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
Iran appoints AMIA bombing suspect to National Security Council
(JTA) —
For the second time this year, Iran has named a wanted suspect in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires to a top security role.
A spokesman for the Islamic Republic’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said Monday that Mohsen Rezaei had resigned as an adviser to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, and would assume the role of secretary of Iran’s powerful Supreme National Security Council. Rezaei is a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Rezaei is wanted by Argentina and is subject to an Interpol Red Notice issued at Argentina’s request over his alleged role in the 1994 attack, which killed 85 people and remains the deadliest terrorist attack in Argentina’s history.
Earlier this year, Ahmad Vahidi, another suspect in the AMIA case and also the subject of an Interpol Red Notice, was appointed IRGC commander.
In a landmark ruling in 2024, an Argentine court held Iran and its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, responsible for the bombing, setting the stage for international legal action.
In June 2025, Argentina’s federal judiciary ordered that 10 Iranian and Lebanese suspects accused in connection with the deadly 1994 AMIA bombing be tried in absentia. Rezaei and Vahidi are among them.
The eight other suspects accused by the late AMIA special prosecutor, Alberto Nisman, are: former Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahijan, former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, former Iranian ambassador Hadi Soleimanpour, former Iranian cultural attache in Buenos Aires Mohsen Rabbani and former Iranian diplomat Ahmad Reza Asghari, as well as suspected Hezbollah operatives Salman Raouf Salman, Abdallah Salman and Hussein Mounir Mouzannar.
The post Iran appoints AMIA bombing suspect to National Security Council appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israel and AIPAC on the ballot in the Minnesota Senate and U.S. House races
(JTA) — A pair of Democratic primaries in Minnesota on Tuesday are among a string of high-profile battles between progressive and moderate candidates, where Israel and the pro-Israel lobby serve as key wedge issues.
The state’s highest-profile race is the U.S. Senate primary between Rep. Angie Craig, who has been endorsed by the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, and Lieutenant Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who says she would reject AIPAC’s money and accuses Israel of committing a genocide.
The most recent data gathered in late July through early August has Craig with a 2-percentage point lead, within the 5.3% margin of error. Another poll, conducted in late July by a group supporting Flanagan, shows her with a 14-point lead. The Democratic nominee, whether it be Flanagan or Craig, is expected to win the general election in November.
The race, and the candidates’ sparring over AIPAC, comes as the lobby and Israel under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have become increasingly unpopular among Democratic voters. Israel is also an issue in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in neighboring Wisconsin taking place on Tuesday.
Flanagan has referred to Craig as “AIPAC’s candidate” in the Senate race, which prompted Craig to distance herself from the group’s spending during a TV debate in June.
“AIPAC has not contributed at all, the PAC, to my Senate campaign,” said Craig, whose wife, Cheryl Greene, is Jewish. “Not one penny.”
Flanagan countered that, while AIPAC itself has not donated to Craig’s campaign, it has held fundraisers for the four-term congresswoman. AIPAC did not respond to a request for comment.
Just last week in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, progressive Abdul El-Sayed defeated the moderate Rep. Haley Stevens, whose AIPAC endorsement was the frequent target of opposition attacks.
Flanagan has drawn the support of American Priorities, a pro-Palestinian super PAC that aims to counter AIPAC. The group spent about $54,000 on ads boosting her candidacy, according to FEC filings.
Flanagan’s platform includes blocking offensive weapons sales to Israel — a position that all but seven Senate Democrats voted for in April — and advancing a two-state solution that “allows for a secure Israel and Palestinian self-determination.”
Craig, who also backs a two-state outcome, voted against the recent amendment proposed by Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie that would have halted $3.3 billion in military aid to Israel.
In a statement explaining her vote, Craig panned Netanyahu and the war in Iran, but wrote that the amendment would endanger Israelis and American troops and allies in the region. After the vote, Flanagan wrote, “A vote to send $3.3 billion of taxpayer money to fund additional weapons of war to Benjamin Netanyahu is unconscionable. Enough.”
Craig has the endorsement of a number of Democrats in Congress and the Senate, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. She is also endorsed by lobbying group Democratic Majority for Israel, former Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg, and Minneapolis’ Jewish mayor, Jacob Frey, who rose to national prominence for his response to the deadly results of the deployment of immigrant enforcement officials in his city.
