Uncategorized
How the UK Media and Establishment Fueled Attacks on Jews, Like the Yom Kippur Murders
People react near the scene, after an attack in which a car was driven at pedestrians and stabbings were reported at a synagogue in north Manchester, Britain, on Yom Kippur, Oct. 2, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Phil Noble
On the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Britain’s Jewish community was once again terrorized at what should have been the safest of spaces: a synagogue.
The Yom Kippur terror attack targeting worshippers at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester was met with the usual chorus of hollow condemnation from politicians across the spectrum, accompanied by the same weary assurances that “the Jewish community will be protected.”
But this did not happen in a vacuum.
Just hours after the attack, British police confirmed that they were treating the incident as terrorism. The suspect was identified as Jihad al-Shamie, a Syrian asylum seeker who had been granted British citizenship. Yet even as the facts became clear, parts of the media and political establishment responded with familiar hand-wringing over how such an atrocity could have occurred — as though the answer wasn’t staring them in the face.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews put it bluntly, describing the attack as “sadly something we feared was coming.”
And indeed, it was.
For more than two years, the UK’s media and political class have helped fuel a hostile atmosphere, in which antisemitism has surged to levels unseen in decades. Since Hamas’ October 7 massacre, much of the British press has amplified narratives that demonize Israel while excusing or downplaying Palestinian terrorism — creating a climate where violence against Jews does feel almost inevitable.
A Rare Moment of Accountability
That climate was laid bare on live television.
During a Sky News segment following the Manchester attack, Lord John Woodcock — the government’s former independent adviser on political violence — directly confronted the network for its role in shaping public hostility toward Jews.
Woodcock, whose title in the UK’s House of Lords is Baron Walney, described the terror attack as “a product of the way in which Israel’s actions are seen and portrayed — I’m afraid to say it, by Sky News as well as other media outlets — as uniquely evil and worthy of a level of focus simply not afforded to other dire situations across the world.”
It was an extraordinary on-air moment of accountability — one that exposed a truth the media refuses to acknowledge.
MUST WATCH: @SkyNews won’t post this on their own social media because former UK govt advisor on political violence, @LordWalney, calls them & UK media out for portraying Israeli actions as “almost uniquely evil & worthy of a level of focus which is simply not afforded to other… pic.twitter.com/WrPgTat6Lk
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) October 2, 2025
Even as Woodcock pointed to the double standards and moral obsession that define coverage of Israel, the Sky News presenter attempted to push back, defending the network’s record. It was a revealing exchange: faced with criticism that was both factual and unanswerable, Sky News’s instinct was to deny, deflect, and preserve its self-image as neutral.
That, right there, is the problem.
When even undeniable evidence of bias is raised — when a former government adviser points out the disproportionate scrutiny applied to Israel — the British media refuses to reflect. It cannot see that its relentless framing of Israel as a moral pariah has consequences.
The Media’s Habit of “Both-Sidesing”
Almost as predictable as the politicians’ “shock” was the media’s reflexive attempt to “both sides” the story.
Reporting live from outside the synagogue, Sky News anchor Sarah-Jane Mee invited Akeela Ahmed, CEO of the British Muslim Trust, to comment on the attack. Incredibly, Mee suggested that the day’s events had “highlighted the vulnerabilities of different faith groups.”
“While Jews were targeted today,” she added, “we know Muslims could be targeted in these kinds of incidents.”
The remark was jaw-dropping. Muslims, she implied, might become victims in antisemitic Islamist terror attacks.
This is what moral relativism looks like.
“My heart goes out to everybody who was impacted”
Chief executive at British Muslim Trust Akeela Ahmed tells @skysarahjane she believes the increase in religiously motivated hate crimes comes from “misunderstanding and prejudice of people of faith”
Sky 501 and YouTube pic.twitter.com/ZTwyC6d343
— Sky News (@SkyNews) October 2, 2025
Instead of confronting the uncomfortable fact that Jews were targeted outside their own house of worship by a man radicalized by antisemitic ideology, the media rushed to dilute the specificity of the crime.
Reuters reported that the incident had “raised fears of more violence and division across faiths.” The BBC insisted for nearly 24 hours after the attack that the “motive” was unclear. Each time, the framing softened the reality: this was not an attack on “faith communities.” It was an attack on Jews.
