“I forgive you!”

Those words are meant to be liberating. They suggest magnanimity and grace, as well as a strength of character that transcends the darkest human impulses. But sometimes, forgiveness can be confusing, or even disturbing.

Last week, Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika, stunned the world by publicly forgiving her husband’s murderer. “That young man … I forgive him, I forgive him because it was what Christ did, and it’s what Charlie would do.”

News bulletins led with the story, and podcasters and bloggers couldn’t get enough of it. Most praised her declaration as a shining example of Christian love and mercy — an extraordinary display of turning the other cheek. And yes, on one level, it is moving: a grieving widow finding the strength to release her pain and anger rather than being consumed by it.

But others found it unsettling. And truthfully, Judaism is deeply cautious about such an act of forgiveness. After all, what right does Erika Kirk have to forgive a murderer for murder? She can forgive him for the pain he caused her — that much is hers to grant. But she cannot absolve him for the life he stole. Only the victim himself could do that, and as much as she may imagine that’s what Charlie would have done, he is gone. 

And beyond that, justice demands that such a heinous crime be punished. Otherwise, what is left of law, of morality, of human dignity?

The Rambam makes this caution concrete. If you wrong another person, there can be no teshuva until you go and ask forgiveness from them directly. God will not erase a sin committed against your fellow human unless you first seek reconciliation with the person you wronged. 

But even once human forgiveness is granted, you are not off the hook with God. Because when you hurt another person, you also wrong God Himself — the One who created that person in His image.

This tension between forgiveness and justice isn’t just a private, personal dilemma. Whole societies have had to wrestle with it. 

After World War II, the world was faced with horrors on a scale that defied imagination. Those few Jews who had survived the concentration camps and death marches were walking skeletons, barely able to function.

The Nazi atrocities were so vast and so grotesque, that trying to address them via normal legal channels was deemed utterly impossible. Some suggested that it would be best to move on, bury the past rather than let it fester – as it had with Germany after World War I, which created the perfect storm for the next world war to erupt a quarter of a century later.

But brighter heads prevailed, and the Nuremberg Trials were a bold statement that there can be no reconciliation without accountability. You can’t just forgive mass murderers and architects of genocide – people who set out to murder an entire people – in the name of peace. Clemency without justice would have mocked the victims and denied the truth.

Half a century later, another society faced its own reckoning. When apartheid finally collapsed in South Africa, the country stood at a dangerous crossroads. The white minority feared violent retribution, the black majority demanded justice, and the entire nation was teetering on the edge of civil war.

This time, a different kind of solution was devised. Archbishop Desmond Tutu presided over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which wasn’t perfect by any means – but it was ingenious. It didn’t simply grant blanket forgiveness in the name of “moving on.” 

The TRC set a bar. Amnesty would only be offered to those who came forward, confessed their crimes in detail, and faced their victims in person. The premise was down-to-earth yet profound: reconciliation can only occur when truth is spoken, guilt is acknowledged, and victims can find some measure of catharsis.

Both Nuremberg and South Africa teach the same lesson: real reconciliation is never cheap if it is going to be meaningful. You can’t just wave the magic “I forgive you” wand and wish away the bad stuff. 

Forgiveness must always be bound up with accountability, acknowledgement of wrong, and some kind of reckoning. Otherwise, it’s not reconciliation at all — it’s denial. And even then, even once you have faced up to what you have done wrong, it doesn’t imply that you have reconciled with God. That is the next step in the process.

When you wrong another person, you’ve committed two sins at once: you’ve harmed them, and you’ve also rebelled against God, who created them in His image. 

Making amends with your friend, your neighbor, your colleague — that’s essential. Rambam says you cannot move forward until you’ve done it. But even if they forgive you, you are not finished. You still need to turn to God and admit, ‘I fell short of what You expect from me.’

That is the beating heart of Yom Kippur. We don’t just fast and wear white as if the day itself works some kind of cleansing magic. We come together to confront the truth of who we are, and to speak it out loud in viddui — confession. We don’t sugarcoat and we don’t hide. We stand in front of each other, and in front of God, and we say: ashamnu, bagadnu — we have sinned, we have betrayed.

It is truth first, reconciliation second. And when those two steps come together — when we seek forgiveness from people we have wronged, and then seek forgiveness from God Himself — only then is atonement real. Only then is reconciliation complete.

So what about October 7th? Can we – now that an end to the war is finally in sight, and all the remaining hostages are hopefully on their way home – do what Erika Kirk did and say to Hamas, “we forgive you”? 

The answer is a resounding no. To do that would be neither acceptable, nor appropriate. You cannot forgive mass murder, rape, and barbarity with a wave of the hand, nor can you forgive on behalf of those who were slaughtered, mutilated, or abducted.

