israel as a bad actor.

A subsequent article from Monday emphasizes the UN stance against airdrops. Field correspondent Sally Lockwood explains how they are “fraught with problems” and a “desperate last resort.”

But when Lockwood reports from a Jordanian plane, she explains the safety precautions taken to ensure prevention of casualties on the ground, as well as admitting that although the amount of aid is not enough, “it’s something.”

As extensive reports from The New York Times, BBC, NBC, and many others have been urging dire need of aid to the Gaza Strip, and photos of emaciated children are circulating through the media, the particulars of how aid is being distributed are being twisted and exaggerated to fit a narrative that Israel is waging war on Gazan women and children. Israel is portrayed as having malicious intent to starve civilians to death and humiliate them as they try to survive.

Google is a Fantastic Tool

While the UN and the media criticize airdrops over Gaza, let’s take a moment to recognize that the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) carries out airdrops on its own in South Sudan, for example. It gets almost no media coverage, and when it does, it’s covered as an “unconventional,” “expensive,” and “complex” operation, but it’s the “last resort” and therefore necessary due to fighting blocking roadways to certain areas.

There is no controversy, no denial, and no excuses. Just WFP doing what it needs to do in order to get aid to those in need.

It’s always interesting when war zones — while catastrophic, are recognized as war zones. By nature, aid may be difficult to deliver. The Israel-Hamas war in Gaza is no different.

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.