RSS
The Wall Street Journal’s Israel Coverage Is Extremely Biased
An aerial view shows the bodies of victims of an attack following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip lying on the ground in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel, Oct. 10, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg
Throughout the 10 months of war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page has been one of mainstream media’s most sympathetic to Israel and its fight against terrorism.
With riveting analyses and a wide range of perspectives, the Journal’s opinions page stands out as a light in the darkness.
However, the same cannot be said of the Journal’s news section.
Since Hamas’s invasion of southern Israel on October 7, HonestReporting has called out the Journal numerous times for its subtle (and, sometimes, unsubtle) bias against Israel and the Jewish State’s justified war against Hamas.
This bias takes the form of misleading its readers by leaving out vital context, whitewashing Hamas, and relying on Hamas propaganda as a legitimate news source.
The Wall Street Journal’s Bias Against Israel Since October 7
One of the key ways in which The Wall Street Journal’s reporting is biased against Israel is by the omission of vital information needed for its readers to fully understand Israel’s actions and what is happening in Gaza.
For example, in early November 2023, the Journal wrote that even though the IDF had been encouraging Palestinians to leave northern Gaza for three weeks, “many Gazans have been unable to flee due to ongoing Israeli airstrikes,” implying that Israel was solely responsible for putting local Palestinians in harm’s way.
However, what this article failed to inform Journal readers is that many Palestinians were also being prevented from venturing south due to Hamas attacks on those who were trying to flee northern Gaza.
Similarly, a month later, after the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas broke down, the Journal headlined its article “Israel Resumes Combat Operations in Gaza as Ceasefire Stalls,” focusing on Israeli actions and ignoring Hamas’ resumption of rocket fire against Israel that preceded Israel’s resumption of military operations in the Gaza Strip.
We’ve fixed it for you, @WSJ. There’s one side that broke the ceasefire before it expired. Clue: It wasn’t Israel.https://t.co/ThrdpBtMRX pic.twitter.com/X3ad1VZk33
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) December 1, 2023
And it’s not only reports on the current conflict between Israel and Hamas that are misleading and lacking a proper context. For example, in the last weeks of December 2023, the Journal published two articles that featured misleading claims about Israel in general.
The first, about Israeli immigration policy, made it seem as if Israeli law is somehow discriminatory against non-Jews. However, as HonestReporting noted, the naturalization process for non-Jews to become Israeli citizens is similar to the process found in other democratic countries and is not inherently discriminatory.
The second misleading claim was made a week later, when the Journal reported that the imposition of the Israeli/Egyptian blockade of Gaza in 2007 following Hamas’ violent ascension to power ended decades of Gazan employment within Israel, implying that Israel purposefully made conditions harder for innocent Palestinians living in Gaza.
This is simply not true as, up to October 7, 2023, roughly 18,000 residents of Gaza had permits to work in Israel.
The Journal’s misleading pieces on the conflict continued into 2024, with a January report referencing Israel’s conducting “strikes on hospitals and other key infrastructure in its pursuit of the tunnels” with no mention of Hamas purposefully embedding itself within these “civilian” sites.
A June article referenced the closing of the Rafah crossing since Israel’s invasion of the southern Gazan city, but did not mention the fact that Egypt is the one intent on keeping it closed, not the Jewish State.
Actually, @WSJ, Israel has said it has conducted strikes on key Hamas infrastructure that the terrorist organization purposely built underneath hospitals, mosques, schools, and homes.
Fixed it for you. https://t.co/N4sp1SJwjS pic.twitter.com/WQnf9SCJGB
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 28, 2024
Another aspect of The Wall Street Journal’s biased reporting is its whitewashing of Hamas.
Even on October 7, as Israeli forces were battling Hamas terrorists in southern Israel, the Journal published an explainer piece on the internationally-recognized terror group that included the false claim that Hamas is focused on creating an independent Palestinian state and has been open in recent years to a two-state solution.