First, there must be acknowledgment by Hamas — a confession of wrongdoing. Then, there must be a process of reconciliation with those whom they harmed. Only after that, if it ever happened, could the question of human forgiveness and divine forgiveness even be contemplated. 

Until then, notwithstanding the need to end the conflict and rebuild, justice must be pursued, the truth must be spoken, and our dignity as a people must demand that forgiveness can never be cheap.

The author is a writer in Beverly Hills, California. 

While Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas delivered an address to the UN General Assembly claiming that the PA had “rejected violence and terrorism” and “adopted a culture of peace,” the reality is far different.

Earlier this week, the PA’s official daily continued to glorify the terrorist murderers who killed six people in the attack in Jerusalem three weeks ago. The PA’s official paper called them Palestinian and Islamic heroes.

By saying that every terrorist killed while murdering Israeli civilians has “ascended to the heavens” as a “Martyr,” the PA is telling Palestinians that murdering Israeli civilians is what Allah desires and that as a reward, they have reached the highest spiritual plane possible for a Muslim:

Occupation forces demolished yesterday (Saturday) the house of the Martyr, Muthanna Amr, in the town of Al-Qubeiba, northwest of occupied Jerusalem…

It should be noted that the Martyr, Amr, ascended to the heavens from the occupation’s fire on September 9 [sic., September 8] of this year together with Muhammad Taha in Jerusalem on the pretext that the two carried out a shooting operation. [emphasis added]

[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 28, 2025]

Considering that most Palestinians have very strong Islamic beliefs, this sanctification of the murder of Jews by the PA’s official daily represents the greatest promotion of terror. It exposes the falsehood of Abbas’ claim to the UN that the PA “renounced violence and terrorism” and “adopted a culture of peace.”

In spite of Abbas’ speech to the UN, the PA remains a terror-supporting entity.

As explained in the new Palestinian Media Watch report, Roadmap for Palestinian Authority reform – 10 essential and quantifiable steps, the international community must insist that the PA stop extolling killed terrorists as “Martyrs,” and official PA media must stop glorifying terrorism, as one of the 10 essential steps to reform.

Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.

BBC News created “BBC Verify,” a supposed “fact-checking” and verification segment, in 2023, with the intention of repairing its credibility, or rather, to create the illusion of transparency and accuracy.

BBC Verify found its niche after October 7, 2023, by focusing most of its resources on the Israel-Hamas war and providing biased analyses on it. In reality, it selectively challenges Israel while presenting anything Hamas and the UN say without question.

These reports are seen by millions of viewers around the world, and instead of providing fair and balanced analysis, BBC Verify sets an agenda: to push anti-Israel narratives. Whether it’s casting doubt on Israeli intelligence or diminishing Hamas disinformation, this is not neutral reporting. It ultimately leads to widespread views that Israel isn’t trustworthy, while a literal terror group evades responsibility for anything.

HonestReporting has chosen some of its latest reports to showcase the consistent and blatant bias against Israel.

Reliance on the UN

One of BBC Verify’s latest takes was on the UN Commission of Inquiry’s (COI) “Genocide” report. It’s lazy and intentionally damaging.

At face value, one may have seen this as a simple report on the UN inquiry’s conclusion that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. But let’s take a closer look at how they are actually manipulating viewers. In this particular clip, there was nothing quotable that revealed the bias; rather, it was in what they chose to focus on, and what was not said that framed the message.

“A United Nations Commission of inquiry says Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza,” opened correspondent Ros Atkins.

After defining the term “genocide,” he referred to the UN’s “five genocidal acts” that would determine whether a country is committing genocide.

Atkins followed this by reporting the UN body’s statement that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza as fact — saying, “The UN Commission of Inquiry says Israel has committed the first four.” Atkins did not express any need to verify this wide accusation.

Towards the end, Israeli officials’ responses were weakly presented before moving on to more condemnations and the International Court of Justice genocide case brought by South Africa.

Nowhere in the clip were Israel’s efforts to minimize civilian casualties highlighted, and nowhere in the clip were there examples given that would actually prove or “verify” examples of the Jewish state committing the five genocidal acts. There was also no transparency or background concerning the extreme bias against Israel that members of the COI hold or the agenda behind the UN Human Rights Council that created the COI.

Instead, the BBC unquestioningly uses the UN as an authority to provide validity and demonize Israel further. The BBC won’t dig deeper because it agrees with the charge, and that’s not neutral reporting. This clip is confirmation bias at its best.

Erasure of Hamas

Another recent report covers the IDF’s Gaza City strikes last week on high-rise tower blocks used by Hamas.