Flanagan has drawn endorsements from a swath of major progressive figures including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and outspoken pro-Palestinian Reps. Ro Khanna of California and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. Flanagan is also endorsed by the state’s Democratic Party affiliate, the Democratic Farmer Labor Party.
On Sunday Sanders posted on X,”There is a reason why the super PACs and billionaires are flooding Minnesota with $20 million to defeat Peggy Flanagan. Same thing as Michigan. They do not want somebody in the Senate who will stand up for the working class.”
Spending by political action committees affiliated with AIPAC has also come to the fore in the Democratic primary race for the House seat that Craig is vacating.
The most moderate of the three leading candidates is State Sen. Matt Klein, who has expressed support for the U.S.-Israel relationship and is endorsed by DMFI. Last-minute spending by outside groups has sparked accusations that AIPAC is indirectly involved.
“AIPAC is coming after me,” said former Lakeville mayor Matt Little, one of Klein’s opponents, in a video.
Klein’s two opponents — Little and state Rep. Kaela Berg — both accuse Israel of committing a genocide, and have both speculated that AIPAC is behind some of the Klein spending.
Berg supports placing conditions on U.S. aid to Israel and halting weapons sales, and Little says the U.S. must end all military aid and weapons sales to the country. On the policy page of his campaign website, Little refers to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack as “an act of wanton slaughter against innocent civilians” and says that people should condemn “the anti-Semitism that followed.”
Berg is listed as “primary approved” by the liberal Jewish Middle East advocacy group J Street, while Little has been boosted by American Priorities, which has spent about $64,000 in his favor. He is also endorsed by the DFL and Congressional Progressive Caucus leader Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
The latest polling in the district — conducted at the end of May by a group that favors Klein — found Little leading Klein with a 7-percentage point lead, and Berg trailing by another 3 points. 39 percent of voters were undecided, and Little and Klein were about even after voters received more information about the three candidates.
Craig has declined to endorse any of the candidates to replace her.
The post Israel and AIPAC on the ballot in the Minnesota Senate and U.S. House races appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Sister of pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham wins runoff slot
(JTA) — South Carolina Sen. Darline Graham and a second Republican candidate will advance to a special primary runoff in two weeks, when voters will decide which GOP candidate might take the vacant seat of her late brother Lindsey Graham.
Just over an hour after polls closed, at about 8:15 pm, the Associated Press declared that Darline Graham would advance to a runoff election, noting that “one additional candidate will also advance.” At that point Graham had secured 32.6% of the vote, with 39% of ballots counted.
Graham was up against nine fellow Republicans, with her biggest competition including U.S. House Reps. Ralph Norman and Russell Fry, who were closely vying for the second spot in the runoff at the time of the AP’s call. In South Carolina, the top contender would have needed to win a majority of votes in order to avoid the two-candidate runoff, scheduled for August 25.
In the November general election, the winner will face Democrat Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who is unlikely to prevail in this solidly Republican state.
Tuesday’s race marked the second time in two months that GOP voters came to the polls to select a Senate candidate, and now they will need to do so a third time. Longstanding Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top ally of Israel in the U.S. Senate and supporter of military action against Iran. won the original primary in June but died suddenly from an aortic dissection on July 11.
Graham, who was 71 years old, served 23 years in the Senate and eight in the U.S. House. He was a member of the Senate’s Armed Services and Budget committees and had traveled to Israel about a dozen times since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
Heading into Tuesday’s primary, analysts expressed no doubt that the winner would be pro-Israel. They stressed, however, that matching Graham’s level of foreign policy experience and focus on Israel, a place he often visited, would be a formidable task.
“Whoever wins this is going to be an ally of Israel,” Christopher Cooper, a political science professor at Western Carolina University, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in the lead-up to the race. “The question is whether they will be the champion for Israel that Lindsey Graham was.”
A few days after Graham’s death, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, appointed Darline Graham to complete the late senator’s term. Despite having minimal policy experience, such as a past role on the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, she earned President Trump’s support and soon declared her candidacy in the full race.
While 10 candidates were running in the Tuesday primary, only about two others were considered serious competition for Graham, Norman and Fry: businessman Mark Lynch and Mark Sanford, whose governorship was plagued with scandals and who briefly ran against Trump in the 2020 presidential primaries.
The post Sister of pro-Israel stalwart Lindsey Graham wins runoff slot appeared first on The Forward.
