I was always interested in history — and being from England, especially English history. One of the most significant eras there was the 16th century. After years of disastrous infighting in the Wars of the Roses, Henry 7th and then Henry 8th began to stabilize English society and lay the foundations for the empire that was to follow. As we know, Henry 8th had six wives. As the saying went, “Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.”

Henry was not only a cruel tyrant, but also horrible to his counselors. The two most significant after Cardinal Wolseley were Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) and Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540), both of whom were beheaded.

Martin Luther (1483-1546) initiated the Protestant split with Rome when he pinned his 95 articles on the gates of Wittenberg Cathedral. Sir Thomas More, loyal to the Pope, wrote a fierce rebuff and encouraged Henry to write a defense of the Catholic Church for which he was given the title “ Defender of the Faith” (abbreviated in its Latin to FidDef). This is still used by English monarchs.

When Henry wanted to get rid of his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, the Pope refused. Henry broke with Rome and set up the Church of England, and expected everyone else to follow him and accept him as the religious head of the Church (and thus defy the Catholic Church). To this day, the English Monarch is still head of the Church of England, which may explain why it has become such a pathetic disaster (although I think King Charles happens to be a good guy but certainly no saint).

Thomas More was a giant in English society — not just because of his political prowess and brilliance, but also because he had written a major work of English literature, Utopia, which described a mythical perfect world that was both a political satire and an aspirational dream of a perfect society. Sir Thomas was conflicted over whether to stand firm on his principles and face death or capitulate and obey his monarch. He refused to capitulate, and it cost him his life.

The unstable history of religious turmoil only ended when Henry’s daughter, Elizabeth, stabilized the country at home and survived the attempts of Catholic Spain to remove her. And by the way, there were no Jews allowed to live in England in those days, so you can’t blame them.

In 1960, the dramatist Robert Bolt produced a remarkable play called A Man for All Seasons, about Sir Thomas More as a brilliant, stable counterforce to the unpredictability of his master, King Henry, and his struggle, moral and religious. It was subsequently made into a very successful and award-winning feature film.

Much has been written about Thomas More. But in our days, he is known by most people from Hilary Mantel’s brilliant historical novel Wolf Hall, which was turned into a widely watched and praised television series that dramatizes the relationship between More and Thomas Cromwell, his pupil and then nemesis.

My interest in it is because I see so much of the present struggle between religious and political fanaticism and extremism not only in general, but also in Jewish religious life today. There are those who absolutely refuse to budge, see another point of view, and even resort to violence — although no one has been beheaded yet.

As for Martin Luther, he claimed he stood for a new open-minded version of Christianity in reaction to the corrupt Catholic authority of Rome, which only allowed the priesthood to determine what ideas and interpretations were acceptable. Luther wanted the Bible to be accessible to everyone, in a way to democratize religion. Initially he hoped the Jews would join him because we encouraged everyone to have access to our holy books. But when we politely refused, Luther turned into one of the most despicable antisemites.

That is one of the reasons why so many (not all of course) religions that sprang from us are uncomfortable with our independence, and end up being so antagonistic to Jews. Precisely because we are different and stand out in following our own paths. Most people don’t like those who disagree. There are many who die each year solely for their religion.

I wonder whether despite our technological and scientific advances, we are not as primitive, addicted to power, and as bloodthirsty as people were back then. In the end, we might say these religious upheavals laid the ground for a better world. Sadly, now it looks like we are being taken back to the Middle Ages.

The author is a rabbi based in New York.

The footage is horrific.

In two separate videos released by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Israeli hostages Rom Braslavski and Evyatar David appear gaunt, broken, and visibly emaciated. In the first, Braslavski — barely able to speak –says: “I’ve run out of food and water. If before they gave me a little bit, now there’s nothing. Today I ate three falafel crumbs — three crumbs.” In the second, David, also starved, is seen digging what appears to be his own grave in a Hamas tunnel.

These are the kinds of scenes that should have dominated headlines. The images are not only harrowing, but evidence of months-long torture, war crimes, and psychological warfare. Yet, the international press mostly averted its gaze.

Where were the front-page splashes? The expert panels? The outrage?

These men have been held hostage for over 660 days. Their skeletal forms should have shocked the world. Instead, the media largely ignored the videos, or buried them in the coverage.

And here’s where the double standard becomes impossible to ignore.

News organizations that eagerly ran unverified images of starving Palestinian children – some later revealed to be suffering from congenital illness — offered only cautious, passing mention of the Israeli hostages.

NBC News, for example, published the now-debunked photos by Ahmed Jihad Ibrahim al-Arini, describing the child as “severely malnourished,” without confirming their authenticity. Yet when it came to footage of Evyatar David, whose voice and body clearly indicate his suffering, NBC noted it could not “independently verify” the video.

So @NBCNews can’t “independently verify” the video of Evyatar David – skeletal, digging his own grave in a Hamas tunnel.

But when Hamas pushes inflated death tolls or baseless massacre claims?
No quote marks. No disclaimers. Just headlines. pic.twitter.com/iFcezrPuWw

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) August 4, 2025

The New York Times and The Washington Post both prominently featured al-Arini’s image on their front pages. But neither Braslavski nor David’s faces made the splash. The Post didn’t even consider the videos newsworthy enough for a standalone story, mentioning them only in passing in coverage about US envoy Steven Witkoff’s visit to Israel.

Then there’s the BBC, which published an interview with Anadolu Agency photographer al-Arini, allowing him to falsely claim his image represented widespread starvation in Gaza. In reporting on the hostage video, the BBC led with a pre-captivity photo of Evyatar David and buried a single still from the actual footage further down in the article.

