Connect with us

RSS

This Washington Post Writer Defames Israel Online and In Print

The former Washington Post building. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Since October 7, when Hamas terrorists brutally invaded Israel and slaughtered hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians, Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah has dedicated both her weekly newsletter and much of her social media to discussing Israel, the Palestinians, and the Jewish state’s ongoing war against the Hamas terror organization.

However, despite being an award-winning journalist, Attiah’s published pieces and social media posts are chockful of misleading statements, baseless opinions, and a skewed analysis that serve only to construct a narrative that is solely bent on tarnishing the Jewish state.

In particular, the three key ways by which Karen Attiah develops her toxic narrative is through the implicit justification of Hamas’ attack, the manipulation of language, and the twisting of facts and history.

“If Israel proceeds to make good on its threats to turn Gaza into flattened pavement, it’s all the more clear that ‘never again’ does not apply to Arab or Muslim lives,” Karen Attiah writes. https://t.co/SFu0RtCU0l

— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) October 14, 2023

Karren Attiah’s Reaction to October 7

In her first Washington Post newsletter following the October 7 massacres, Karen Attiah referred to Hamas’ attack as “horrific,” “unprecedented,” and a “nightmare.” On Twitter, she reposted an update on the number of Israeli deaths with the comment “My god.”

However, in light of her robust activity on social media in the days following October 7, it appears that the above is merely a lip service condemnation while her deeper feelings about Hamas’ invasion are much more sinister and alarming.

As one analyst put it, Attiah’s reaction to October 7 “fell somewhere between dismissive and giddy.”

Viewing Hamas’ brutal assault as an expression of decolonization, Attiah reportedly reposted a now-deleted tweet that exulted in the attack: “What did y’all think decolonization meant? vibes? papers? essays? Losers.”

Similarly, Attiah also reposted a tweet that declared “Settlers are not the victims here and never will be.”

On October 8, in response to a tweet that downplayed the value of “armed struggle,” Attiah tweeted, “There are a lot of people going off of vibes and feel-good platitudes about decolonization and resistance, not actual historical knowledge and research about the global south.”

That same day, she also tweeted that “We are forced to see state violence as justified + moral, while violence by non-state actors isn’t. This is changing.”

There are a lot of people going off of vibes and feel-good platitudes about decolonization and resistance, not actual historical knowledge and research about the global south. https://t.co/KkdqbW85UY

— Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah) October 8, 2023

Even more than two weeks later, when a large extent of Hamas’ atrocities had been made public, Karen Attiah felt it necessary to repost a tweet by Marc Lamont Hill that read, “So many university academics who insist upon doing performative, virtue signaling ‘land acknowledgements’ at every public event are eerily silent as real liberation struggles are happening. Guess decolonization really is a metaphor for some folk…”

In her first newsletter following the Hamas attack, Attiah decried the fact that “People using the terms ‘decolonization’ and ‘liberation’ in describing Palestinians’ struggle for human rights have had their remarks taken out of context and have been accused of championing Hamas’s brand of terrorism.”

While she might believe there is some distinction to be made, it appears from her social media history, that Karen Attiah’s reaction to Hamas’ terrorism is at best ambivalent and at worse supportive.

From “Ethnic Cleansing” to “Never Again”: Misuse of Language

One of the ways in which Karen Attiah frames her anti-Israel narrative is through the use (and abuse) of evocative language in describing Israel’s military response to Hamas’ brutality.

Throughout her newsletters, Attiah refers to the IDF’s defensive military action as “atrocities,” “collective punishment,” “genocidal,” and the “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.”

She also recently tweeted that it was “not a war against Hamas. This is Israel waging a colonial-style, punitive massacre against Palestinians.”

This is not a war against Hamas.

This is Israel waging a colonial-style, punitive massacre against Palestinians.

— Karen Attiah (@KarenAttiah) November 11, 2023

In addition to her use of direct language, Karen Attiah also uses insinuations to negatively associate Israel with some of the darkest events in modern history.

