RSS
The Disgusting Lies of Haaretz
English and Hebrew editions of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
“Gaza Is the Horror That Can’t Be Denied. But Israelis Will Try,“ writes Dahlia Scheindlin in a long piece in Haaretz, about the war that’s been going on in Gaza for over a year. Her point is pretty straightforward: Israelis always deny the atrocities they commit, no matter how strong the evidence — and they have been doing so from 1948 until today.
To prove her point, Scheindlin provides a series of cases from the last 76 years in which, she claims, both the State of Israel and Israelis were guilty of horrible crimes, but they refused to acknowledge their guilt, denied the obvious facts, and proclaimed their innocence.
But Scheindlin’s examples can be dismantled and falsified. Indeed, her hit piece against Israel serves as an excellent example of the propaganda war that’s been waged against Israel for decades. The goal of this war is to slander Israel and blame the Jewish State for the most terrible crimes — regardless of the facts.
Genocide and War Crimes in Gaza
Scheindlin starts with the worst accusation of all: genocide, and how both Palestinians and Israelis respond to this accusation:
And nothing inflames the debate more than the word “genocide.”
For Palestinians, genocide is a descriptive fact – anything else is a lie. For international courts, it is a legal convention, the International Court of Justice is deliberating South Africa’s charges, according to a high bar of evidence… For many Israelis, the word is an antisemitic plot and a lie.
Israel’s government already flatly denies lesser charges – war crimes, ethnic cleansing, a second Nakba…
In other words: for the Palestinians, genocide is being waged against them; for Israelis, the accusation is baseless; and the independent body of jurists — the International Court of Justice (ICJ — will decide who’s right. And in any case, even if there is no genocide, it’s clear that Israel is guilty of war crimes, which it also denies.
But the rejection of the claim that Israel commit systematic war crimes is not unique to Israel. In fact, it is consensus amongst non-Israeli military experts — high officers and scholars of war and military affairs from democratic countries who examined, studied and expressed their professional conclusion about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza.
And the experts’ conclusion is that Israel does not engage in deliberate and unnecessary killing of civilians, and that it abides by the laws of war.
Among these experts are John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, who said:
Israel has followed the laws of war, legal obligations, best practices in civilian harm mitigation and still found a way to reduce civilian casualties to historically low levels.
Sir John McColl, former Deputy Commander of NATO Forces: “I know Israel’s doing all it can to save civilians.”
Andrew Fox, lecturer at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst: “…all the actions they have taken since [Oct 7], are justified both morally and from a national security perspective.”
Geoffrey Corn, Chair of Military Law at Texas Tech Univ. & Lt Col US Army, and Lt. General George Smith: “Israel consistently implements its legal obligation to avoid, whenever feasibly, [civilian deaths].”
Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of the British troops in Afghanistan: “No army takes more precaution than the Israel Defense Forces in order to prevent civil casualties.”
Vincenzo Camporini, former head of the Italian armed forces, together with a group of retired generals from UK & US militaries: “[The] IDF has developed and implemented innovative procedures to mitigate the risk to civilians arising from attacks on valid military objectives.”
Others who support this view include Gen. Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, former commander of the American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And a group of 7 US high ranking officers concluded in a special report that: Israel’s “[in] overall compliance with the Laws of Armed Conflict.”
There is no parallel group of that level who accuses Israel of violating the laws of war, or in deliberate unnecessary mass murder of civilian population. This is not “Israeli denialism.” Rather, it is the consensus amongst the relevant professionals.
“The Nakba” — 1948
Then Scheindlin turns to Israel’s great “original sin”: the flight of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from what became Israel, during the 1948 War of Independence. Here too, Israel denied its guilt and concealed the truth:
Israel’s leadership classified the archives related to the Nakba during the War of Independence, while David Ben-Gurion painstakingly cultivated the idea that most Palestinians left at their leaders’ instruction… Archives were declassified, scholars pieced together terrible truths, and Israel reclassified the material.
What “terrible truths” were revealed with the declassification of the archives?
The historian Professor Benny Morris, the prominent researcher of those archives in the early 1980s, concluded his book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem with these words:
The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Arab and Jewish fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians (p. 286).