The contrast couldn’t be more stark. When a photo fits the narrative, journalistic caution is suspended. But when it challenges that narrative – when it shows Israelis as victims of starvation and torture — the same outlets suddenly rediscover their editorial restraint.

The (Hefty) Hand of Hamas

As disturbing as the lack of media attention was, some of the limited coverage managed to be even worse, insinuating that Israel bore responsibility for the hostages’ condition.

The BBC, for example, not only referred to the hostages as mere “prisoners” but also gave prominent space to Hamas’s denial that Evyatar David had been intentionally starved. It was an absurd caveat, as though his skeletal frame might be the result of some tragic clerical error.

Hey @BBCNews – “prisoners”?
They’re hostages. Civilians. Abducted, tortured, starved.
Evyatar David is a walking skeleton, forced to DIG HIS OWN GRAVE.
And you parrot Hamas’ grotesque denial?
What, he starved nearly to death by accident? pic.twitter.com/yrvXPoeADR

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) August 4, 2025

The Guardian went even further. Rather than focus on the war crime committed by Hamas, its report appeared to link David’s appearance to Israeli restrictions on aid entering Gaza, implying that his tormentors had no agency in his fate – and that Israel was somehow to blame for not delivering better rations to his captors.

But the truth is spelled out plainly in the video itself. At one point, David is handed a small can of food, said to be “for a few days.” The hand offering it is plump, clean, and unmistakably well-nourished. It belongs to one of his Hamas captors. It’s a grotesque image of power and cruelty: a well-fed kidnapper doling out crumbs to a man he is slowly starving to death.

1/
Here’s @guardian claiming Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir prayed at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
He didn’t.

Let’s talk about the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, which also houses Al-Aqsa, Islam’s third holiest.

A thread on media confusion – and misrepresentation.  pic.twitter.com/8uBF6H3y1o

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) August 4, 2025

When Victims Don’t Fit the Narrative

Rom Braslavski and Evyatar David should have been household names this week. They are symbols of Hamas’s brutal hostage strategy and walking evidence of the suffering inflicted on Israelis since Hamas started the war on October 7, 2023.

But for much of the Western media, they didn’t fit the preferred narrative.

There were no outraged op-eds, no breaking-news banners, and no solemn on-air monologues decrying their treatment. Instead, headlines were downplayed, the footage was buried, and the coverage was marked by hesitation and deflection.

The media knew how to amplify claims of starvation when they served to indict Israel. But when Hamas inflicted clear, documented deprivation on Israeli civilians, the coverage all but vanished. So too did the moral clarity that journalism is meant to uphold.

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.

On Sunday, August 3, major media outlets amplified a distorted Palestinian narrative about Jerusalem’s Temple Mount — Judaism’s holiest site — in a way that did more than just misinform. It helped legitimize the very rhetoric used by Hamas to justify its October 7, 2023 massacre.

From factual errors to sensationalism, the coverage of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s brief visit to the Al-Aqsa compound on Tisha B’Av — the Jewish day of mourning for the destruction of the ancient Temples — was painted as a dangerous provocation, a spark threatening to ignite further regional instability.

This is more than bad reporting. It’s complicity in a lie that kills.

While Jewish prayer at the site — the third holiest for Muslims — is forbidden, any outlet that paints such a non-violent act as dangerous automatically adopts the point of view of the real extremists, forgetting that such coverage fuels terrorist propaganda.

1/
Here’s @guardian claiming Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir prayed at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
He didn’t.

Let’s talk about the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, which also houses Al-Aqsa, Islam’s third holiest.

A thread on media confusion – and misrepresentation.  pic.twitter.com/8uBF6H3y1o

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) August 4, 2025

Compound Vs. Mosque

Outlets like The Guardian and The Times of London suggested Ben-Gvir had literally entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque and prayed inside.

He didn’t.

He visited the broader Temple Mount compound, which includes the mosque, but also happens to be the site of the First and Second Jewish Temples. He said a short, silent prayer to mark the day Jews mourn the destruction of those temples. That’s it.

The International Business Times even suggested that the Al-Aqsa Mosque itself is sacred to Jews — a basic factual error that betrays either ignorance or ideological bias. Neither reflects well on a journalist.

Meanwhile, The Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press left out any context about the significance of the day for Jews, and instead used the opportunity to link Ben-Gvir’s visit to unrelated violence in Gaza.

The BBC avoided using the Hebrew term “Har HaBayit” (Temple Mount) altogether, referring to it only by the Arabic “Haram al-Sharif,” as though the Jewish connection to the site is some kind of fringe claim.

Fueling the Flames

Such coverage — whether through carelessness or design — frames Jews as the problem. And that’s exactly the kind of narrative that fuels genocidal violence, like the one launched on October 7, 2023.

As Hamas itself stated after slaughtering 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping hundreds into Gaza, operation “Al-Aqsa Flood” was a legitimate response against “the Israeli judaization plans of the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque” and “the intensification of the Israeli settlers’ incursions into the holy Mosque.”

By repeating this framing — that a Jew praying at his holiest site is a threat to Muslims — the media feed the propaganda machine that fuels antisemitic violence.

Let’s be clear: any outlet that claims Jewish prayer sparked “outrage” or “anger” is not reporting — it’s siding with the murderers. Men too fragile to hear Hebrew on the Temple Mount, yet brutal enough to slit Jewish throats.

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.