In one newsletter, Attiah wrote that “The last time millions of people were targeted and trapped based on their identity, the world said ‘never again.’”

By invoking the terminology “never again,” Attiah is drawing a direct and baseless comparison between Israel’s military struggle against the Hamas terror group and Nazi Germany’s attempt to destroy European Jewry during the Holocaust.

In a later newsletter, Attiah implicitly compares Israel to the French in Algeria. Here, too, the comparison is absurd, as France was a colonial power ruling over the native population while Israel is the embodiment of an indigenous population’s return to sovereignty in their ancestral homeland.

The Nazis trapped millions of Jews & transported them to their deaths.

Israel is helping Palestinians escape while rooting out Hamas evil that’s ACTUALLY perpetrating atrocities based on identity.

How dare @washingtonpost allow @KarenAttiah‘s antisemitism to infect its pages. https://t.co/biLeEPboRT pic.twitter.com/IBZ7F3kJ1d

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 14, 2023

A third way that Karen Attiah misuses language to further her anti-Israel narrative is by questioning the use of certain terminology.

For example, in one newsletter, she questioned the use of the term “human shields” when describing Hamas’ cynical use of Gazan civilians as cover for its terrorist activities.

To her mind, the term

means any Palestinian is a possible vector for violence, an unwitting Trojan horse for terrorism. You know the thing about shields and armor? Shields are allowed to be penetrated and broken, so long as the enemy is vanquished. Is this how we should be talking about people, human beings?

This quote reveals a lot about Karen Attiah’s mindset: If Israel is unable to fight Hamas due to the latter’s use of humans shields (a viewpoint not based in international law), then any Israeli response is to be condemned. Ultimately, this rewards Hamas’ violation of human rights while punishing Israel for its defense of its citizenry.

Misuse of Facts & History

One of the most concerning issues with Karen Attiah’s analysis is her reliance on misleading statements and skewed facts to support her troubling narrative.

Several examples of Karen Attiah’s loose grip on the facts include:

1) In one piece, Attiah claims that “the angry discourse in response to the Oct. 7 attack has been undeniably anti-Arab and Islamophobic in nature, and utterly dehumanizing.”

This statement completely ignores the rise in antisemitism following the October 7 massacre and Israel’s response. Only four days after the publication of Attiah’s piece, the ADL noted an almost 400% increase in antisemitic incidents since October 7.

2) In another piece, Karen Attiah claims that “Black writers and civil rights leaders have a long history of seeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of the Black struggle for freedom and resistance to violent imperialism.” She then lists such leaders as Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, and Huey Newton.

However, to make her case, Attiah purposefully ignores the history of Black and civil rights leaders supporting Israel and Zionism, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Bayard Rustin, and John Lewis.

3) Attiah claims that in 2018, Marc Lamont Hill “was removed as a commentator from CNN after expressing solidarities with Palestinians.” This minimizes what Hill actually did, which was call for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea,” which many interpret to mean the dismantling of the Jewish state.

4) In her latest piece, Karen Attiah claims that the Israel-Palestine issue is “a fundamentally British colonial project.” Throughout the piece, she attempts to portray Israel as being the creation of British imperialism by citing the Balfour Declaration, a few pronouncements by Winston Churchill, and the 1922 British Mandate.

However, in order to present this overly simplistic picture, Attiah has to ignore the fact that Britain severely limited Jewish immigration in 1939, it abstained from the UN partition vote in 1947, it battled Zionist militias fighting for independence in the late 1940s, it did not recognize Israel until 1950, and the British-trained forces in Jordan and Egypt were part of the invasion of Israel in 1948.

Karen Attiah appears to hold a rigid worldview, which focuses on observing reality through the lenses of race and decolonization. However, by viewing the world this way, Attiah is forced to disregard certain facts that do not fit neatly into an ideological box.

This not only leaves her analysis lacking in credibility but also deprives her readers at The Washington Post of the proper nuanced and intelligent analysis that they deserve.

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 This Washington Post Writer Defames Israel Online and In Print first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News