Not on Muslims. Not on “believers.” On Jews.
Back to the Media
The press will condemn antisemitism in the abstract but refuses to recognize how its own reporting perpetuates it in practice. For years, journalists have blurred the line between criticism of Israel and vilification of Jews, normalizing the idea that Jewish collectivity — whether expressed through nationhood or worship — is suspect.
When headlines equate terrorists with their victims, when outlets question Israel’s right to defend itself but ignore Hamas’ atrocities, when Jewish suffering is minimized or reframed as a “clash of communities,” the result is not moral balance, but complicity.
The Manchester attack was not inevitable, actually, but it was predictable. And until Britain’s media acknowledges the role it has played in feeding the flames, the words “never again” will remain just that: words.
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.
Uncategorized
Cuba Defiant After Trump Says Island to Receive No More Venezuelan Oil or Money
A view shows part of Havana as U.S.-Cuba tensions rise after U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to stop Venezuelan oil and money from reaching Cuba and suggested the communist-run island to strike a deal with Washington, in Havana, Cuba, January 11, 2026. REUTERS/Norlys Perez
US President Donald Trump on Sunday said no more Venezuelan oil or money will go to Cuba and suggested the Communist-run island should strike a deal with Washington, ramping up pressure on the long-time US nemesis and provoking defiant words from the island’s leadership.
Venezuela is Cuba’s biggest oil supplier, but no cargoes have departed from Venezuelan ports to the Caribbean country since the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces in early January amid a strict US oil blockade on the OPEC country, shipping data shows.
Meanwhile, Caracas and Washington are progressing on a $2 billion deal to supply up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil to the US with proceeds to be deposited in US Treasury-supervised accounts, a major test of the emerging relationship between Trump and interim President Delcy Rodriguez.
“THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Sunday.
“Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela,” Trump added.
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel rejected Trump’s threat on social media, suggesting the US had no moral authority to force a deal on Cuba.
“Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. Nobody dictates what we do,” Diaz-Canel said on X. “Cuba does not attack; it has been attacked by the US for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, ready to defend the homeland to the last drop of blood.”
The US president did not elaborate on his suggested deal.
But Trump’s push on Cuba represents the latest escalation in his move to bring regional powers in line with the United States and underscores the seriousness of the administration’s ambition to dominate the Western Hemisphere.
Trump’s top officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have made no secret of their expectation that the recent US intervention in Venezuela could push Cuba over the edge.
US officials have hardened their rhetoric against Cuba in recent weeks, though the two countries have been at odds since former leader Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution.
CUBA DEFENDS IMPORT RIGHTS
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said in another post on X on Sunday that Cuba had the right to import fuel from any suppliers willing to export it. He also denied that Cuba had received financial or other “material” compensation in return for security services provided to any country.
Thirty-two members of Cuba’s armed forces and intelligence services were killed during the US raid on Venezuela. Cuba said those killed were responsible for “security and defense” but did not provide details on the arrangement between the two long-time allies.
Cuba relies on imported crude and fuel mainly provided by Venezuela, and Mexico in smaller volumes, purchased on the open market to keep its power generators and vehicles running.
As its operational refining capacity dwindled in recent years, Venezuela’s supply of crude and fuel to Cuba has fallen. But the South American country is still the largest provider with some 26,500 barrels per day exported last year, according to ship tracking data and internal documents of state-run PDVSA, which covered roughly 50 percent of Cuba’s oil deficit.
Havana produce vendor Alberto Jimenez, 45, said Cuba would not back down in the face of Trump’s threat.
“That doesn’t scare me. Not at all. The Cuban people are prepared for anything,” Jimenez said.
It’s hard for many Cubans to imagine a situation much worse. The island’s government has been struggling to keep the lights on. A majority live without electricity for much of the day, and even the capital Havana has seen its economy crippled by hours-long rolling blackouts.
Shortages of food, fuel and medicine have put Cubans on edge and have prompted a record-breaking exodus, primarily to the United States, in the past five years.
MEXICO BECOMES KEY SUPPLIER
Mexico has emerged in recent weeks as a critical alternative oil supplier to the island, but the supply remains small, according to the shipping data.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum last week said her country had not increased supply volumes, but given recent political events in Venezuela, Mexico had turned into an “important supplier” of crude to Cuba.