The piece ignored the fact that Hamas views this “openness” as a temporary step in achieving its ultimate goal of destroying the Jewish State.
Months later, the Journal once again whitewashed the terror group when it referred to Hamas’s political chief Ismail Haniyeh in a headline as the “leading advocate for a Gaza cease-fire,” ignoring his long history of advancing terrorism against Israelis and his support of the October 7 attack.
Hamas Charter: we will “raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine… Peace initiatives are in contradiction to our principles.”@WSJ: “Hamas has indicated it is willing to accept a two state solution” and suggests Israel escalated the hostility. pic.twitter.com/thtXyaJjXs
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 7, 2023
Aside from whitewashing Hamas, the Journal’s reporting bias also extends to its uncritical reliance on Hamas as a source.
For example, in the immediate aftermath of the explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza in October 2023, the Journal’s headline parroted Hamas’s talking points, writing that “Israeli airstrike on Gaza hospital kills more than 500, Palestinian officials say.”
Hours later, it was determined that the explosion was caused by an errant Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket, and that the casualty numbers were much lower than the 500 that the Journal initially reported.
Months later, the Journal continued to take Hamas propaganda for granted, including buying into the claim in May 2024 that Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire (which it had not negotiated with anyone except itself), and repeating the claim that an August attack by the IDF on a Hamas center had killed “dozens of civilians.”
In fact, the Journal’s reliance on Hamas’s uncorroborated facts led it to wonder what could account for the discrepancy between the IDF’s assertions and Hamas’ claims, ignoring the fact that the former is a sovereign democracy’s military while the latter is an internationally-recognized terror organization.
Do @WSJ just take Hamas’s statements as fact? pic.twitter.com/CI1IXbSI2F
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 17, 2023
The Wall Street Journal’s Poisoned Pen
Aside from its implicit bias, another issue with The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict is its reliance on contributors with a history of hostility to Israel, who help contribute to the distorted framing of the newspaper’s narrative.
In the first month of the war, HonestReporting shined a light on Palestinian journalist Fatima AbdulKarim, who had been affiliated with the Journal since before the war.
Based in Ramallah, AbdulKarim has a history of incendiary social media posts that accuse Israel of “Apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing,” rely on anti-Israel sources like Breaking the Silence and Defense for Children International-Palestine (a front for the PFLP terror organization), and distort the news in order to whitewash Palestinian terrorism and smear Israeli actions.
In August 2024, HonestReporting uncovered the hate-filled social media history of Journal contributor Abeer Ayyoub, who celebrated October 7 on X (formerly Twitter), spread fake news about a kidnapped Israeli general, mocked Israel in its darkest hour, and whitewashed Hamas’ terrorism.
To solidify her anti-Israel presence online, Ayyoub commented in Arabic “Eat sh*t” on a message of sympathy with Israel by X owner Elon Musk on October 7.
With contributors like Fatima AbdulKarim and Abeer Ayyoub, is it any wonder that there is a noticeable trend of bias that permeates The Wall Street Journal’s ongoing coverage of Israel’s war against Hamas?
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.
The post The Wall Street Journal’s Israel Coverage Is Extremely Biased first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
There Is Massive Antisemitism in the Workplace; Here’s What You Need to Know

FILE PHOTO: A man, with an Israeli flag with a cross in the center, looks on next to police officers working at the site where, according to the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, two Israeli embassy staff were shot dead near the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., U.S. May 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
Most people think they would recognize antisemitism if they saw it: a slur, a swastika, or someone saying Jews deserved to be attacked on October 7. However, the public rarely hears about such antisemitism permeating workplaces in almost every industry nationwide.
In my work as a non-profit lawyer specializing in workplace antisemitism, I’ve learned that some of the most insidious harm happens and remains behind closed doors.