This one has a similar script to many others. Reporter Merlyn Thomas sets the narrative: “Israel has destroyed more high-rise buildings in Gaza City over the weekend, as it ramps up its military offensive to occupy the Strip’s largest city.”

In short: Look, Israel is causing more carnage and destruction!

She presents an IDF statement instructing people to evacuate the city, and notes that warning leaflets were dropped, but couples it with caveats.

Rather than focusing on Gaza City as a Hamas epicenter, the rest of the video is aimed at condemning the destruction of these high-rises, essentially diminishing Israel’s statement that Hamas uses these buildings for various purposes, including as lookout locations to track IDF troop movements. Here’s the infusion of doubt: “But they haven’t provided any evidence.”

She ignores urban warfare tactics that are used to prepare for an operation, and preliminary airstrikes to destroy any threatening infrastructure to troops. Instead, Thomas ensures the audience knows that “for people living in these buildings, this is the destruction of their homes.”

Right after, she quotes that week’s death toll reported by Hamas. However, she doesn’t seem to need evidence or verification for that.

Throughout the report, she doesn’t say that Hamas is a terror organization that uses its own people as human shields by embedding itself in these residential high-rises, or by trying to prevent them from leaving the city. She focuses on anything but Hamas’ role in this conflict.

Again, BBC fact-checks what it wants to, and doesn’t fact-check what suits its narrative.

In this clip from August, Thomas begins her report with skepticism of the IDF as it prepares for its Gaza City offensive against Hamas.

Throughout the clip, the reason for the Gaza City operation is completely omitted — because the goal is to cast doubt on Israel’s word and portray the Jewish State as an inhumane warmonger.

“In this verified video, you can see shrapnel almost hit this child. We know this strike was just within hundreds of meters of a temporary tent camp for people displaced by the war, which has in recent days started to empty,” Thomas said.

In short: Look how Israel is putting children in danger! This offensive in Gaza City is going to be a humanitarian disaster.

But in the same breath, she says that the camp was emptying. This is because Israel warned people to leave due to the danger. Thomas quotes the IDF’s statement that a strike was carried out after evacuating civilians, but quickly casts doubt, saying that they “cannot independently confirm” IDF claims.

Meanwhile, just as the previous clip did, Thomas shifts the focus to destruction and the refugee camp, which is now an apparent ghost town. The BBC also chooses to identify IDF troop vehicles and tanks surrounding that area, as if to emphasize a narrative that Israel chased out the Palestinians to “occupy” the city:

Now this is all happening as part of Israel’s plan to capture and occupy Gaza City. And it’s prompted renewed calls from the UN for an immediate ceasefire.

That final line is a parting message to tell the public that Israel’s priority is to occupy the city rather than defeating Hamas in its remaining base of operations. She says the UN calls for an “immediate ceasefire,” of course, aimed at Israel as the “aggressor” and not Hamas, which still holds 48 Israeli hostages. The truth is that an immediate ceasefire is in Hamas’ hands as it can free the hostages and lay down arms, but the BBC isn’t neutral, and that part doesn’t fit the narrative.

Live Reporting on Insignificant Moments of a Terror Attack

The following is, unfortunately, more laughable than biased. In the midst of the BBC’s live reporting on the Ramot Junction terror attack in Jerusalem on September 8, BBC Verify decided that this is what they should throw their resources into. It’s worrying.

There is virtually no understanding of what is actually going on in the footage. In fact, they didn’t even bother to include it. Are they referring to people in black running towards the bus stop with weapons or civilians fleeing the scene of the attack?

Also, given that many male ultra-Orthodox residents of Jerusalem wear black suits and the attack occurred near a heavily ultra-Orthodox neighborhood, that would explain why people in black were running across the road.

Can’t BBC Verify live up to its name and figure that out?

Perhaps BBC Verify could put its resources into investigating the terrorists, their motives, and how the attack was carried out.

The above are just a few recent examples out of many problematic BBC Verify reports and clips that vilify Israel and give a pass to UN and Hamas reports.

There’s a common thread with BBC Verify, and it’s in the use of tone and language. The reporters present the story in a way that raises uncertainty and makes Israel look like it is lying or covering up evidence of guilt in war crimes. It isn’t said straightforwardly, but the sentiment is planted. They never give credit to the evidence that is provided by Israel, and deliberately put on their blinders to accept Hamas propaganda — from “Gazans don’t have access to water or fuel” to famine and images of “starving” children and more.

Most of the clips erase Hamas from the story and essentially absolve them of responsibility in this war.

BBC Verify sets out to cause intentional damage. There is nothing trustworthy about it. Instead of acting as a mouthpiece for terrorists and agenda-driven bodies, it’s time to start holding all sides to the same standard — otherwise, it’s not verification, it’s vilification.

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.