US intelligence has painted a grim picture of Cuba’s economic and political situation, but its assessments offer no clear support for Trump’s prediction that the island is “ready to fall,” Reuters reported on Saturday, citing three people familiar with the confidential assessments.
The CIA’s view is that key sectors of the Cuban economy, such as agriculture and tourism, are severely strained by frequent blackouts, trade sanctions and other problems. The potential loss of oil imports and other support from Venezuela could make governing more difficult for Diaz-Canel.
Havana resident and parking attendant Maria Elena Sabina, a 58-year-old born shortly after Castro took power, said it was time for Cuba’s leaders to make changes amid so much suffering.
“There’s no electricity here, no gas, not even liquefied gas. There’s nothing here,” Sabina said. “So yes, a change is needed, a change is needed, and quickly.”
Uncategorized
NATO Should Launch Operation to Boost Security in Arctic, Belgian Minister says
Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken speaks to journalists as he arrives to an informal meeting of European Union defence ministers in Copenhagen, Denmark, August 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Tom Little
NATO should launch an operation in the Arctic to address US security concerns, Belgium’s defense minister told Reuters on Sunday, urging transatlantic unity amid growing European unease about US President Donald Trump’s push to take control of Greenland.
“We have to collaborate, work together and show strength and unity,” Theo Francken said in a phone interview, adding that there is a need for “a NATO operation in the high north.”
Trump said on Friday that the US needs to own Greenland to prevent Russia or China from occupying it in the future.
European officials have been discussing ways to ease US concerns about security around Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Francken suggested NATO’s Baltic Sentry and Eastern Sentry operations, which combine forces from different countries with drones, sensors and other technology to monitor land and sea, as possible models for an “Arctic Sentry.”
He acknowledged Greenland‘s strategic importance but said “I think that we need to sort this out like friends and allies, like we always do.”
A NATO spokesperson said on Friday that alliance chief Mark Rutte spoke with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about the importance of the Arctic for shared security and how NATO is working to enhance its capabilities in the high north.
Denmark and Greenland‘s leaders have said that the Arctic island could not be annexed and international security did not justify such a move.
The US already has a military presence on the island under a 1951 agreement.
Uncategorized
IDF Strikes Hezbollah Weapons Sites in Lebanon After Army Denied Its Existence
Israeli strikes targeting Hezbollah’s terror infrastructure. Photo: Via i23, Photo from social media used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law.
i24 News – The Israel Defense Forces carried out airstrikes on a site in southern Lebanon that the Lebanese Army had previously declared free of Hezbollah activity, Israeli officials said on Sunday, citing fresh intelligence that contradicted Beirut’s assessment.
According to Israeli sources, the targeted location in the Kfar Hatta area contained significant Hezbollah weapons infrastructure, despite earlier inspections by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) that concluded no military installations were present.
Lebanese officials had conveyed those findings to international monitoring mechanisms, and similar claims were reported in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar.
Israeli intelligence assessments, however, determined that Hezbollah continued to operate from the site.
During a second wave of strikes carried out Sunday, the IDF attacked and destroyed the location.
Video footage released afterward showed secondary explosions, which Israeli officials said were consistent with stored weapons or munitions at the site.
The IDF stated that the strike was conducted in response to what it described as Hezbollah’s ongoing violations of ceasefire understandings between Israel and Lebanon. Military officials said the targeted structure included underground facilities used for weapons storage.
According to the IDF, the same site had been struck roughly a week earlier after Israel alerted the Lebanese Army to what it described as active terrorist infrastructure in the area. While the LAF conducted an inspection following the warning, Israeli officials said the weapons facilities were not fully dismantled, prompting Sunday’s follow-up strike.
The IDF said it took measures ahead of the attack to reduce the risk to civilians, including issuing advance warnings to residents in the surrounding area.
“Hezbollah’s activity at these sites constitutes a clear violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon and poses a direct threat to the State of Israel,” the military said in a statement.
Israeli officials emphasized that operations against Hezbollah infrastructure would continue as long as such threats persist, underscoring that Israel retains the right to act independently based on its own intelligence assessments.