Since October 7, 2023, there’s been a visible spike in antisemitism worldwide. Jewish students are experiencing a surge in discrimination and harassment, Jewish institutions are being defaced, a patron at a Jewish-owned bar paid for a sign to be held up saying “F*** the Jews,” and Ye (Kanye West) recently released a music video titled “Heil Hitler.”
In workplaces, antisemitism is just as present and egregious, but far less publicized. That is because most workplace antisemitism cases do not end up in headlines. Often, workplace antisemitism cases end in a signature on an ironclad nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”) and subsequent silence.
Since approximately more than half of employment law cases settle at some point before trial, the lack of publicity on Jewish civil rights violations in workplaces is not surprising. Still, the secrecy surrounding how those cases are resolved has devastating ripple effects. Given that most workplace cases settle, employees experiencing workplace antisemitism rarely hear about other similar incidents, which could have empowered them to enforce their rights or set a meaningful precedent in the courts to help them assess their chances of success. Another reason workplace antisemitism cases often do not make headlines is that many employees do not report their concerns out of fear of retaliation.
In my work on employment-related antisemitism matters as Senior Counsel at StandWithUs Legal, a division of StandWithUs, many of our cases involve employees in medicine, education, service industries, and technology who simply wanted to do their jobs. What they experienced instead were hostile comments from colleagues, exclusion from diversity programs, denials of promotions, or even termination. Some were mocked for their Israeli nationality or Jewish identity in team meetings. Others were treated unfairly based on Israel’s military actions, were told that Jews started the California wildfires with laser beams, or were called genocidal by colleagues. One was repeatedly subjected to “Anne Frank” jokes by her supervisor.
Employers rarely know how to handle antisemitism, and since these cases usually settle and involve NDAs, employers often can avoid directly addressing the problem. Jewish identity is frequently treated as invisible or controversial. Some employers encourage political discussions about every global injustice except those affecting Jews, drawing lines around Jewish identity that no other minority group is asked to navigate.
Antisemitism in the workplace remains a largely invisible problem — one that’s growing, unchecked, simmering just beneath the surface. The chilling effect of these settlements, NDAs, and silence is profound. When someone is fired for raising concerns about antisemitism, or pushed out under the guise of “performance” after reporting a hostile work environment, they’re often offered severance in exchange for silence in an NDA. It’s a cruel choice: rebuild your life with some financial security, or speak out and risk everything. Most understandably take the deal, but that means the problem continues to go unaddressed.
Whether guiding an employee through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) process, partnering with firms nationwide to sue, or interfacing with human resources or corporate general counsels to resolve the issue, I’ve seen firsthand how powerful the law can be in the workplace. It can force accountability, restore dignity, and, at its best, prevent future harm.
Louis Brandeis once said, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” While many of the victories I help achieve remain confidential, the mission is clear: to give voice to those who were silenced, empower employees to enforce their rights, and ensure that silence is no longer the cost of employment.
Deedee Bitran is Senior Counsel and Director of Pro Bono with StandWithUs Saidoff Legal.
The post There Is Massive Antisemitism in the Workplace; Here’s What You Need to Know first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Netherlands Also Has a Campus Antisemitism Problem

Anti-Israel protesters face Dutch police during a banned demonstration in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Nov. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Esther Verkaik
The Netherlands often presents itself as a beacon of tolerance and progress. But in recent years, that image has started to crack — especially in its universities. These institutions, which should champion open discussion and critical thinking, are now becoming known for something else: hostility toward Jewish and Israeli voices.
Recently, the heads of Dutch universities published a “Statement on Academic Freedom.” It’s full of idealistic talk about openness, free debate, and the importance of diverse opinions. But for many Jewish and Israeli academics, these words ring hollow.
Where was this concern for free expression over the past two years, when Jewish speakers were uninvited, Israeli scholars were boycotted, and students of multiple religions were silenced just for expressing support for Israel?
Where was this defense of dialogue when protests took over campus buildings, tried to intimidate and force out Jews, and declared these buildings and institutions were “Zionist-free”?