About 20 years later, more archival materials were declassified, and they brought Morris to somewhat revise his findings:
Birth Revisited describes many more atrocities and expulsions than were recorded in the original version of the book. But, at the same time, a far greater proportion of the 700,000 Arab refugees were ordered or advised by their fellow Arabs to abandon their homes than I had previously registered. It is clear from the new documentation that the Palestinian leadership in principle opposed the Arab flight from December 1947 to April 1948, while at the same time encouraging or ordering a great many villages to send away their women, children and old folk, to be out of harm’s way. Whole villages, especially in the Jewish- dominated coastal plain, were also ordered to evacuate.
In other words: the declassification of the archives revealed a reality of harsh war, and not unprecedented atrocities committed by Israel. In addition, even if most Arabs didn’t leave at the behest of their leaders, it was definitely true for many of them. This idea is not an invention of David Ben-Gurion, but a simple historical fact, which Dahlia Scheindlin happens to dislike.
The Tantura “Massacre” Affair
Scheindlin also mentions the story of the massacre that he IDF allegedly committed in the Arab village Tantura in 1948, according to the MA dissertation by Teddy Katz from 1998, which sparked an uproar:
Fellow academics unleashed smear campaigns and interviewees retracted their testimonies to Teddy Katz, whose master’s thesis chronicled a massacre by Israeli forces at Tantura in 1948 (that story is captured in an astonishing, eponymous film).
How many lies can be put in one sentence? First, there was no “smear campaign” by “fellow academics.” There were veteran, reputable historians who published their findings that there is no evidence of a massacre in Tantura, and that Teddy Katz’s thesis does not meet minimal academic standards.
Second of all, Katz’s interviewees did not “retract their testimonies.” They sued him, claiming that he distorted their testimonies unrecognizably, in order to support his pre-determined conclusion. And indeed, the trial revealed significant gaps between the recorded testimonies and how they have been quoted in the thesis, as well as other distortions and lies.
The Al-Dura Affair
Dahlia Scheindlin’s piece reaches the beginning of the first Intifada:
In recent years, denial efforts often focus on individual cases, picking apart tiny details to prove Israel’s innocence… Examples of these micro-denials include a cottage industry that emerged over years to prove that 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura was not killed by Israeli fire in 2000, during the second intifada
The phrase “cottage industry” refers to “a business or manufacturing activity carried on in a person’s home.” That is, Scheindlin insinuates that the claims that Israel didn’t kill Mohammed al-Dura are based on some conspiracy theorists who investigated the case privately.
This claim has no basis. An Israeli investigative commission determined that the case of al-Durrah’s death was unclear, and that at the end of the infamous video supposedly showing his demise, the boy is seen alive. Moreover, the barrage of bullets that struck the boy could not have been fired from an IDF position, according to an Israeli police forensic expert, who took part in investigating the case. Dr. Yehuda David, who claimed to have already treated bullet scars on al-Durrah in 1994, was acquitted in a libel suit filed against him in French court.
But even if Sheindlin claims that all the above investigations and conclusions are Israeli propaganda, two main points stand:
- The video clip showing al-Durrah’s death contains zero evidence that the IDF killed the boy.
- Even if we accept the unproven allegation that al-Durrah died by IDF fire, he was not intentionally murdered, but rather caught in the crossfire between Israelis and armed Palestinians.
Which raises the question: why is Mohammed al-Dura’s death discussed 24 years after the event? The reason? It serves as a major propaganda tool to incite terrorism and murder against Jews and Israelis. That’s why it became a symbol.
Scheindlin is blind to the fact that in her efforts to malign Israel she only exposes the nature of anti-Israeli propaganda.
The Explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital
Scheindlin uses another case of the Palestinian propaganda, which in contrast to the al-Dura case, failed to become a major source for anti-Israeli propaganda:
If a terrible incident is wrongly attributed to Israel – such as the explosions at the Al-Ahli hospital early in the war, most likely by misfired munitions from Palestinian militias – this is leveraged as proof that Israel is innocent in all other cases.
Reminder: In the hour following the explosion at the Al-Ahli Hospital on October 17 2023, Hamas authorities claimed that Israel bombed the hospital and the people in it. The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced that 500 people were killed by the blast. Many major international media outlets accepted the Palestinian version as is, and delivered it to the world.
Only in the hours and days afterwards did evidence accumulate proving that it was a fabrication.
Media outlets and intelligence agencies around the world reached the conclusion: a failed Palestinian rocket hit the hospital’s parking lot, and the number of dead was lower by orders of magnitude than the initial claim.