And let’s be clear — “Zionist-free” isn’t just about Israel; it’s a chilling phrase that echoes a much darker history.
And this isn’t just about silence. In some cases, universities actively supported or ignored clear discrimination against Jews and anyone who supported Israel’s right to exist.
At Wageningen University, for example, staff openly pledged not to supervise Israeli students. That’s not protest — that’s academic discrimination, pure and simple. The administration said nothing.
At TU Delft, a course described Israel as a colonial project and framed all Israelis as colonizers. Some of the people involved had even supported terror groups like Hamas, or downplayed the Holocaust. This wasn’t fringe — it was university-approved.
At Maastricht University, Jewish speakers were denied platforms due to “security concerns,” while pro-Palestinian speakers with long histories of hate speech were welcomed. The university even gave office space to a group known for antisemitic rhetoric and threats of violence. And Jewish professors needed security just to walk through campus.
So when these same universities now suddenly say they care about academic freedom — after ignoring these issues for years if they involved anyone Jewish or who supported Israel’s right to exist — it’s hard to take them seriously. It feels less like a change of heart, and more like damage control.
The truth is, academic freedom only means something when it’s applied fairly — not just to those with popular opinions, but also to those who face criticism and hostility. That includes Jewish and pro-Israeli voices.
If Dutch academia wants to rebuild trust, it must begin with honesty: admit the past failures, recognize the harm caused, and commit to applying its values consistently. That’s the only way forward.
This isn’t just a policy issue. It’s a moral one.
Sabine Sterk is CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
The post The Netherlands Also Has a Campus Antisemitism Problem first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran’s Khamenei Dismisses US Nuclear Proposal, Vows to Keep Enriching Uranium

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, May 20, 2025. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that abandoning uranium enrichment was “100 percent” against the country’s interests, rejecting a central US demand in talks to resolve a decades-long dispute over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
The US proposal for a new nuclear deal was presented to Iran on Saturday by Oman, which has mediated talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff.
After five rounds of talks, several hard-to-bridge issues remain, including Iran’s insistence on maintaining uranium enrichment on its soil and Tehran’s refusal to ship abroad its entire existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium – possible raw material for nuclear bombs.
Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state, said nothing about halting the talks, but said the US proposal “contradicts our nation’s belief in self-reliance and the principle of ‘We Can.’”
“Uranium enrichment is the key to our nuclear program and the enemies have focused on the enrichment,” Khamenei said during a televised speech marking the anniversary of the death of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
“The proposal that the Americans have presented is 100 percent against our interests … The rude and arrogant leaders of America repeatedly demand that we should not have a nuclear program. Who are you to decide whether Iran should have enrichment?” he added.
Tehran says it wants to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and has long denied accusations by Western powers that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
‘MAXIMUM PRESSURE’
Reuters reported on Monday that Tehran was poised to reject the US proposal as a “non-starter” that failed to soften Washington’s stance on uranium enrichment or to address Tehran’s interests.
Trump has revived his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran since his return to the White House in January, which included tightening sanctions and threatening to bomb Iran if the negotiations yield no deal.
Trump wants to curtail Tehran’s potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and threaten Israel. Iran’s clerical establishment, for its part, wants to be rid of devastating sanctions.
During his first term, Trump ditched Tehran’s 2015 nuclear pact with six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the pact’s limits.
Iran’s clerical establishment is grappling with multiple crises — energy and water shortages, a plunging currency, losses among regional militia proxies in conflicts with Israel, and rising fears of an Israeli strike on its nuclear sites — all intensified by Trump’s hardline stance.
Iran’s arch-foe Israel, which sees Tehran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, has repeatedly threatened to bomb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Tehran has vowed a harsh response.
The post Iran’s Khamenei Dismisses US Nuclear Proposal, Vows to Keep Enriching Uranium first appeared on Algemeiner.com.