Scheindlin doesn’t provide an example for someone who claims the Al-Ahli case proves that “Israel is innocent in all other cases.” But the case does showcase the motivation of the industry of lies to defame Israel at every opportunity, as well as the willingness of the international media to embrace every anti-Israeli lie, as long as that lie is not clearly exposed.
Northern Gaza
Finally, Scheindlin moves to discuss the IDF’s activity in the Northern Gaza Strip in recent weeks:
Israel is still starving, bombing and expelling the population of northern Gaza. Many suspect it is implementing the “General’s Plan,” which seeks to empty northern Gaza of Palestinians…
She also describes the proceedings in Israeli court regarding the paucity of humanitarian supplies entering northern Gaza. She writes about the call of Israeli settler leaders and coalition members to establish settlements there. The conclusion is clear: Israel is slaughtering, starving, and expelling hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to build settlements in their stead.
Meanwhile, this is the version of the IDF regarding the operation in Northern Gaza Strip (as far as Scheindlin is concerned, this is merely typical Israeli “denialism”):
The Israel Defense Forces said Sunday that troops had encircled Jabaliya amid a new ground operation targeting efforts by Hamas to reestablish itself in northern Gaza. […]
Amid the expanded operation, the IDF announced on Sunday that it was preparing to evacuate civilians from the entire north of Gaza and would increase the size of the Israeli-designated humanitarian zone in the southern Strip.
The zone, where the vast majority of the Gazan population currently reside, is where most humanitarian aid is being delivered. There are also field hospitals there.
The military also said it was opening up two evacuation routes for Palestinians — along the Salah a-Din road and the coastal road.
The evacuation order’s purpose, according to the IDF, is to minimize the damage to the Palestinian population, while fighting Hamas and preventing the terror organization from tightening its hold in the region.
Which version should we believe — the IDF’s or Dahlia Scheindlin’s?
Well, it’s easy to believe Sceindlin if we ignore the military reality on the ground and Hamas’ modus operandi. And Hamas’ reality on the ground, as explained by a recent document by the Washington Institute, is that Hamas is maintaining “shadow governance” wherever the IDF hasn’t cleared completely of the terror organization’s presence:
Hamas has employed various methods to demonstrate a presence on the ground, provide essential emergency services to the people, and—most important—prevent any other potential players from stepping into its shoes.
These methods include, among others, taking over the humanitarian aid and its distribution to the population; establishment of terror command centers and ammo depots well inside the civilian population; and violently preventing civilians from leaving to the humanitarian zones, including by shooting those who dare evacuate.
These are the conditions that Hamas created, which require evacuating the civilians, in order to fulfill the two goals: to end Hamas’ rule in Gaza, and to minimize civilian casualties.
Regarding the expansion of humanitarian zones, Scheindlin writes:
The IDF says it has expanded the humanitarian zones for Gazans, but Tania Hary, executive director of Gisha, an Israeli NGO working on human rights in Gaza and the lead petitioner, rejects that term: “There is nothing actually humanitarian about the humanitarian zone … there’s not enough aid or shelter for people there, and airstrikes still take place in the zone
And again, it’s very easy to portray Israel as a monster, as long as we ignore Hamas’ existence and the ways it chooses to operate throughout Gaza, even a year after it chose to start a war. And so Scheindlin hides from her readers the systematic theft of humanitarian supplies by Hamas; Hamas officials who hide in the humanitarian zones; the firing of rockets from those zones; and the use of humanitarian zones to establish command centers, weapon workshops, ammunition storages, and bases to launch attacks against Israeli forces.
Conclusion
It’s very easy to incriminate the Jewish State and portray her in a monstrous light, when you believe any lie that her enemies tell about her, and dismiss any evidence that exonerates Israel as worthless “denialism.” That how Dahlia Scheindlin dismisses the professional assessments of military experts regarding Israel’s conduct of war; what historians say about the 1948 war; the real meaning of the al-Dura and Al-Ahli hospital affairs; and what’s going on in the Northern Gaza Strip and the humanitarian zones.
Dahlia Scheindlin wanted to write an indictment against the Israelis’ propensity to reject and deny their crimes. But ironically, the manifest that she wrote is a good example of the way Israel’s haters would blame the Jewish State for anything, disregarding inconvenient facts.
Shlomi Ben Meir is a contributor to CAMERA, where a version of this article first appeared.
The post The Disgusting Lies of Haaretz first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.